Individual metering and charging in existing buildings

Transcription

REPORT 2015:34
Individual metering and
charging in existing
buildings
Individual metering and
charging in existing
buildings
Boverket
Title: Individual metering and charging in existing buildings
Report number: 2015:34
Publisher: Boverket, december, 2015
Edition: 1
Print: Boverket
ISBN print: 978-91-7563-337-4
ISBN pdf: 978-91-7563-338-1
Keywords: individual metering, individual charging, cost-effectiveness,
measuring system, multi-dwelling buildings, apartments,
existing buildings, heat cost allocators, temperature metering, energy use,
energy saving, heating, heat, cold, comfort cold, hot water
Reference number: 10150-1300/2014
The report can be ordered from Boverket.
Website: www.boverket.se/publikationer
E-mail: publikationsservice@boverket.se
Phone: 0455-35 30 00
Postal address: Boverket, Box 534, 371 23 Karlskrona
The report is available in PDF format on Boverket´s website.
It can also be produced in alternative format on request.
Boverket
Foreword
Article 9 of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) requires
member states to ensure that building contractors and property owners
install individual meters so that each apartment’s energy use for heating,
cooling and domestic hot water can be measured. The aim of measuring
each apartment individually is to increase households’ awareness of their
energy use and give them the possibility of lowering their heating costs.
Sweden has implemented the article through the Act on energy
measurement in buildings (Lagen om energimätning i byggnader,
2014:267). This act includes requirements on building contractors and
owners to make it possible to measure heating, cooling and domestic hot
water individually in each apartment. However, the requirement only
applies if the measure is cost-effective.
Government bill 2013/14:174 stated that it should not be the individual
building contractor or owner who assesses whether it is cost-effective to
install individual meters; instead Boverket should make a general
assessment. Boverket was therefore commissioned to examine whether
individual metering and charging is a cost-effective investment, and to
specify in which cases metering systems for heating, cooling and
domestic hot water should be installed in buildings.
Boverket completed the first part of this government commission in
2014, about individual metering and charging in new construction and
reconstruction projects. The present report is Boverket’s response to the
commission’s second part, about individual metering and charging in
existing buildings. It was produced by Anders Carlsson, Cathrine
Engström and Bertil Jönsson, with Joakim Iveroth as project manager.
Karlskrona in september 2015
Janna Valik
Director-General
Boverket
Innehåll
Foreword ....................................................................................... 3
Summary....................................................................................... 6
Examination of radiator and temperature metering ...............................6
Method of analysis ................................................................................7
Individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators ................8
Individual metering and charging using temperature metering .......... 11
Introduction ................................................................................. 12
Boverket’s commission ...................................................................... 12
Delimitations, method and procedure ................................................ 13
Property owners and metering companies – two different views ....... 15
Outline of the report ........................................................................... 17
Cost-effectiveness – definition and additions ............................... 19
Uncertainty of cost-effectiveness ....................................................... 19
Individual metering and charging in Denmark .............................. 22
Individual metering and charging in Sweden – a follow-up .......... 25
Berndtsson’s studies .......................................................................... 25
Boverket’s follow-up of the studies..................................................... 26
Conclusions – Swedish property owners’ experiences of individual
metering ............................................................................................. 30
Households with individual metering – experiences and attitudes 33
Results of SKOP’s telephone survey ................................................. 34
Heating of existing multi-dwelling buildings in Sweden ................ 40
Construction of the heating system .................................................... 40
Energy performance of heating in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings . 40
Heat transfer makes it harder to measure actual energy use for
heating ................................................................................................ 43
The results of part 1 are used in part 2 ........................................ 49
Individual metering of heating using heat meters in multi-dwelling
buildings ............................................................................................. 49
Individual metering of domestic hot water in multi-dwelling buildings 50
Individual metering of heating and cooling in commercial spaces ..... 52
Individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators ........ 53
Dividing heating costs using heat cost allocators .............................. 53
The benefits – energy savings through lowered temperatures .......... 55
Installation and operating costs.......................................................... 57
The calculation model ........................................................................ 62
Calculations, results and analysis ...................................................... 65
Conclusions ........................................................................................ 84
Individual metering and charging using temperature metering ..... 86
Charging on the basis of temperature ................................................ 87
The benefit side – energy savings through lowered temperatures .... 88
Installation and operating costs.......................................................... 89
The calculation model ........................................................................ 92
Calculations, results and analysis ...................................................... 93
Conclusions ........................................................................................ 98
Boverket
References .................................................................................. 99
Appendix 1 – Sensitivity analyses ............................................. 101
Results of step 1 of the analysis using alternative ........................... 101
district heating rates ......................................................................... 101
Results of step 2 of the analysis using alternative ........................... 102
district heating rates ......................................................................... 102
Results with uniform probability distributions for the installation and
operating costs ................................................................................. 103
Appendix 2 – Energy performance in Swedish multi-dwelling
buildings .................................................................................... 109
Energy performance for heating, by climate zone ........................... 109
Energy performance by year of construction ................................... 111
Appendix 3 – District heating rates ............................................ 114
Variable energy prices and power charges, including VAT. 2015 rates.114
Boverket
6
Summary
Under the Act on energy metering in buildings (Lagen om energimätning
i byggnader, 2014:267), the owner of a building must ensure that the
energy used for an apartment’s indoor climate can be metered, if it is
technically feasible and cost-effective to install a system for individual
metering and charging. Boverket has therefore, on the government’s
instructions, examined in which cases it is technically feasible and costeffective to install metering systems for individual metering of heating,
cooling and domestic hot water.
The government commission (N2014/1317/E) is divided into two parts.
In response to the first part, Boverket delivered the report “Individual
metering and charging in new construction and reconstruction projects”.
In it, Boverket recommended not making individual metering and
charging of heating (with a heat meter), domestic hot water or cooling a
requirement. This was because the results showed that a requirement
would force most building contractors and property owners who were
constructing or reconstructing buildings to make unprofitable
investments. It is Boverket’s assessment that this also applies for existing
buildings.
Part 2 of the commission concerns metering and charging in existing
buildings. The present report, “Individual metering and charging in
existing buildings”, is Boverket’s response to the question about when
individual metering would be cost-effective. The report looks particularly
at metering with heat cost allocators and temperature metering.
The results of our cost-effectiveness calculations show that an investment
in individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators or
temperature metering is generally not cost-effective in existing buildings.
The investment also appears risky.
All in all, Boverket’s recommendation is that individual metering of
heating, cooling or domestic hot water not be required in any existing
building’s case. For that reason, Boverket is not making any proposals for
regulatory provisions.
Examination of radiator and temperature metering
This examination is limited to analysing individual metering of heating
using a radiator meter and using temperature metering. The reason for
this is that the result of Part 1 of the commission showed that individual
Boverket
7
metering and charging of heating using heat meters, of domestic hot
water and of cooling, are not cost-effective in new and reconstructed
buildings. Our assessment is that this is also the case in existing
buildings.
Method of analysis
Boverket’s commission was to examine in which existing buildings
individual metering and charging would be cost-effective 1. Since the
analysis equates cost-effectiveness with profitability, we responded to the
question by comparing the benefits on the measure with its costs. If, over
the lifetime of the investment, its benefits are greater than its costs, then
the investment is profitable; otherwise it is unprofitable. The analysis was
made at the building level, where factors such as energy performance and
climate were varied in order to see to what extent they affected the result.
To carry out the calculations we created calculation models for the
investment in metering systems for individual metering. The standard
building used in the calculations was modelled using different energy
performance values, and was placed in four different locations – Malmö,
Stockholm, Sundsvall and Kiruna – corresponding to three different
climate zones. We estimated the energy savings that would theoretically
result if the temperature was lowered by either one or two degrees in the
standard building. This was the benefit side of the calculation. These
energy savings were linked to different district heating rates and fed into
the model along with cost data in order to calculate the economic
outcome. If the present value of the benefits during the calculation period
are greater than the present value of the costs, the investment in
individual metering is cost-effective, or profitable, given that the
temperature in the building is lowered.
However, there are many uncertainties regarding benefits as well as costs
of investments in individual metering and charging. In order to manage
these uncertainties, the input data was given probability distributions, and
then we made systematic scenario analyses (known as Monte Carlo
simulations) in order to analyse whether individual metering of heating is
cost-effective.
Besides allowing for many calculations to be carried out in a systematic
manner, the method also makes it possible to present the results in a
diagram overview. The results of all the calculations are summarised in a
1
The analysis assumes that an investment which is cost-effective is also technically feasible.
Boverket
8
histogram, and the expected present value, standard deviation (a measure
of the investment’s risk) and the likelihood of getting a positive outcome,
i e profitability, are presented. Put simply, this data describes what a
property owner, faced with the requirement to install individual metering
and charging, can expect in terms of the outcome of the investment. For
Boverket it provides a balanced picture of the profitability of the measure
and of how profitability varies depending on the energy performance of
geographical location of the building. Based on this, we can make an
overall assessment whether, and if so in which buildings, individual
metering and charging should be required.
Individual metering and charging using heat cost
allocators
The analysis of heat cost allocators was divided into two steps:
• In the first step, it was assumed that the introduction of individual
metering would bring a one-degree temperature reduction in the
building, with absolute certainty. Installation and operating costs were
varied on the basis of predefined probability distributions.
• In the second step, we let the temperature reduction in the model vary
as well, with between 0, 1 and 2 ˚C. These temperature reductions
were given different probabilities.
Table 1 presents the results for all standard buildings in two of four
locations, Malmö and Kiruna, when the temperature reduction in the
model is held constant at 1 ˚C, at the building level (step 1).
Boverket
9
Table 1. Results of step 1 of cost-effectiveness calculations: 1 ˚C temperature
reduction in the building, installation and operating costs with triangular
distributions. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per
cent. 10-year calculation period. 10 000 calculations per standard building.
Profit/loss
Malmö,
EON
Värme
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
Standard
dev
P of profit
BBR
-92 739
-49 661
-7 184
14 156
0.0 %
BBR +25
-67 877
-22 556
22 494
14 481
6.2 %
BBR +50
-49 008
-5 240
37 408
14 320
35.9 %
BBR +75
-18 517
22 210
62 295
13 885
94.3 %
BBR
-78 447
-37 900
4 165
13 773
0.1 %
BBR +25
-44 683
-4 576
35 625
13 876
37.5 %
BBR +50
-28 884
11 736
53 830
13 908
78.9 %
BBR + 75
3 714
44 813
84 950
13 864
100.0 %
Kiruna,
Tekniska
verken
In the table, “Min” refers to the lowest present value of 10 000
calculations per standard building, “Mean” the expected present value
and “Max” the highest present value of the calculations. “Standard dev”
is the standard deviation, and a measure of the investment’s risk. “P of
profit” indicates the probability of a positive outcome, i e how many of
the calculations produce a present value of SEK 0 or better.
BBR in Table 1 refers to when energy use in the standard building is on a
level with current BBR requirements (Boverket’s building regulations,
BBR 21), while standard buildings BBR +25, BBR +50 and BBR +75
have increasingly higher energy use, i e increasingly worse energy
performance in relation to current BBR requirements.
As Table 1 shows, it is difficult to achieve profitability in multi-dwelling
buildings with an energy use which is on a level with current BBR
requirements or slightly worse. The expected present value (the mean
value) is negative, i e unprofitable, and the probability of a positive
outcome is low or very low.
In order for the expected present value to be positive, the building’s
energy use must be substantially higher than BBR at the outset (i e an
energy performance corresponding to the standard building BBR +75).
Boverket
10
According to data from the register of energy performance reports, this
comprehends a few hundred properties in climate zone I, a few thousand
in climate zone II and 25 – 30 000 properties in climate zone III.
There are no guarantees, however, that an investment in individual
metering and charging actually leads to a temperature reduction in the
building. This is shown in SKOP’s questionnaire survey of households
that currently have individual metering and charging, and by experiences
gained among property owners who have made the investment. Step 2 of
the analysis, where we looked in particular at standard building BBR
+75, was therefore to introduce uncertainty on the benefit side as well.
This was done by having the temperature reduction vary in the model,
between 0, 1 and 2 ˚C at various probabilities. Table 2 shows the
calculation results for analysis step 2 for two of four locations, Malmö
and Kiruna.
Table 2. Results of step 2 cost-effectiveness calculations: 0, 1 and 2 ˚C
temperature reduction in the building with various probabilities, installation and
operating costs with triangular distributions. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms.
Real interest rate of four per cent. 10-year calculation period. 30 000 calculations
per standard building.
Profit/loss
P of 0 ˚C
Malmö, Min (SEK)
EON
Värme
Mean
(SEK)
Max Standard
dev
(SEK)
P of
profit
20 %
BBR +75
-157 901
1 155
200 869
68 351
75.8 %
30 %
BBR +75
-158 438
-12 882
203 480
76 439
66.4 %
40 %
BBR +75
-158 438
-26 919
203 480
81 410
56.9 %
50 %
BBR +75
-157 902
-40 956
200 869
83 955
47.6 %
Kiruna,
Tekniska
verken
20 %
BBR +75
-156 856
20 368
243 429
78 897
80.0 %
30 %
BBR +75
-160 831
4 071
242 035
88 269
70.0 %
40 %
BBR +75
-160 831
-12 227
242 035
94 160
60.0 %
50 %
BBR +75
-158 958
-28 524
243 429
97 106
50.0 %
When it is no longer certain that the temperature in the building will be
reduced by 1 ˚C, the outcome worsens. The expected present value (the
mean value) of the investment is reduced, the risk inherent in the
Boverket
11
investment (the standard deviation) increases sharply, and the number of
calculations with a positive outcome drops.
In Malmö, with a 20 per cent probability of a 0 ˚C temperature reduction
(and a 75 per cent probability of 1 ˚C, and 5 per cent for 2 ˚C), the
expected present value becomes a profit of SEK 1 155. The standard
deviation is SEK 68 351. It is an investment with a low expected present
value but with a high level of risk.
With a 30 per cent probability of unchanged temperature in the building
(and 65 per cent for 1 ˚C, and 5 per cent for 2 ˚C), the present value
comes to a loss of SEK 12 882. The standard deviation comes to SEK 76
439.
Outcomes are somewhat better in Kiruna. With a 20 per cent probability
of unchanged temperature in the building, the expected present value
comes to a profit of SEK 20 368. With a 30 per cent probability, it
produces a profit of SEK 4 071. The standard deviation for both of these
outcome lands on SEK 78 897 and SEK 88 269, respectively.
The calculation results show that the expected outcome for a property
owner who invests in individual metering and charging with heat cost
allocators will be low or negative. The risk inherent in the investment
furthermore looks very high. A requirement for individual metering of
heating using heat cost allocators thus looks very likely to lead to
unprofitable investments for the majority of property owners.
On the basis of the calculation results, Boverket proposes that individual
metering and charging of heating using heat cost allocators not be
required for any existing buildings.
Individual metering and charging using temperature
metering
The installation costs for temperature metering are higher than they are
for radiator metering. We have assumed in our analysis that the
temperature in the building is reduced by 1 ˚C when temperature meters
are installed. The expected present value of the installation is negative in
the standard buildings we have looked at. The probability of the
investment becoming profitable is very low. Boverket’s conclusion from
the calculations is that individual metering and charging using
temperature metering is not cost-effective, and we propose that individual
metering and charging using temperature metering not be required for
existing buildings.
Boverket
12
Introduction
Sweden introduced the Act on energy metering in buildings (2014:267) in
order to implement Article 9 of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive
(2012/27/EU). The act includes requirements on building contractors and
owners to make it possible to measure heating, cooling and domestic hot
water individually in each apartment. This statutory requirement applies
for new construction and for reconstruction of existing buildings, but
only if the measure is cost-effective and, in reconstructions, technically
feasible. The requirement also applies to existing buildings that are not
being reconstructed – if the measure is both cost-effective and technically
feasible. The aim of the act is create incentives for residents to reduce
their energy use, by dividing energy costs according to actual use.
An early consideration by the government – included in the government
bill Implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive – was that
legislation under which building contractors or owners themselves
determined whether it was cost-effective to install individual meters
would lead to a very variable application of the law. Instead, the
government considered that cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility
should be assessed generally, and therefore commissioned Boverket to
examine which types of buildings should be subject to the installation of
metering systems for heating, cooling and domestic hot water. 2
Boverket’s commission
The government commission consists of two parts. On 1 November 2014,
Boverket submitted the report “Individual metering and charging in new
construction and reconstructions” to the Government Offices, in response
to the commission’s part 1. The conclusion in that report was that it
would not be profitable to apply individual metering of heating or cooling
in new construction and reconstructions. For domestic hot water the
assessment was that individual metering would be profitable under some
circumstances, but that the likelihood of profitability overall was too low
to impose a requirement. Boverket therefore did not propose any
requirements for such metering. 3 The present report concerns part 2 of the
commission, in which Boverket was instructed by the government to do
the following:
2
3
Boverket
Government bill 2013/14:174, ”Genomförande av energieffektiviseringsdirektivet”.
Boverket (2014), ”Individuell mätning och debitering vid nyoch ombyggnad”.
13
• Examine and specify in which cases existing buildings, not currently
being reconstructed, should be subject to requirements that the energy
used to generate apartments’ indoor climate, as well as their
consumption of domestic hot water, be metered in each individual
apartment.
• Base the examination on an analysis if technical feasibility and costeffectiveness.
• With respect to heating, principally examine the inflow metering
method (heat meters). In those cases where individual metering using
heat meters is not cost-effective or technically feasible, heating cost
distributors (referred to hereafter as heat cost allocators) are to be
examined. In those cases where heat cost allocators are not regarded
as technically feasible or cost-effective, requirements for temperature
metering or other metering methods are to be considered.
• Provide proposals for regulatory provisions needed in order to
implement Boverket’s conclusions, with the associated impact
assessment.
• Obtain opinions from affected agencies, businesses and other actors.
The report, including proposals, is to be delivered on 1 October 2015.
Delimitations, method and procedure
Three specific metering methods of heating are to be examined: heat
meters, heat cost allocators and temperature metering. Individual
metering and charging using heat meters were examined in part 1 of the
commission, with the conclusion that they were not a cost-effective way
of metering heating in new construction or reconstructions. Boverket’s
assessment is that they do not constitute a cost-effective method in
existing building either. The same assessment is made for individual
metering of domestic hot water and cooling, as well as for individual
metering of commercial spaces. The reasoning behind these assessments
is detailed in the section “The results of part 1 are used in part 2”.
This report is thus limited to analysing the individual metering of heating
using heat cost allocators and temperature metering. As mentioned
earlier, Boverket’s instructions are to base its analysis on costeffectiveness. As explained in the section “Cost-effectiveness – definition
and additions”, cost-effectiveness is equated with profitability. To
calculate profitability, the benefits on the measure are compared with its
costs. If, over the lifetime of the investment, its beneftis are greater than
Boverket
14
its costs, then the investment is profitable; otherwise it is unprofitable.
The analysis is made at the building level.
The delimitations outlined above raise the following two questions for the
examination:
• When is it profitable, in a business economics sense, to divide the cost
of heating using heat cost allocators in existing multi-dwelling
buildings?
• When is it profitable, in a business economics sense, to charge an
apartment’s heating costs on the basis of temperature (temperature
metering) in existing multi-dwelling buildings?
To answer these questions, we created calculation models for the
investment and calculated cost-effectiveness, or profitability. The benefit
side of the calculation were the energy and power savings that would
theoretically result if the temperature were reduced in a specified
standard building by 1 or 2 ˚C. These energy savings were then linked to
different district heating rates and fed into the model along with cost data
in order to calculate the economic outcome. If total benefits during the
calculation period are greater than total costs, the investment in individual
metering is cost-effective, given that the residents reduce the temperature.
However, both the cost and the benefit side of the calculation//equation
are uncertain. The costs of individual metering varies, and it is unclear
what the effect of metering will be.
In order to manage these uncertainties in the commission, input data was
given probability distributions. We then made systematic scenario
analyses (known as Monte Carlo simulations) in order to analyse whether
individual metering of heating using these methods is cost-effective. This
involved using the computer to make thousands of calculations, and for
each calculation randomly choosing a value from the predefined
probability distributions. The end result of each individual calculation
was either profitable or unprofitable. With such a large number of
calculations, we also extracted the expected present value of the
investment, its standard deviation – which is a measure of the
investment’s risk – and the probability of getting a positive outcome. This
information satisfactorily describes what a property owner who is
required to install individual metering and charging can expect in terms
of the outcome of the investment. For Boverket it provides a balanced
picture of the profitability of the measure and of how profitability varies
depending on the energy performance of geographical location of the
Boverket
15
building. Based on this, we can respond to the report’s questions and
make an overall assessment of which existing buildings should be
required to install individual metering and charging.
As part of the examination we also carried out a questionnaire survey of
households that already have individual metering and charging of
heating. The purpose of this was to obtain a better picture of how
Swedish households’ energy use behaviour changes when heating costs
are metered and distributed by individual. The results of the questionnaire
survey provide a basis for assessing the benefit side of the
calculation//equation. We furthermore followed up apartments in which
heating had been, or should have been, individually metered since 2003.
The aim of this follow-up was to learn about Swedish property owners’
experiences and views of individual metering and charging, which
formed further material to supplement the theoretical calculation result
produced in this report. The results of the follow-up were also
supplemented with what emerged in the course of Boverket’s contacts
with housing companies, metering companies and other stakeholders.
These communication efforts are summarised in the section that follows.
Property owners and metering companies – two
different views
Hearing and consultation with stakeholders
• On a number of occasions and under various circumstances, Boverket
met with stakeholders to discuss individual metering and charging.
These included a hearing on 23 April 2015, at which about 50
representatives from trade organisations, metering companies and
housing companies took part in a discussion about heat cost allocators
and temperature metering. We also held the following consultation
meetings:
• Consultation with Fastighetsägarna, SABO, Svenska Bostäder,
Byggherrarna, Uppsalahem and Botkyrkabyggen, to learn about
public housing sector’s experiences of individual metering.
• Consultation with HSB Riksförbund, Riksbyggen, SBC and
Bostadsrätterna, to learn about tenant-owner associations’ experiences
of individual metering.
• Meeting with Otto Paulsen, from the Danish Technological Institute,
and Brunata, to learn about a metering company’s view of individual
metering.
Boverket
16
In the course of these meetings and discussions, two sides with
completely different views of individual metering emerged. On one side
are Swedish property owners, represented by trade organisations such as
SABO, Fastighetsägarna and HSB Riksförbund. Their members have
tested some form of individual metering in some of their properties. Their
view is that individual metering and charging of heating bring
considerable installation and operating costs, but that the measure does
not produce any energy savings. On the other side are German and
Danish metering companies, primarily represented by the Swedish
association of metering energy consumption (SFFE, Svensk förening för
förbrukningsmätning av energi), who claim that heating can be metered
and charged individually at low costs and with considerable energy
savings.
Public housing companies currently metering individually primarily
install systems for temperature metering, while the metering companies
primarily install and maintain heat cost allocators. The fact that these two
groups use different metering technologies does not explain why their
views of individual metering and charging are at odds with each other.
The purpose of the metering methods is the same, after all – to provide
residents with an incentive to save energy on heating.
Obtaining an overall picture of tenant-owner associations’ view of the
issue was difficult. According to SBC and Bostadsrätterna, both the trade
organisations, the boards of the associations often lack sufficient
knowledge about the technology and are often generally sceptical towards
a technology they are not certain is fair. According to Riksbyggen, it is
also fairness rather than energy savings which is the usual sales argument
when the technology is being sold to tenant-owner associations.
It was evident that an already difficult task had become more difficult, as
the stakeholders had such fundamentally different views of what
individual metering and charging cost, and what potential energy savings
they offered. As shown in part 1 of the commission, there are very few
evaluations within the energy sector that indicate the actual outcome of
an energy measure. This is also true of individual metering and charging.
In the course of carrying out part 1 we found no Swedish evaluation in
which individual metering had been analysed as a separate measure and
where installation and operating costs were compared to the value of
energy, power and water savings. Faced with this lack of evaluations, we
were obliged to investigate how individual metering had actually been
dealt with among housing companies. For that reason, we contacted both
property owners and metering companies in order to obtain as balanced a
Boverket
17
picture as possible of the costs and benefits of individual metering. The
fact that their responses diverged so strongly was problematic.
Outline of the report
This report consists of eight sections:
• In the following section, Cost-effectiveness – definition and
additions, the term “cost-effectiveness” is defined. This section also
describes the uncertainty connected with the investment and how this
is dealt with in the calculation model devised for this report.
• The next section, Individual metering and charging in Denmark,
summarises the results of Boverket’s meeting with Otto Paulsen of the
Danish Technological Institute, at which individual metering and
charging in Denmark were discussed.
• The section Individual metering and charging – a follow-up is a
follow-up of Lennart Berndtsson’s report from 2003 4 and aims to
provide an updated picture of Swedish property owners’ view of
individual metering and charging. It does this by investigating whether
they still meter heating individually in the way they reported in 2003.
• The section Residents’ experiences and attitudes to individual
metering aims to provide a more in-depth picture of Swedish
households’ experiences of individual metering and charging, looking
in particular at whether the effect of the measure is reduced energy
use. This section summarises the questionnaire survey carried out by
the polling company SKOP on Boverket’s behalf, in which 1 005
households with individual metering and charging were interviewed
by telephone.
• The section after that, Heating of multi-dwelling buildings in
Sweden, describes how Swedish multi-dwelling buildings are heated,
and buildings’ average energy performance. The implications of heat
transfer problems for individual metering are also explained.
• The section entitled The results of part 1 used in part 2 describes
why the results of part 1 of the commission also apply for part 2,
which means that this report only examines metering and charging of
heating using heat cost allocators and temperature metering.
4
Berndtsson (2003), ”Individuell värmemätning i svenska flerbostadshus – en lägesrapport”.
Boverket
18
• The section Individual metering and charging using heat cost
allocators examines individual metering and charging using heat cost
allocators, describing the metering technology, the benefit side and the
cost side, the calculation model and the calculation results, including
an analysis and proposal.
• The section Individual metering and charging using temperature
metering correspondingly examines temperature metering, describing
the technology, the benefit side and the cost side, the calculation
model and the calculation results, including an analysis and proposal.
Boverket
19
Cost-effectiveness – definition and
additions
The commission is to examine and specify in which cases individual metering of energy use for heating, cooling and domestic hot water should
be required for each apartment in existing buildings. The examination is
to be based on an analysis of cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility.
The report makes the assumption that it is not possible to make a costeffective investment which at the same time is technically unfeasible. It is
therefore limited to analysing only the cost-effectiveness of the investment. No analysis of technical feasibility is carried out.
In the analysis, cost-effectiveness is equated with profitability – that benefits over the lifetime of the investment are greater than the costs. Benefits on the introduction of individual metering and charging are the value
of the energy savings, the value of the power savings and, for domestic
hot water, the value of the water as well. The costs are for installation and
operation.
The focus is on examining which cash flows – positive (benefits) and
negative (costs) – are generated by the investment at the building level,
and whether total benefits are greater than total costs. This examination
does not include looking at how benefits and costs are divided between
landlord and tenant.
Uncertainty of cost-effectiveness
As with all investments, those made in individual metering and charging
are associated with uncertainty. Figure 1 below illustrates how uncertainty, or risk, associated with investments can be analysed and quantified.5
5
The results were calculated using two normal distribution curves: mean value SEK 100
000, standard deviation SEK 5 000 in one, and mean value SEK 100 000, standard deviation SEK 1 000 in the other. 10 000 calculations were carried out.
Boverket
20
Figure 1. The outcome of two investments with different risks.
We are looking at two investments that both lead to an expected present
value of SEK 100 000. One way to measure risk in an investment is to
calculate the standard deviation of the outcome. This is a statistical measure that shows the average deviation from the expected present value (the
mean value). The risk, i e the standard deviation, differs in the two investments. In one the standard deviation is SEK 5 000 and in the other it
is SEK 1 000 (see the summary to the right of the figure). The risk is thus
higher in the investment with a large spread. The former is represented by
the red bars in the figure, the former by the gray bars. As can be noted,
the spread of the outcome is different for the two. Both have the same expected present value, SEK 100 000, but in the investment with a large
standard deviation the outcome varies between SEK 81 154, at its lowest,
and SEK 119 523 at its highest. The corresponding spread for the investment with a small standard deviation is SEK 96 184 at its lowest and
SEK 103 869 at its highest. The figure also shows that in 90 per cent of
the calculations the outcome is between SEK 91 773 and SEK 108 223
for the investment with a large standard deviation. For the investment
with a small standard deviation, 100 per cent of the calculations fall within this range.
A property owner striving to minimise risk in their investment will, in the
example above, choose the investment with a small standard deviation,
since this option has the same expected present value, but a lower risk.
Boverket
21
There are a range of different energy efficiency measures that a property
owner can undertake in their building in order to reduce energy use. The
expected present value of each of these measures can be calculated, as
can any risk associated with the measure. The measures can then be compared in terms of expected present value and risk, and the energy efficiency measure with the best outcome chosen.
It is very important to have an idea of the risk inherent in an investment.
And for investments in individual metering and charging of heating there
are considerable uncertainties, both in terms of benefits and costs. It is
not clear if, and if so by how much, temperatures are reduced in a building with individual metering. A temperature reduction is necessary in order to generate a benefit. Additionally, the cost information obtained is
spread over quite a wide range. All of this means that very many calculations have to be done in order to obtain as good a basis for decisions as
possible. However, these have to be done in a systematic way, otherwise
the overall picture will be lost.
The method used in the present report, in which the calculations were carried out systematically, is known as the Monte Carlo Method. The method is presented in detail in the section “Individual metering and charging
using heat cost allocators”. When this method is used, the calculation results do not only show what a property owner who is going to invest in
individual metering and charging can expect in terms of the outcome of
the investment, but also provide a picture of the risk, or uncertainty, that
the property owner will be faced with. All in all, the method provides a
basis that allows us to answer the two questions posed in this report, and
by extension to fulfil the commission.
Boverket
22
Individual metering and charging in
Denmark
It is often mentioned in the discussions about individual metering that
Denmark has requirements in place for individual metering and charging
of electricity, gas, water, heating and cooling. For this reason, Boverket
paid a visit to Otto Paulsen at the Danish Technological Institute in
Taastrup outside Copenhagen, in April of 2015. Paulsen has extensive
experience of issues surrounding individual metering of energy in Denmark. During the trip to Denmark Boverket also visited Brunata, one of
the larger companies in Denmark that provide individual metering using
heat cost allocators.
The aim of visiting Paulsen was to learn whether any systematic studies
had been carried out in Denmark involving calculations of cost-efficiency
in individual metering and charging. We also wanted to find out if there
were any studies that showed how apartment owners in Denmark
changed their behaviour when individual metering and charging was introduced. We were furthermore interested in issues relating to technical
feasibility and in learning how the regulatory system governing individual metering is structured in Denmark.
According to Paulsen there are no systematic Danish studies of either
cost-effectiveness or of how behaviour changes when individual metering
is introduced. This, Paulsen said, was mainly due to the fact that individual metering is foremost a matter of fairness in Denmark, and not a matter of saving energy and money. Moreover, individual metering has a
long history of popular support in the country.
Denmark and Sweden have elected to implement the Energy Efficiency
Directive in two different ways. In Sweden we have statutory requirements for individual metering of heating, cooling and domestic hot water,
where these are cost-effective and technically feasible. Denmark instead
has general requirements in the rules, but with a number of possible dispensations which are examined by municipalities. Some of these dispensations are connected with economy and technology.
No studies of cost-effectiveness in Denmark
According to Paulsen, few or no studies have been carried out in Denmark of how behaviour changes when individual metering is introduced.
Neither are there any studies that have looked specifically at whether individual metering is cost-effective. The general view in Denmark is that
Boverket
23
individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators provide energy savings, and the normal thing is to assume that a 10 per cent saving on
energy use is possible.
In spite of this, individual metering and charging is not a big subject of
discussion in Denmark. This, according to Paulsen, is because it is regarded as fair that everyone pays for their own consumption. Denmark
also has a historical tradition of individual metering of heating. The first
radiator meter was installed as early as in 1918, and by 1945 Denmark
had 600 000 installed heat cost allocators. Sweden chose to go down another route. Instead of individual energy metering, energy use was metered at the building level and the costs then divided among the residents
based on living space.
Rules of individual metering in Denmark
New rules on metering of electricity, gas, water, heating and cooling
came into effect in Denmark on 2 June 2014; the previous rules were
from 1996. 6 They concern requirements for meters in buildings containing several apartments, and apply for new construction as well as for existing buildings. Regarding metering of heating, the rules only apply to
heat meters in new construction, while for existing buildings they apply
to both heat meters and heat cost allocators.
Temperature metering is not an alternative to individual metering under
the Danish rules. According to Paulsen there are several reasons for not
metering and charging on the basis of temperature. One issue is how
many measuring points are needed in each room, but there are also problems related to how temperature can be affected by e g airing or heat generated by house guests.
The Danish rules use correction factors to adjust the heating costs of
apartments located in the outermost parts of the building. This is because
these apartments require more energy for heating, and the purpose of the
correction factors is to divide heating costs fairly. To deal with the fact
that heat is transferred between apartments, the heating cost is not divided
only on the basis of the meters – a part is divided on the basis of living
space. However, it is a requirement in Denmark that at least 40 per cent
of a building’s total heating costs be divided on the basis of the individual
metering.
There are several exceptions to the requirement for installing individual
meters. These apply to care and nursing institutions, holiday homes,
6
BEK no 563 of 02/06/2014.
Boverket
24
buildings in which technical problems mean that installation costs would
be unreasonably high in relation to potential savings, buildings in which
technical problems mean that a longer installation period is needed, and
buildings in which the individual tenant does not stand to gain any economic advantage. Those wanting to be granted a dispensation on any of
these grounds must send an application to the municipality, which will
then examine the case to determine whether a dispensation can be granted. The municipality is also responsible for supervising compliance with
the rules.
In Denmark there are also rules about heat cost allocators and requirements regarding the installers of heat cost allocators.7
7
Boverket
BEK no 1166 of 03/11/2014 and BEK no 1167 of 03/11/2014, respectively.
25
Individual metering and charging in
Sweden – a follow-up
The question being investigated in this report is when it profitable, in a
business economics sense, to meter and charge heating individually, in
existing buildings. Boverket answers this question by making profitability calculations using a specially developed model. A complementary picture is provided by looking at how property owners who have already invested in individual metering and charging view the technology today.
This section is a follow-up of the properties with individual metering and
charging that were studied by Lennart Berndtsson at the beginning of the
new millennium. The aim of the follow-up is to get a better picture of the
possibilities of metering heating individually in multi-dwelling buildings
in Sweden today, and whether this can be assumed to be a cost-effective,
or profitable, investment.
In summary, this section shows that:
• The public housing companies studied by Berndtsson now seem to be
abandoning individual metering of heating using heat meters, while
temperature metering is a technology that is still being used. Heat cost
allocators are only rarely used within public housing today.
• Construction companies such as JM, Skanska, NCC and Peab have
consistently negative experiences of installing systems for individual
metering. The reasons they refer are that they have been expensive to
install and that it has been difficult to get the technology to work.
• Few tenant-owner associations that use individual metering were contactable during the follow-up. However, a recent study shows that
there is a strong resistance to individual metering among Swedish tenant-owner associations and that it is therefore rarely used. This resistance is attributed to a low level of knowledge about the technology
and to the perception that individual metering is not cost-effective.
Berndtsson’s studies
In two studies, published 1999 and 2003, Lennart Berndtsson described
the use of individual metering and charging as it looked in Sweden during
the first half of the 2000s. The studies were commissioned by the Swedish Energy Agency, with the aim of following up developments in the
area of individual metering since the “Heat metering report” of 1983. A
Boverket
26
further aim was to describe the conditions for individual metering and
charging in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings. Berndtsson’s work resulted in the reports “Study of experiences of individual metering and charging of heating and hot water in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings” and
“Individual heat metering in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings – a progress report”. 8 The latter provides a detailed picture of about 150 projects
in which property owners have either installed heat meters, heat cost allocators or temperature metering. The report describes technology choices
and the property owners’ reasoning behind their choice to install the
technology. All in all, the study covered 14 686 apartments in which metering and charging of heating and domestic hot water was being used, or
in which there were well advanced plans to begin such metering between
2003 and 2006.
Boverket’s follow-up of the studies
The apartments included in Berndtsson’s report from 2003 can be seen as
the total number of apartments which at that time metered (or were soon
going to begin metering) and charged heating and domestic hot water individually in Sweden. Not counting those apartments that only metered
and charged domestic hot water, that number was 13 336. Table 3 below
illustrates them, divided by type of housing and metering technology.
Table 3. The number of apartments with individual metering in Berndtsson’s report “Individual metering of heating in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings”, divided
by metering technology and housing type.
Heat Heat cost Temperature Combined Unknown
meter allocators
metering system**
tech
Total
no
Rented
apartment
2 201
2 090
3 528
177
1 924
9 920
Tenantowned
1 381
1 945
90
0
0
3 416
Total
3 582
4 035
3 618
177
1 924
13
336*
* Berndtsson included a total of 13 334 apartments, of which 3759 with heat meters, 4035 med heat cost allocators, 3666 temperature metering and 2101 with
combined or unknown technologies. 13 561 apartments in total. Boverket’s compilation shows a different number, but that is not deemed to affect the result of
this follow-up.
** Berndtsson reports that a small number of companies installed several metering technologies in order to achieve fairer measurements.
8
Berndtsson (1999), ”Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus and Berndtsson” (2003), ”Individuell värmemätning i svenska flerbostadshus – en lägesrapport”.
Boverket
27
A property owner faced with the choice of whether to implement an energy measure is likely to do so if the benefits are deemed to be greater
than the costs. The same decision criterion applies in cases where individual metering is being installed in order to save energy. By investigating whether these property owners still meter and charge heating in the
way they stated in that they did in 2003, we get a picture of the possibilities of metering heating individually in multi-dwelling buildings in Sweden, and of whether this can be assumed to be a cost-effective investment.
Respondents and response rate
The property owners were contacted by Boverket via email, and in a few
cases by telephone, and were asked to answer the question whether heating was still being metered and charged individually. It emerged that of
the total of 13 336 apartments, 2 018 had been sold. It was not possible to
obtain information as to whether heating was still being metered individually in these apartments. Further, the situation for 2 159 apartments remained unknown as the property owner did not provide a response. Thus
the respondents in this follow-up comprise property owners representing
9 159 of the total of 13 336 apartments. The distribution of these apartments by type of housing is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Respondents, i e property owners who responded to the question about
whether they currently meter and charge heating individually, presented as the
number of apartments divided by metering technology and housing type.
meter allocators
metering
system
tech
Total
no
Rented
apartment
1 974
320
3 411
177
1 924
7 806
Tenantowned
1 245
108
0
0
0
1 353
Total
3 219
428
3 411
177
1 924
9 159
The response rate for apartments with heat cost allocators is low, around
10 per cent. The number of respondents means that the follow-up result
should be interpreted with caution. The sample is small for rented apartments with radiator metering, since a large number of the apartments
have been sold (1 674 of a total of 2 090). In the case of tenant-owned
apartments, the low response rate is due mainly to the fact that most tenant-owner associations in Berndtsson’s report were not specified by name
Boverket
28
(1 623 of a total of 1 945), and that it was therefore not possible to contact these. Even those associations that were identified by name proved
difficult to get in touch with.
The response rate was good for the remaining metering methods, which
allows us to draw general conclusions from the result of the follow-up.
Results
Table 5 below shows the number, and the share, of apartments examined
by Berndtsson that continue to meter and charge heating individually today – this out of the sample presented in Table 4.
Table 5. Number and share of apartments in which heating is metered and
charged individually today, divided by metering technology and housing type.
meter allocators
metering
system
tech
Total
no
Rented
apartment
338
181
2 661
0
0
3 180
Tenantowned
278
108
0
0
0
386
Total
616
289
2 661
0
0
3 566
meter allocators
metering
system
tech
Total
no
Rented
apartment
17 %
57 %
78 %
0%
0%
41 %
Tenantowned
22 %
100 %
0%
0%
0%
29 %
Total
19 %
68 %
78 %
0%
0%
39 %
In those apartments where the property owner installed combined technologies, or where the choice of technology was not known at the time of
Berndtsson’s report, no individual metering of heating is done today. For
the latter category, unknown technology, this suggests that the planned
installation never happened.
Below is a compilation of results for the remaining three metering technologies: heat meter, heat cost allocator and temperature metering.
Results for heat meters
Today 19 per cent of the apartments that were reported by Berndtsson as
using heat meters continue to meter heating individually. For rented
apartments (public housing) and tenant-owner associations respectively,
Boverket
29
the results are 17 and 22 per cent. In other words the majority of property
owners have not continued to meter heating using this technology.
In 1999 Uppsalahem stated that the introduction of individual metering
and charging were intended to create individually adapted housing for
tenants, but also to reduce energy costs. 9 Heat meters were installed in
three out of a total of six properties examined by Berndtsson. Today they
have largely discontinued all individual metering and charging of heating. 10
Svenska Bostäder stated in 1999 that they had a positive view of individual metering and charging, and that it was a further step in their ambition
to transfer more responsibility to residents. They therefore introduced individual metering of heating, and of other consumption, in order to gain
greater experience of the technology. 11 Heat meters were installed in four
out of a total of eight properties examined by Berndtsson. Individual metering of heating was discontinued in 2006, with the justification that renewing the system was not cost-effective. 12
Bostads AB Poseidon in Gothenburg installed individual metering and
charging in two buildings in order to gain knowledge and experience for
future investments into housing with improved services for tenants. Heat
meters were installed in one of the two buildings. Today all heat metering
has been discontinued as it proved unmanageable from an administrative
point of view. 13
AB Ängelholmshem phased out metering using heat meters and installed
temperature metering instead. This was because the use of heating varied
considerably between apartments, due to construction technology. 14
Most of the tenant-owner associations examined by Berndtsson have
phased out metering with heat meters too. Brf Fågelsången, a tenantowner association in Stockholm, never managed to get the metering to
work satisfactorily and phased it out as it could not be justified in economic terms. 15 Brf Ringblomman, also in Stockholm, discontinued its
metering as the company that had supplied the system closed down a few
9
Berndtsson (1999), ”Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus”, p 59.
10
Email Exchange with Thomas Nordquist, Uppsalahem, 9 Mar 2015.
11
Berndtsson (1999), Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus, p 60.
12
Email exchange with Pia Hedenskog, Svenska Bostäder, 18 Feb 2015.
13
Boverket (2008), ”Individuell mätning och debitering i flerbostadshus”.
14
Email exchange with Jonas Hellberg, AB Ängelholmshem, 1 Apr 2015.
15
Email exchange with Magnus Karperyd, brf Fågelsången, 26 Feb 2015.
Boverket
30
years after the installation. 16 Brf Sjöstaden experienced serious deficiencies in the system, and after 10 years without getting the technology to
work satisfactorily, the association chose to go back to including heating
costs in its fees. 17
Results for heat cost allocators
No general conclusions can be drawn from the results of the follow-up as
the number of respondents is low. With regard to metering in tenantowner associations, 108 apartments in two associations answered “yes” to
the question about whether they still meter today. One association said
that they are pleased with how it works today, and that their heating costs
are lower. 18
Results for temperature metering
Temperature metering is a technology developed and used by some public housing companies. Helsingborgshem AB, for example, developed a
system known as “komfortavvägningssytemet” (KAS). 19 Of the property
owners who had this technology installed and were examined by Berndtsson, 78 per cent state that they continue to meter using this technology –
in this group, Helsingborgshem represents the majority of the apartments.
Some companies still meter temperature in order to obtain maximum efficiency, but do not charge residents on that basis. One company stated
that difficulties in delivering the right temperature made them stop using
temperature metering.
Conclusions – Swedish property owners’
experiences of individual metering
Berndtsson writes that there are three types of property owners who install individual metering and charging:
• Housing companies that install meters in new and existing buildings.
• Building contractors building in areas such as Bo O1 or Hammarby
Sjöstad.
• Exisiting tenant-owner associations.
16
Email exchange with Jan Wiberg, brf Ringblomman, 20 Feb 2015, and brf Ringblomman’s annual report.
17
2012 annual report for brf Sjöstaden.
18
Email exchange with Joacim Lundberg, brf Glädjen, 10 Mar 2015.
19
Berndtsson (2003), ”Individuell värmemätning i svenska flerbostadshus – en lägesrapport”, p 55.
Boverket
31
The first category can be described as public housing companies that
have, for various reasons, decided to introduce some form of individual
metering. About 80 per cent of the projects involving apartments for rent
that Berndtsson looked at were in public housing companies. The results
of the follow-up indicate that this category of owner tends to abandon individual metering of heating using heat meters, while temperature metering is a technology that continues to be used. The majority of the apartments for rent with heat cost allocators have been sold.
The follow-up results paint a similar picture to the one described by Swedish property owners and researchers. The public housing companies that
Boverket met with said that it was very difficult to make individual metering profitable. Most public housing companies that use temperature
metering claim that the technology has no effect on indoor temperatures. 20 Siggelsten (2010) argues that there are indications that it is difficult to make heat metering profitable, while the possibilities are greater
for water metering. 21
It is harder, on the basis of the results of the follow-up, to conclude anything about the second category of property owners – building contractors
building in areas such as Bo 01 and Hammarby Sjöstad. Several of the
rental apartments built by these companies have since been converted into tenant-owned apartments, which make them difficult to follow up. This
applies to Familjebostäder in Stockholm, for instance. The follow-up
shows that heating is no longer metered individually in their remaining
rental apartments. The association-owned properties in Hammarby
Sjöstad included in Berndtsson’s study no longer have apartments with
individual metering of heating. Berndtsson writes the construction companies such as JM, Skanska, NCC and Peab, with projects in Västra
Hamnen and Hammarby Sjöstad, have consistently negative experiences
of metering system installations. The reasons are that they have been expensive to install and that it has been difficult to get the technology to
work. 22
Existing tenant-owner associations, the third and final category of property owners, have been difficult to get in touch with, as described earlier,
because most of then were not identified by name in Berndtsson’s report.
A better picture of their experiences can be gleaned from Siggelsten
20
This was shown in a questionnaire survey carried out by SABO among member companies, within the framework of Boverket’s commission.
21
Siggelsten (2010), “Incentives for individual metering and charging”.
22
Berndtsson (1999), ”Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus”.
Boverket
32
(2013), whose investigates, among other things, the attitude to individual
metering among tenant-owner associations. According to Siggelsten there
is a strong opposition to the technology, and it is therefore unusual to see
systems for individual metering in Swedish tenant-owner associations.
This opposition can be explained by a low level of knowledge about the
technology, and the perception that it is not cost-effective. Only 21 of the
100 associations interviewed in Siggelsten’s study believed that individual metering of heating and water were cost-effective, and only one association had installed such technology. The author’s view is that this may
indicate that the technology is not cost-effective, but also that it can be
difficult for an association to install the technology since it requires
changes to the way heating costs are divided between the apartments.23
The results of the follow-up, and other research, show that many property
owners who in the past have metered and charged heating individually no
longer do so. There is moreover a general scepticism towards the technology. This is an indication that individual metering is not a costeffective, or profitable, investment.
23
Siggelsten (2013), “Individual metering and charging of heat and hot water in Swedish
housing cooperatives”.
Boverket
33
Households with individual metering
– experiences and attitudes
The aim of individual metering is to give residents an incentive to reduce
temperatures in their apartments, and thus to use less energy for heating.
The value of the energy and power savings are the benefit side in the
cost-effectiveness calculations made in the present report.
Boverket hired SKOP, a polling firm, to carry out a questionnaire survey
of households in buildings with individual metering and charging. The
aim was to reach households whose heating is metered and charged individually, in order to get a more balanced picture of how household act
when heating costs are metered and divided individually.
SKOP interviewed 1 005 households with individual metering and charging of heating between 7 and 29 April 2015. The interviewees lived in
rented or tenant-owned apartments, and heating costs were divided using
either heat meters or heat cost allocators, or by means of temperature metering. The majority of households interviewed had systems for radiator
or temperature metering. SKOP’s full report is in Appendix 4. Below is a
summary of the most important questions and their response results. In
brief, the survey shows the following:
• The majority of the households are satisfied with individual metering
and charging. For most of these – 41 per cent – the reason for this is
the fairness aspect, i e that each household pays for its actual energy
use.
• Just over two in five households (45 per cent) actively try to use less
energy for heating, while 47 per cent do not. 38 per cent of those that
do choose a lower indoor temperature than before.
• About half of the households read the information about their actual
energy use for heating before paying the bill.
• Meters are often installed without the measure having gained the support of the residents. There is also insufficient information to residents
about how they can reduce their energy use.
• Most households with individual metering continue airing the apartment in the way they did before.
Boverket
34
Results of SKOP’s telephone survey 24
One of the more general questions asked was whether the interviewee
though it was good or bad that individual meters had been installed. Just
over 60 per cent of the interviewees thought it was a good thing. People
living in tenant-owned apartments were more likely to find it “very good”
than those living in rented apartments. The diagram in Figure 2 below illustrates the distribution of replies.
Figure 2. Question/table 11 in SKOP’s survey.. “What do you think? Is it good or
bad that individual energy measurement for heat was introduced in the apartments?”.
Those who replied that they thought individual metering was good (quite
good or very good) were then asked to choose one of five explanations
for why they thought so. Figure 3 below illustrates their replies.
24
The SKOP survey is found in Appendix 4 in the Swedish version of the report,
http://www.boverket.se/sv/om-boverket/publicerat-avboverket/publikationer/2015/individuell-matning-och-debitering-i-befintlig-bebyggelse/
Boverket
35
Figure 3. Question/table 12 in SKOP’s survey.”IF VERY OR QUITE GOOD: What
is the most important reason why individual energy measurement is good?”
Just over two in five (41 per cent) cited fairness, i e that each household
pays for what they actually use, as the main reason they think individual
metering is a good thing. Older interviewees had this view to a greater
extent than younger interviewees. One in five (19 per cent) cite the possibility of saving money as the main reason – an interesting result considering that the purpose of the Energy Efficiency Directive is precisely to
give households this possibility.
The principal aim of the questionnaire survey was to obtain more
knowledge about the choices households with individual metering make
in terms of energy use. A central question in the survey was therefore
whether households actively try to use less energy for heating, in order to
lower their heating costs.
Over two in five (45 per cent) replied that their household actively tries to
use less energy for heating. A similar proportion of interviewees (47 per
cent) do not actively try to achieve this. Interviewees who found individual metering a very good thing were more likely to be in the first group.
The replies are illustrated in Figure 4 below.
Boverket
36
Figure 4. Question/table 13 in SKOP’s survey.” Has the individual energy measurement for heat, and the opportunity to reduce your heating costs, made your
household actively trying to use less energy for heating?”
Of those who actively try to use less energy for heating, 38 per cent stated
that they now keep the temperature lower indoors. 50 per cent replied that
they have the same indoor temperature, and 9 per cent that they now keep
a higher temperature. This is illustrated in Figure 5 below.
Those who replied that they now keep a lower temperature were asked
about the reason for this. Why had they lowered the temperature? The
majority replied that it was in order to save money, but it also emerged
that for some the reduction in temperature had not been voluntary. In
some cases they were unable to get the temperature up to the desired level, and in some cases this is controlled by the property owner. Others said
that they felt more comfortable in lower temperatures, and others again
that they could not afford higher temperatures. Siggelsten (2010) obtained similar results when he examined tenants’ attitudes to individual
metering. One in three tenants actively lowered their indoor temperature
in order to save energy, which in Siggelsten’s view could indicate that the
compensation for doing so is too low. 25
25
Siggelsten (2010), “Individual heat metering and charging of multi-dwelling residential
housing”.
Boverket
37
Figure 5. Question/table 14 in SKOP’s survey. “IF ACTIVELY TRYING TO USE
LESS ENERGY FOR HEATING: With individual energy measurement, will you
have colder or warmer in the apartment than it would be otherwise?”
The purpose of individual metering is to give residents information about
their actual energy use, which will enable them to change their behaviour.
Under the directive, such information is to be provided two to four times
a year. 26 The bill itself, in specifying the amount that the household has to
pay, also serves as a source of information in this context.
To the question about whether the household read the information about
actual energy use in the bill, or just paid it. 52 per cent replied that they
read the information, and 42 per cent that they paid it without reading.
In order for individual metering and charging to work, the users – the residents – have to understand and accept the technology. Those households
in which the technology was installed while the current residents were
living there were asked if they had taken part in the decision to install the
metering equipment. 75 per cent replied that they had not. All the households were asked if they had received any information about how they
could reduce their energy use for heating. Just under half of those interviewed, 45 per cent, replied that they had received such information,
while 52 per cent replied that they had not. These replies are illustrated in
Figures 6 and 7 below. This result suggests that, in many cases, the decision to install the technology has been taken without first establishing the
support of the residents, which probably reduces the likelihood that the
technology and its possibilities will be accepted. Siggelsten (2010) ob26
The Energy Efficiency Directive, 2012/27/EU, annex VII.
Boverket
38
tained a similar result. One conclusion in his thesis is that tenants have a
negative attitude towards individual metering and charging, and that this
can be explained in part by their lack of knowledge and understanding of
the technology. In order for individual metering to have an effect,
Siggelsten argues, residents must be informed about how the technology
works and why it has been installed. 27
Figure 6. Question/table 3 in SKOP’s survey.” IF INSTALLED LATER: Could you
and the other residents influence the decision on how energy consumption for
heating should be measured in the house?”
27
Siggelsten (2010), “Individual heat metering and charging of multi-dwelling residential
housing”, p 213.
Boverket
39
Figure 7. Question/table 4 SKOP’s survey.”Have you received any information
about what you can do to reduce the energy used by the household for heating?”
Airing an apartment less can be another way to reduce energy use, besides lowering the temperature. Asked whether their apartment is aired
less because heating costs are charged individually, the majority (71 per
cent) of interviewees replied “no”.
Figure 8. Question/table 17 in SKOP’s survey. “Is there less airing because of the
individual energy measurement?”
Boverket
40
Heating of existing multi-dwelling
buildings in Sweden
This section describes the Swedish stock of district-heated multi-dwelling
buildings in terms of heating and energy performance. The problems related to heat transfer, in the context of individual metering and charging
in Swedish buildings, is described in particular detail.
In brief, the main points covered in this section are:
• Statistics from the register of energy performance reports show that
older buildings in general perform more poorly than newer ones. In
each age category there are buildings with a low use of energy and
building with a high use of energy for heating.
• All three climate zones have a mix of buildings with different energy
performance figures for heating.
• It is not possible, with current technology, to divide heating costs using heat cost allocators in a way that lets the apartment owner/tenant
pay for the actual room temperature of their apartment. This is due to
heat transfer between apartments, i e that heat moves more readily between apartments than through the building envelope.
Construction of the heating system
Heating technology for apartments in Swedish multi-dwelling buildings
has long been dominated by shared heating systems that use water as a
medium. This remains the basis of new heating systems in multi-dwelling
buildings. 95 per cent of all multi-dwelling buildings and 98 per cent of
all apartments are heated via piping systems. 99 per cent of these piping
systems have radiators as heaters.28 Metering heating using heat cost allocators is thus possible in virtually every multi-dwelling building in
Sweden.
Energy performance of heating in Swedish multidwelling buildings
Betsi’s data tells us that there are about 165 000 multi-dwelling buildings
in Sweden. About 110 000 of these have been energy audited, and of
28
This was shown in a point estimate from Boverket’s database, Betsi (a Swedish acronym for “buildings’ energy use, technological status and indoor environment”). Betsi is a
statistical sample survey.
Boverket
41
these about 80 000 are heated with district heating alone. 29 With the aim
of obtaining a better picture of the energy performance of Swedish multidwelling buildings on the basis of geography and age, these 80 000 buildings have been divided according to their climate zone and age category
as defined in Betsi (one category for buildings constructed up to the end
of 2005; another for buildings constructed from the beginning of 2006).
Climate zones as defined in BBR
Figure 9 shows Sweden’s division into climate zones as defined in Boverket’s building regulations (BBR 21), and Figure 10 shows energy performance for heating only (kWh/m2 Atemp per year) in Climate zone
III. 30 The corresponding figures for Climate zones I and II are in Appendix 2.
Figure 9. Climate zones in BBR 21.
29
All buildings in which district heating is combined with e g fuel wood, electricity, gas
or oil have been excluded from the 110 000. Additionally, all buildings where the energy
auditor has specified that there are 0, 1 or 2 residential apartments have been excluded.
30
“Energy performance for heating” is a building’s energy performance according to
BBR, not including energy for domestic hot water, cooling and property energy.
Boverket
42
Figure 10. Climate zone III, energy performance for heating (kWh/m2 and year).
61 639 multi-dwelling buildings with district heating as the only source of heating.
Mean energy performance for heating in Climate zone III is about 110
kWh/m2 and year, but the spread is quite large. It can be noted that all
climate zones have a mix of buildings with different energy performance
figures for heating.
Age categories of buildings
With respect to the division into different age categories, all age categories except the 2006 and later category are the same ones as those used
in Betsi. Table 6 displays mean energy performance and spread for heating of multi-dwelling buildings, divided by building age.
Table 6. Energy performance for heating (kWh/m2 and year) divided by age categories for buildings, as applied in Betsi until 2005 inclusive, thereafter one age
category from 2006.
Energy performance for heating (kWh/m2 and year)
Boverket
Age category, year of
construction
5%
mean
95 %
- 1960
73.7
119.53
177.0
1961 - 1975
73.3
114.58
167.1
1976 - 1985
64.7
108.17
162.8
1986 - 1995
56.9
96.74
143.3
1996 - 2005
56.4
97-13
148.1
2006 -
38.3
80.17
126.6
43
Table 6 shows that the energy performance of older buildings is generally
worse than that of newer ones. What is notable in the table is how the
new requirements in building regulations, from 1 July 2006, have brought
a sharp reduction in energy use for heating (i e improved energy performance).
Figure 11 illustrates the energy performance for heating of multi-dwelling
buildings in the 1961 – 1975 age category. Corresponding figures for the
other age categories are in Appendix 3.
Figure 11. Energy performance for heating, kWh/m2 and year. 25 038 multidwelling buildings with district heating as their only source of heating. Age category 1961 – 1975.
Mean energy performance for heating of buildings in this age category is
about 115 kWh/m2 and year. The profile of the graph is the same for all
age categories – in each one there are buildings with low energy use. One
reason for this is that many buildings have been renovated over the years.
A typical renovation measure on buildings, irrespective of their age, is to
replace existing windows with ones that have a low U-value, or heat
transmission coefficient.
Heat transfer makes it harder to measure actual
energy use for heating
Buildings in Sweden are essentially built like thermos flasks. Let us now
imagine that the thermos flask can be divided into two parts, with coffee
Boverket
44
in one, at a higher temperature, and milk in the other, at a lower temperature – and that these two parts are separated only by a waterproof metal
partition. The milk will be warmed by the coffee, and the coffee will be
cooled by the milk, until both liquids have the same temperature. Very
little of the warmth will escape the thermos flask, since its exterior walls
are built to maintain the warmth inside.
A building is constructed in the same way. Our exterior walls are designed to keep the warmth inside the building. Walls, floors and ceilings
between the apartments are designed to prevent fire spreading between
apartments and so that we won’t disturb our neighbours. Wall, floors and
ceilings between the apartments are not designed, however, to minimise
heat transfer between apartments. Heat transfer between apartments is
due partly to temperature differences between the apartments and how
much space there is between them, and partly on temperature differences
between apartments and outside.
Around half of all multi-dwelling buildings have exterior walls with a Uvalue 31 of 0.25 W/(m2 K) or less. This value can be compared with an intermediate floor or ceiling between two apartments, which has a U-value
of about 2.5 W/(m2 K). This means that, per square metre, heat effectively passes 10 times more easily through the floor/ceiling than through the
exterior wall. Concrete walls between apartments have a U-value of about
2.5-3.5 W/(m2 K).
Heat transfer between apartments makes it impossible for two adjacent
apartments to have very different temperatures. Heat insulation in apartment-partitioning structures is very rare in Swedish buildings, which
means that apartments, to varying degrees, get their heating from neighbouring apartments – or transfer their heat to them. 32 This problem has
been well described in a number of studies, from which an excerpt is presented in the following section.
Studies of heat transfer
A compilation of some earlier studies is included in Svensson 2012 33, a
report commissioned by BeBo, the Swedish Energy Agency’s client
group for housing. The results show that heat transfer between apartments
31
U-value: Ui = heat transmission coefficient for building part and Um = average heat
transmission coefficient are defined in Boverket’s building regulations, BBR, BFS
2011:6.
32
The better the building envelope, the more heat is transferred between apartments.
33
Svensson (2012), ”Problem och möjligheter med individuell mätning och debitering av
värme i flerbostadshus”.
Boverket
45
has a considerable significance for how much energy the radiators in each
apartment emit.
Jagemark and Bergsten (2003) carried out extensive simulations in order
to investigate the effects of a series of factors on the energy use of a
simulated apartment.34 The factors were room temperature, outside climate, airing patterns, construction year (1950-1990), the apartment’s location in the building and household electricity (internal heating). The results show that room temperature, outside climate and airing patterns
have the greatest influence on radiator heat, which seem self-evident. The
construction year of the building and the apartment’s location in it were
less significant for how much heat energy that the apartment transferred
to or received from the neighbouring apartments.
The study further shows that the heat transfer between apartments can
reach about the same magnitude as radiator heat. The simulated cases are
very varied in terms of heating needs. The apartments with the greatest
heating needs are those which are aired a lot. There is a very strong link
between the apartment’s room temperature and the heat transfer to or
from neighbouring apartments. It is difficult to achieve 18 °C when the
neighbouring apartments have a temperature of 20-21 °C.
Jagemark and Bergsten further note, after carrying out energy simulations
on a Million Homes programme in Gothenburg, that an apartment in the
middle of the building can emit a quarter (12 kWh) of its diurnal heat energy to the neighbouring apartments during the course of a February day
and night. The middle apartment was assumed to have a temperature of
22 °C and the neighbouring apartments a temperature of 20 °C.
A theoretical calculation involving 94 apartments in Helsingborg (Nilsson and Wargman 1982) found that a middle apartment without heating
could not reach a temperature below 17 °C if the neighbouring apartments had a temperature of 20 °C and the outside temperature was 0 °C.
In his doctoral thesis, Simon Siggelsten analyses a building with its own
district heating meter, and whose 16 apartments have heat cost allocators
on the radiators and meters for hot and cold water. The building’s structural details and U-values for the envelope as well as interior partitions
are known, which means that the extent of heat transfer can be measured. 35
34
Jagemark & Bergsten (2003), ”Individuell värmemätning i flerbostadshus”.
Siggelsten (2013), “Reallocation of heating costs due to heat transfer between adjacent
apartments”.
35
Boverket
46
Siggelsten had access to all the apartments’ bills for 2006. The bills specify how many radiator units (Ru) each apartment has used. Apartment
temperatures were computed, and the thesis gives details of how this was
done. Figure 12 illustrates the locations of the 16 apartments and their use
of radiator units (Ru).
Figure 12. Location of the 16 apartments and their use of radiator units (Ru).
Source: Siggelsten / Energy and Buildings 75 (2014), p 262.
Taking all known values into account, Siggelsten shows that seven of the
apartments are not paying enough, since they receive extra heat from surrounding apartments, while nine apartment are paying too much. If each
apartment’s radiators would have been the only source of heating, the invoiced radiator units show that this would have led to one apartment having a temperature of only 6.2 °C instead of 19.3 °C. In terms of radiator
units, this means that the invoiced figure of 271 (Ru) is compared with
the calculated Ru value for 19.3 °C, which is 4372 (Ru). In energy terms,
it means that the radiator units that the apartment is paying for are 6 per
cent of what they should be. For the nine apartments that are paying too
much for heating, it means that they are paying for 9 – 36 per cent more
radiator units than they would have paid for if they had been charged according to their actual (computed) indoor temperature. Instead, the other
seven apartments have had their bills partly paid by the heat which has
been transferred from the apartments paying too much. The seven apartments have paid for 11 – 94 per cent fewer radiator units than they should
have. This is illustrated in Table 7.
Boverket
47
Table 7. The effect of heat transfer on an apartment’s use for heating.
No
Measured TU (°C) TM (°C)
Ru
Ru for TU
Plus
Minus
1
8021
23.5
23.1
7365
9%
2
11598
26.8
24.3
8732
33 %
3
4657
19.2
21.9
6105
4
6572
22.9
22.3
6239
5%
5
8735
24.3
23.4
7708
13 %
6
5435
20.7
22
6126
7
6773
21.8
22.3
6650
2%
8
7645
24.9
22.3
6045
26 %
9
9246
24.4
21.7
7041
31 %
10
271
6.2
19.3
4372
-94 %
11
3399
15.8
18.5
5100
-33 %
12
3467
18.3
20.4
4688
-26 %
13
1987
12.2
17.5
4755
-58 %
14
7291
26.1
22.8
5342
15
4856
18.9
19.8
5560
16
8682
24.2
22.5
6806
-31 %
-11 %
36 %
-13 %
26 %
Measured Ru: The number of radiator units (Ru) from all the radiators in the
apartment included on the bills.
TU , Temperatur without heat transfer : The room temperature produced by the
measured Ru if no heat transfer occurred between the apartments.
TU, Temperatur with heat transfer: The room temperature the apartment has
due to heat transfer between the apartments.
Ru need for room temperature: The number of Ru the apartment would need,
without heat transfer, to heat it to the temperature it has.
Plus: Paid too much for energy used in relation to need
Minus: Paid too little for energy used in relation to need
The reports show that, as heat transfer between apartments is so significant, it is currently not possible to divide heating costs using heat cost allocators in a way that makes apartment owners pay for the actual heat
their apartment receives. In countries such as Denmark and Germany,
where heat cost allocators have been in use for a long time, the method
for dealing with this problem is for each building administration to agree
that a part of the building’s total heating costs be paid as a fixed fee based
on the living area of each apartment. In Germany this fixed fee may not
cover more than 30 per cent of a building’s heating costs. For the build-
Boverket
48
ing illustrated in Figure 12, this would not amount to any difference in
the relationship between the apartments and their heating use. The only
effect would be that the heating costs divided on the basis of heat cost allocators were somewhat reduced.
Boverket
49
The results of part 1 are used in
part 2
Boverket submitted part 1 of its report on individual metering and charging in buildings in the autumn of 2014. The results showed that individual metering and charging of heating using heat meters was not costeffective in new construction or building conversions. For this reason
Boverket did not propose any requirement for such metering. Neither did
it propose any requirement for individual metering and charging of domestic hot water, as the assessment was that this would force many property owners to make unprofitable investments. Individual metering of
heating and cooling in commercial spaces were also examined, and the
conclusion was that this was technically difficult and not cost-effective.
These results can be applied to existing buildings, meaning that:
• Individual metering and charging of heating using heat meters is not
cost-effective in existing buildings.
• The likelihood that individual metering and charging of domestic hot
water will be cost-effective in existing buildings is low, and would
force many property owners to make unprofitable investments.
• Individual metering and charging of heating and cooling in existing
commercial spaces is technically difficult and not cost-effective.
Boverket’s recommendation is therefore that individual metering and
charging of heating using heat meters, and of cooling or domestic hot water, not be required in any existing building. It follows from this that Boverket is not proposing any regulation provisions. The reasoning behind
these conclusions is detailed below.
For the purposes of the present report, this means that only individual
metering and charging of heating using heat cost allocators and temperature metering remain to be examined.
Individual metering of heating using heat meters in
multi-dwelling buildings
Part 1 of the report notes that Swedish multi-dwelling buildings do not
use comfort cooling, and this area was consequently not examined. With
respect to heating, the report was limited to heat meters as specified in
Article 9 of the directive. The calculations were made on the assumption
Boverket
50
that one heat meter were required per apartment. The results showed that
individual metering of heating using heat meters is not cost-effective in
new construction or conversion projects. It is Boverket’s assessment that
this result – not cost-effective – also applies for individual metering of
heating using heat meters in existing buildings.
What would seem to suggest that the calculation results indicate profitability for existing multi-dwelling buildings is that a temperature reduction
of one or two degrees in an older building, which as a rule has lower energy performance figures, would provide greater energy savings. Boverket’s assessment is that these greater benefits are not only uncertain, but
also relatively insignificant compared to the costs of installing heat meters in an existing building. About 80 per cent of Swedish multi-dwelling
buildings have heating pipes placed in the exterior wall, which requires
the installation of more heat meters per apartment for individual metering
and charging. This sharply increases installation costs. The installation
furthermore requires interventions in the heating pipes, which means additional costs as well as increased risks compared with an installation in
new construction or in connection with a conversion.36
All of the stakeholders and experts that Boverket has been in contact with
during the work on the report take the view that individual metering using
heat meters is only appropriate in those cases where the apartment’s heating is supplied via a single mains. This view is supported by the literature. Berndtsson, for example, argues that installing heat meters is only
appropriate in new construction and in buildings with one heating mains
per apartment. 37
Individual metering of domestic hot water in multidwelling buildings
The calculations (Monte Carlo simulations) carried out in part 1 of the
report showed that the probability of an investment in individual metering
and charging of domestic hot water becoming profitable was too low to
prompt the recommendation of a general requirement for such investments. Boverket’s assessment is that the same result and conclusion apply for existing buildings.
The assumption in part 1 of the report was that initial domestic hot water
consumption in new and converted buildings was the same, 800 – 1500
36
Read more about this in Boverket (2014), ”Individuell mätning och debitering vid nyoch ombyggnad”.
37
Berndtsson (1999), ”Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus”, pp 7-8.
Boverket
51
m3 per year for the average building. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out, in which initial domestic hot water use was assumed to be higher, 1000 – 1900 m3 per year for the average building. This corresponds to
a domestic hot water consumption of 18 – 37 m3 per person and year,
which matches the average consumption in existing multi-dwelling buildings. 38 The calculations that were made on the basis if this assumption
had the following results:
Table 8. The outcome of Monte Carlo simulations for conversion, part 1 of the report. Share of 10 000 simulations that are profitable. Total hot water consumption
before IMC, 1000 – 1900 m3 per year. Reduction after IMC, 0 – 30 per cent. 2014
prices, unchanged in real terms.
Stockholm
Installation cost
(SEK/apt)
Malmö
Sundsvall
Kiruna
Sundsvall Öviks Energi
Energi
Tekniska
verken
Fortum
Trygg
EON Värme
EON Värme
Kraftringen
1 050 (SFFE)
70.7 %
72.9 %
65.6 %
71.4 %
76.9 %
81.4 %
78.6 %
1 375 (SP)
64.4 %
66.7 %
58.7 %
65.3 %
71.6 %
77.5 %
73.8 %
2 300 (SABO)
45.2 %
48.2 %
38.3 %
46.4 %
54.7 %
63.2 %
58.0 %
3 500 (SABO)
23.6 %
26.9 %
17.2 %
24.5 %
32.8 %
43.1 %
36.3 %
4 700 (Wikells)
10.1 %
12.5 %
6.2 %
10.8 %
16.4 %
25.2 %
19.0 %
54.3 %
57.0 %
47.2 %
54.9 %
62.6 %
70.3 %
65.5 %
6 800 (Wikells)
1.5 %
2.0 %
0.3 %
1.2 %
2.8 %
6.1 %
3.7 %
8 500 (Wikells)
0.1 %
0.2 %
0.0 %
0.1 %
0.2 %
1.1 %
0.4 %
1 meter
2 meters
1 875 (SP)
The results in the table thus show the probability of an investment in individual metering and charging of domestic hot water becoming profitable in an existing multi-dwelling building. Since more than one water meter is required in existing buildings in most cases, the installation cost is
SEK 1 875 or more. Just as in part 1 of the report, Boverket’s conclusion
from the calculation results is that the probability of profitability is too
low for a requirement to be imposed.
38
Swedish Energy Agency (2012), ”Vattenanvändningen i hushåll”, report 2012:03. See
part 1 of the report for a detailed description and results of cost-effectiveness calculations
for domestic hot water.
Boverket
52
Individual metering of heating and cooling in
commercial spaces
It was noted in part 1 of the report that individual metering of cooling and
heating (using heat meters) is both technically complicated and not costeffective in offices.39 Boverket’s general assessment is that it is even
more technically complicated to install individual meters in existing offices, and that such installations would not be cost-effective either, for
heat meters or cold meters. For a comprehensive description of the possibilities of metering heating and cooling in offices, the reader may refer to
Appendix 8 in part 1 of the report.
With respect to individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators in offices, this is likely to be technically difficult. Radiator metering
requires the installation of the meter on the heat emitting surface itself, i e
on the radiator. Considering the fact that offices today have integrated
climate systems, it is rare that heating can be metered with heat meters
alone. Boverket’s assessment is therefore that individual metering of
heating using heat meters is not cost-effective in commercial spaces.
39
Boverket
In part 1 of the report, “commercial spaces” applies only to offices.
53
Individual metering and charging
using heat cost allocators
This section answers the report’s first question: when is it profitable, in a
business economics sense, to divide the cost of heating using heat cost allocators in existing multi-dwelling buildings?
It explains, in brief, how the technology of measuring heat with a radiator
meter works, and how data collection and charging is usually done. It
then describes the benefits and costs of individual metering of heating using heat cost allocators, and Boverket’s calculation model. In conclusion,
it presents the results of the cost-effectiveness calculations, Boverket’s
analysis of and conclusions from them, and proposals.
This section shows that:
• The range of the cost data collected is very wide. Installation costs
vary between SEK 1500 and 2750 per apartment. Operating costs vary
between SEK 190 and 500 per apartment and year.
• It is not clear whether, and if so by how much, temperatures are reduced in buildings that introduce individual metering and charging. A
temperature reduction is necessary in order to generate benefits.
• Boverket’s overall assessment of the calculation results is that individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators are not a costeffective, or profitable, investment. This is because the expected present value is negative or low. The investment also appears risky.
• Since a requirement for individual metering of heating using heat cost
allocators would imply unprofitable investments for the majority of
property owners, Boverket proposes that such requirements for individual metering and charging of heating using heat cost allocators not
be imposed on existing buildings. It follows from this that Boverket is
not making any proposals for regulation provisions.
Dividing heating costs using heat cost allocators
A radiator meter does not measure the amount of energy delivered to the
radiator, but is used only to divide the building’s total costs for heating
between the residents. The technique assumes that the building has an
approved heat meter that can determine the building’s total energy use for
heating. The property owner then charges each apartment for its share of
Boverket
54
the total heating cost, based measurement data from the heat cost allocators. 40
The technique requires that each radiator in the building has a radiator
meter mounted on it. These are mounted by means of two copper rods being spot-welded to the radiator, and a mounting plate being attached to
the rods. The meter can then be mounted on the plate using a quickrelease mechanism. The meter must be mounted at the right height on the
radiator, and be adapted on installation to the specific radiator’s power.
Individual metering of heating using heat cost allocators is often combined with collective metering, in which a part of the building’s heating
cost is divided by m² of living space. This is done in order to consider
heating costs that residents cannot influence, e g heating of common areas and heat transfer between apartments. A typical procedure is for 50-70
per cent of heating costs to be divided according to the consumption
share registered by the heat cost allocators, and for the remaining 30-50
per cent to be divided according to living space. Experiences in Denmark
are that energy use varies greatly between apartments, with some using
five times as much as the average for a particular building. This has led
some to maintain that for an acceptable result at least 50 per cent of the
heating costs should be divided on the basis of living space.41
Siggelsten (2014) shows in his thesis that the accuracy of individual heating metering is very questionable. Energy use for heating is influenced
by, among other things, heat generated by people and by where in the
building the apartment is located. The conclusion he draws is that it is
difficult to measure the actual heating used by an individual apartment,
which hinders the correct and fair distribution of heating costs between
individual residents. Dividing 50 per cent of heating costs on the basis of
living space (apartment area) is a way to make individual metering less
inaccurate, but the question is how this affects the residents’ incentive to
save energy. 42 Berndtsson (1999) argues that if only a part of heating
costs are going to be divided on the basis of individual metering, it is
questionable whether it is worth investing in metering equipment. 43
40
Source: Leverantörsföreningen för individuell mätning och debitering (LIMD). Each
apartment’s share is calculated using the formula BF/SBF*FF, where BF is the number of
”consumption units” for the apartment, SBF is total number of consumption units for the
building and FF is the building’s total energy use for heating.
41
This according to Otto Paulsen, DTI, in a meeting on 30 Mar 2015.
42
Siggelsten (2014), “Analysis of the accuracy of individual heat metering and charging”.
43
Berndtsson (1999), ”Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning och debitering av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus”.
Boverket
55
The benefits – energy savings through lowered
temperatures
Individual metering of energy for heating in apartments is intended to
give residents an incentive to reduce their energy use, and by extension
their heating costs. The possibility of saving energy lies above all in lowered temperatures, but less airing also saves energy. However, the airing
habits of residents are difficult to assess and include in an energy calculation, and are therefore not considered in this report.44 SKOP’s survey
shows that airing habits remained unchanged in over 70 per cent of
households after the introduction of individual metering.
In part 1 of the report Projektengagemang AB carried out energy calculations to determine the potential energy savings when temperatures are
lowered in a multi-dwelling building. A detailed description of the standard buildings, the method and results of the energy calculations can be
found in part 1 of Boverket’s report. 45 Below is a summary.
Method
The energy calculations were made on a low-rise building with six
apartments per floor, three entrances with stairwells, four floors and an
area of 2 310 m2 Atemp. 46 The standard building was placed in four locations – Malmö, Stockholm, Sundsvall and Kiruna – representing three
climate zones.
In the calculations, the temperatures for the standard building were assumed to be reduced, as a result of individual metering, from 23 to 22 °C
and from 22 to 21 °C. The energy savings from the temperature reduction
were calculated for seven buildings with different specific energy usage
(energy performance). Four of these represent the existing stock, with energy performance figures either in line with BBR’s minimum requirement
for energy economy 47 or 25, 50 or 75 per cent worse than BBR’s requirement. These standard buildings will be referred the below as BBR,
BBR +25, BBR +50 and BBR +75.
The specific energy usage of the standard buildings are in the range of 90
– 250 kWh/m2 and year (Atemp), and their U-values range from 0.44 to
0.87 W/m2 K. Figure 3 illustrates specific energy usage and energy needs
44
Over-temperatures and poor air circulation affect airing, and problems with these have
to be addressed first. Read more in Appendix 7, part 1 of the report.
45
46
The number of floors, stairwells and overall area of the building were modelled on
mean values of statistics in Boverket’s register of energy performance reports.
47
According to BBR 21, i e 90 kWh/m2/year in climate zone I, 110 kWh/m2/year in climate zone II and 130 kWh/m2/year in climate zone III.
Boverket
56
for heating for each temperature, for the standard building with the worst
performance figures (BBR +75).
Figure 13. Specific energy usage (energy performance) and energy needs for
heating (kWh/m2 and year) for the standard building BBR +75, by temperature
and location.
Results of energy calculations
Table 9 shows the results of the energy calculations divided by standard
building and location. Calculations are for the four standard buildings
BBR, BBR +25, BBR +50 and BBR +75.
Table 9. Energy savings, kWh/m2 and year (Atemp), as a result of the standard
building’s temperature being reduced by 1 and 2 ˚C, respectively.
Stockholm
Malmö
Sundsvall
Kiruna
1 ˚C
2 ˚C
1 ˚C
2 ˚C
1 ˚C
2 ˚C
1 ˚C
2 ˚C
BBR
4.4
8.5
4.8
9.2
4.9
9.4
5.4
10.4
BBR +25
6.8
13.3
7.3
14
7.2
14.2
8.1
15.7
BBR +50
8
15.5
8.7
16.7
8.5
16.5
9.4
18.4
BBR +75
10.2
19.8
11.1
21.5
11
21.2
11.7
23.1
The results of the energy calculations presented in Table 9 indicate energy savings of 4.4 – 23.1 kWh/m2 and year. Energy savings vary depending on the standard building’s energy performance, geographical location
and temperature reduction. For the BBR +75 standard building, located in
Malmö, for example, a 1 °C temperature reduction means a reduction in
Boverket
57
energy use of 11.1 kWh/m2 and year. If the temperature is reduced by 2
°C instead, energy use for heating is reduced by 21,5 kWh/m2 and year.
The results also show, unsurprisingly, that the greatest energy savings are
in buildings with worse energy performance figures and which are located in the colder parts of the country.
Installation and operating costs
The cost items fed into the calculation model are for installation and operation (per year). The installation cost includes the material and work
costs for installing the necessary equipment for measurement and data
collection. The operating costs are for administering the data collection
and billing system, i e collecting and converting measurement data in a
file the property owner will use to divide the building’s heating costs between the apartments.
Cost information on completed installations and operating contracts for
heat cost allocators are not easy to obtain. The technology is unusual in
public housing companies, and the few tenant-owner associations that use
it have been hard to reach. Information on installation costs is not always
available for the administrators of tenant-owner associations, either.
However, metering companies were able to provide average installation
and operating costs that they charge their customers. For a fuller picture,
a consultant also compiled installation and operating costs on behalf of
Boverket. These costs are described in the following section.
Installation costs
The installation costs that underlie the cost-effectiveness calculation are
presented in Table 10 below. All costs include VAT.
Boverket
58
Table 10. Installation costs of five heat cost allocators, per apartment and including VAT.
Source
Installation cost Comment
incl. VAT (SEK/apt)
Consultant’s report,
Appendix 6
Appendix 5
1600 - 1800 Average cost for the association’s members of five heat cost allocators, including installation (excl. collection unit).
49
1 500 - 2 000 Average cost for a apartment with five heat cost allocators, including installation. For heat cost allocators using the Meter-Bus standard (M-Bus).
Brunata
Minol
2750 Includes cost of five heat cost allocators, installation and programming and
10 years battery time, one collection unit (1 per 3-5 floors) and its installation.
48
SFFE
LIMD
1 500 - 2 700 Five meters with data ports for remote reading, including a share of the
cost for a central unit for the building, if remote reading is selected. Without remote reading, meters can be read with a handheld device.
50
2 620 Average cost of a standard package of five heat cost allocators, including
one collection unit per entrance, DKK 2100. Assumes that all radiators in
the building can be adapted without supply interruptions. Equivalent to
SEK 2620 (Aug 2015).
51
Håbohus
1 700 Normal installation cost is SEK 100 per radiator. The initial starting cost is
normally SEK 37.50 per radiator. For five radiators the total cost comes to
SEK 1700.
52
Herrljungabostäder
Botkyrkabyggen
2 280 Håbohus paid about SEK 2280 per apartment when the association had
heat cost allocators installed.
53
1 500 Herrljungabostäder paid SEK 1500 per apartment, on average, for installation of heat cost allocators. Add to that one collection unit per property (3040 apartments), for which the association pays SEK 750 per year.
4 600 Total cost of installation and initial starting. A display and repeater in each
apartment.
As can be seen, installation costs vary. With exception of the more expensive Botkyrkabyggen, installation costs range from SEK 1500 to 2750
per apartment. This is for installation of five heat cost allocators, which is
reportedly the average requirement per apartment. Besides the number of
48
SFFE stands for Svensk förening för förbrukningsmätning av energi (Swedish association for consumption metering of energy). Information from meeting on 23 Jan 2014 and
SFFE’s report ”Installationsexempel Individuell mätning och debitering i Sverige”.
49
LIMD stands for Leverantörsföreningen för individuell mätning och debitering (Association of suppliers of individual metering and charging). Information from Tord Kjellin,
4 Sep 2015.
50
Meeting with Brunata, Copenhagen, 30 Mar 2015.
51
Email Exchange with Stefan Skog, Minol, 2 Jun 2015.
52
Telephone contact with Mattias Dahlberg, Håbohus, 3 Sep 2015.
53
Email exchange with Christer Johansson, Herrljungabostäder, 4 Jun 2015.
Boverket
59
meters per apartment, installation costs depend on what service contract
is selected. If remote reading is selected, this requires communication
equipment in the building to allow for automatic data transmission to a
data centre. This implies higher installation costs but lower operating
costs. If the housing company wants readings done a few times per year,
mobile reading is usually chosen, where a meter technician carries out
readings using a handheld device. This increases the operating costs,
since each reading involves a cost, but does not require communication
equipment to be installed in the building. 54
Consultant Bo Frank reports installation costs in the range of SEK 1500 –
2700 for an apartment of 70 m2 with 3 rooms and kitchen in a “typical”
building with 50 apartments. This includes material costs for five heat
cost allocators (SEK 690 – 1440) , a share of the cost of a central unit for
the building (SEK 375 – 625), as well as installation and initial starting
(SEK 440 – 625). 55 The other cost information in the table, which include
standard costs from metering companies, consultants’ calculations and
actual cost data from tenant-owner associations, is all within this range.
Botkyrkabyggen quotes a higher installation cost, SEK 4600 per apartment. Botkyrkabyggen installed heat cost allocators in eight buildings as
part of their involvement in a project financed by the EU. Each apartment
received a device with which to read their energy use for heating, domestic hot water and electricity, and to lower the temperature. Each apartment also needed a signal amplifier (a repeater) in order for data collection to work. This explains the higher cost.
Boverket’s assessment is that an installation cost in the range of SEK
1500 – 2750 per apartment is appropriate to use as input data in the costeffectiveness calculations for radiator metering.
Operating costs
The metering companies 56 specialised in individual metering and charging typically provide a standard service package that includes reading the
meters and delivering a consumption profile to the property owner. The
property owner then uses the file to divide the heating costs between the
54
Consultant’s report ”Technical description of radiator and temperature metering”, Appendix 6.
55
Consultant’s report ”Technical description of radiator and temperature metering”, Appendix 6.
56
“Metering companies” here refers primarily to Techem, Minol, ISTA and Brunata, who
are major actors in the German and Danish markets.
Boverket
60
residents. 57 The standard package usually also includes information to the
residents about their energy consumption. This information is provided in
various ways, on one or several occasions per year.
The technique for collecting the meter readings is essentially the same for
all metering companies. They either install equipment to allow the metering data to be read and sent automatically to the metering company’s data
centre, which is known as remote reading and can be done daily, or else
they use mobile reading, which involves a technician going to the property and reading the meters with a handheld computer, standing outside the
building or in the entrance. This type of reading is done once or a few
times a year. In Germany it is common for meters to be read in each
apartment. Our information is that meters requiring this type of reading
are not installed in Swedish apartments.
The operating costs that underlie the cost-effectiveness calculations are
presented in Table 11 below. All costs include VAT.
Table 11. Annual operating costs for radiator metering, per apartment and including VAT.
Source
Cost including VAT Comment
(SEK/apt/yr)
Appendix 6
Brf Atle
58
Brf Glädjen
250 Service fee for tenant-owner association Atle. The price includes an annual settlement file for the rent charging system and an annual notification to
each household about the division of costs.
59
Herrljungabostäder
Håbohus
61
190 - 350 Price of one meter reading, with distribution calculations presented in a
file. Applies settlement when there are few settlements per year.
240 Service fee for tenant-owner association Glädjen. SEK 15/apt/month for
meter reading and delivery of the settlement file, and SEK 5/apt/month for
processing the file.
60
500 Service fee for Herrljungabostäder. The price includes an annual settlement file for the property administration system and the cost of managing
settlements for residents who move.
380 Service fee for Håbohus. The approximate price is for electricity, domestic
hot water and heating, and includes an annual settlement file and annual
information. The housing company needs to put in an additional week of
work in order to manage settlement manually.
57
Residents normally pay a standard charge over the year. The consumption file is then
used to settle the difference for each resident, in which they pay or receive money depending on whether the standard charge was too low or too high.
58
Email exchange with Stefan Skoog, Minol, 2 Jun 2015.
59
Email exchange with Joacim Lundberg, brf Glädjen, 16 Jun 2015.
60
Email exchange with Christer Johansson, Herrljungabostäder, 4 Jun 2015.
61
Telephone contact with Mattias Dahlberg, Håbohus, 3 Sep 2015.
Boverket
Source
Cost including VAT Comment
(SEK/apt/yr)
Danish Technological Institute, Otto
Paulsen
Techem
Brunata
61
62
370 - 500 Paulsen states that operating costs normally fall in the range of DKK 300400 per apartment and year. This corresponds to SEK 370-500, or SEK
435 on average.
240 - 350 Average price for Techem’s Swedish customers. The price depends on the
type of meter and how the customer wants the results delivered. The price
includes monthly readings (remote reading) or quarterly readings or settlement (mobile reading).
250 Brunata quotes an average service fee for their customers of DKK 200,
which corresponds to about SEK 250.
The requirement under the directive is that residents be billed for their actual heating costs at least once a year, and that the information should be
made available every quarter if this is requested, otherwise twice a year.63
In order to fulfil the requirement, meters should thus be read at least
twice a year. The costs quoted above vary between SEK 190 and 500,
which in many cases includes one reading per year. Should more readings
be required, operating costs can be assumed to increase, at least for customers who have mobile reading.
According to consultant Bo Frank, the cost per meter reading is SEK
190-350, where the final product is a computer file with distribution calculations. 64 Techem offers a service in which the customer, at a cost of
SEK 240-350 per apartment, gets up to four readings a year – and this
cost is about the same, irrespective of whether the reading is remote or
mobile. The price they are able to offer a customer depends on factors including whether the building is in a densely built-up area or not. The Atle
and Glädjen tenant-owner associations, Håbohus and Herrljungabostäder
cite actual operating costs of SEK 240-500 in order to receive one settlement annually.
To sum up, operating costs in the SEK 190-500 range, per apartment and
year and including VAT, are deemed appropriate for use in the costeffectiveness calculations. These costs are conservative as they do not include costs of e g dealing with complaints or providing information.
62
Email exchange with Joakim Pålsson, SFFE/Techem, 20 Aug 2014.
The Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU, Appendix VII.
64
Consultant’s report “Technical description of radiator and temperature metering”, Appendix 6.
63
Boverket
62
The calculation model
The calculation model for establishing the cost-effectiveness of dividing a
building’s heating costs using heat cost allocators is an investment calculation created in Excel with the following components:
• Calculation period 10 years.
• Energy use for heating is divided on a monthly basis.
• Four locations are included: Malmö, Stockholm, Sundsvall and Kiruna.
• Two district heating rates for Malmö. Stockholm and Sundsvall, and
one rate for Kiruna.
• Real rate of interest, four per cent in the principal alternative.
• Installation costs and annual operating costs for the standard building.
• Calculations use 2014 prices.
• Prices include VAT.
The analysis is at the building level. To carry out the calculations, data on
the total energy use for heating at 23, 22 and 21 ˚C is input for each
standard building in the four locations.
The model outputs:
• NV (benefits), which are present-value calculations of the benefits
(the value of the energy savings and the value of the power savings).
• NV (costs), which are present-value calculations of the costs (installation and operation).
NV (benefits) – NV (costs) > 0 means that the investment is costeffective.
Description of Monte Carlo simulations
The traditional way of carrying out economic calculations is to put individual values on input data in the created model, which are called point
estimates. These estimates represent the most likely values for each input
data item. The output data from the model will then be one value, and one
value alone. Using sensitivity analyses it is then possible to analyse effects on output data by varying input data values, one at a time, to see
how sensitive the end result is with alternative assumptions. The calcula-
Boverket
63
tion rate of interest can be changed, for example, and its effect on the end
result studied. Scenario analyses are another alternative. In these, the values of two or more items of input data are varied at the same time. For
example, one scenario can describe an optimistic case, a second the most
likely case and a third a pessimistic case. Each scenario represents different combinations of input data values. Each scenario produces an output
data value.
Among the shortcomings of sensitivity and scenario analyses is the circumstance that the choice of input data values to change, and by how
much, can be arbitrary. In scenario analyses there is no setting of probabilities for how likely each individual scenario is. For example, an optimistic scenario means that input data is chosen and “best case” scenario
is obtained. The probability that the chosen input data values occur at the
same time is low, however, and the scenario may be questioned on these
grounds. Also, if many sensitivity and scenario analyses are carried out
this leads to many calculations, making it difficult to get an overall view
of the result as a whole.
The analysis in the present report uses a method that makes it possible to
make systematic scenario calculations. This is known as the Monte Carlo
Method. The uncertainty of input data is addressed by specifying probability distributions. These distributions can have different characteristics,
depending on the access to data.
Using computers we can make thousands of calculations, with each calculation using randomly selected values from pre-defined probability distributions in order to see if the calculation is cost-effective or not. This
means that the output data is also a distribution (a range) of values, and
the sensitivity analysis is thus built into the model from the outset.
The method allows us not only to make a large number of calculations in
a systematic manner, but also to present the results synoptically in graph
form. The results of all the calculations are summarised in a histogram,
which can show the expected present value, the minimum and maximum
present values, the standard deviation 65 (a measure of the investment’s
risk), and how many of the calculations produce a positive present value.
This is exemplified in Figure 14.
65
Standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the obtained values, showing the average deviation from the mean value.
Boverket
64
Figure 14. Profit/loss in Malmö with the standard building BBR +75, using radiator
metering and with 1 ˚C temperature reduction in the building. EON’s 2014 district
heating rate. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Four per cent real interest.
Calculation period 10 years.
Figure 14 shows results from Malmö of standard building BBR +75 using
radiator metering and 1 ˚C temperature reduction. On the right of figure is
a summary of the information in the analysis. 10 000 calculations were
carried out. “Minimum” is the lowest present value among the calculations; “Maximum” the highest. “Mean” is the expected present value, or
the mean value and “SD” is the standard deviation. The latter is a measure of the spread of results, and can be interpreted as the investment’s
rate of risk.
The same information is also represented in the histogram. The expected
present value (mean value) is a profit of SEK 22 209, the minimum present value is a loss of SEK 18 517 and the maximum present value a
profit of SEK 62 295. The standard deviation is SEK 13 885. The figure
also shows the results one standard deviation above and below the mean
value (+1 SD and -1 SD, respectively). The top row in the histogram
shows the probability of a positive present value, which in this case is
94.3 per cent. This percentage indicates what proportion of the 10 000
calculations produced a present value of SEK 0 or more.
The analysis will be presented in graphs similar to the one in Figure 14,
as well as in tables grouping the outcomes of the calculations carried out.
All in all this will provide a balanced picture of the profitability of indi-
Boverket
65
vidual metering and charging using heat cost allocators, and of how profitability varies depending on the energy performance figures for the
building and its geographical location. On this basis we can respond to
the commission, i e make a general assessment whether, and if so in
which buildings, individual metering and charging should be required.
Calculations, results and analysis
The analysis of radiator metering will be presented in two steps. In the
first step, the introduction of individual metering and charging using heat
cost allocators is assumed to lead to a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C in
the building. The implication of this assumption is that the benefit side of
the calculation is held constant, while the cost side is allowed to vary in
accordance with the specified probability distributions.
In the second step we allow the benefit side to vary as well. We will look
at three different outcomes for the temperature change in the building as a
result of the introduction of individual metering.
• no change
• 1 ˚C reduction
• 2 ˚C reduction
Thus, in step two, probability distributions will be set for the benefit side
as well as the cost side.
Step 1. Temperature reduction of 1 ˚C
The benefit side
A one-degree reduction in temperature in a building, either from 23 ˚C to
22 ˚C or from 22 ˚C to 21 ˚C, will lead to different energy savings depending on the building’s initial energy consumption and where in the
country it is located. This is shown in Table 12 for two of four locations,
Malmö and Kiruna.
Boverket
66
Table 12. Energy use for room heating in two different standard buildings in
Malmö and Kiruna at 23, 22 and 21 ˚C.
Malmö
Kiruna
Energy use for
heating
kWh
kWh/m2
23 ˚C
98 925
42.8
22 ˚C
87 715
38.0
21 ˚C
77 727
33.6
23 ˚C
270 721
117.2
22 ˚C
245 157
106.1
21 ˚C
221 240
95.8
Energy use for
heating
∆%
∆%
kWh
kWh/m2
200 506
86.8
-11.33 %
188 087
81.4
-6.19 %
-11.39 %
176 450
76.4
-6.19 %
493 246
213.5
-9.44 %
466 205
201.8
-5.48 %
-9.76 %
439 884
190.4
-5.65 %
BBR
BBR +75
The BBR standard building in Malmö uses 98 925 kWh per year (42.8
kWh/m2) for room heating at a temperature of 23 ˚C. If the temperature
is reduced by 1 ˚C to 22 ˚C, energy use will decrease by 11 210 kWh (to
38.0 kWh/m2), or 11.3 per cent. If the temperature is decreased by 1 ˚C
from 22 ˚C, consumption will decrease by 9 988 kWh per year (to 33.6
kWh/m2), or 11.4 per cent.
In Kiruna, the BBR standard building uses 200 506 kWh (86.8 kWh/m2)
at 23 ˚C. A reduction to 22 ˚C means that use decreases by 12 419 kWh
(to 81.4 kWh/m2), or 6.2 per cent. A reduction of one degree, from 22 ˚C
to 21 ˚C will reduce use by 11 637 kWh (to 76.4 kWh/m2), or 6.2 per
cent.
When the standard building in the four studied locations uses more energy at the outset, a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C leads to a greater reduction in use, in absolute terms. In percentage terms, however, the reduction
is lower. In Malmö, one of the four locations, energy use is 270 721 kWh
per year (117.2 kWh/m2) in the BBR +75 standard building at 23 ˚C. A
reduction in temperature by 1 ˚C leads to a reduction in energy use by 25
564 kWh per year (to 106.1 kWh/m2), or 9.4 per cent. If the temperature
is reduced by 1 ˚C from 22 ˚C, consumption decreases by 23 917 kWh
per year (to 95.8 kWh/m2), or 9.8 per cent. And finally, the BBR +75 in
Kiruna uses 493 246 kWh per year (213.5 kWh/m2) at 23 ˚C. At 22 ˚C,
use is reduced by 27 401 kWh (to 201.8 kWh/m2), or 5.5 per cent. A re-
Boverket
67
duction by 1 ˚C from 22 ˚C reduces energy use by 26 321 kWh (to 190.4
kWh/m2), or 5.7 per cent.
The above results do not only show energy use for heating, and the potential savings from reduced temperatures, vary widely across the country;
they also point to the difficulty in specifying percentage savings as an effect of individual metering and charging. A 10 per cent reduction in energy use can be achieved in Malmö with a one-degree temperature reduction. In Kiruna the temperature reduction has to be greater in order to lead
to a corresponding percentage reduction in energy use.
To put a value on the reduction in energy use resulting from a one-degree
temperature reduction in the building, district heating rates for each location are used. These rates, seven different ones in all, are presented in
Appendix 7.
The cost side
As shown in the costs presentation, installation and operating costs of individual metering and charging vary. The lowest installation cost is SEK
1500 and the highest is SEK 2750 per apartment. 66 For out standard
building with 24 apartments, the total installation cost thus varies between SEK 36 000 and SEK 66 000. We assume a triangular distribution
of the total installation cost.67
66
The cost overview also includes an installation cost of SEK 4600 per apartment, or
SEK 110 400 in our standard building. We have not included this figure in the analysis.
67
There are various types of probability distribution that could be used, e g a normal distribution, a Weibull distribution, a log-normal distribution, a beta distribution or a uniform distribution. The decisive factor in choosing which one to use is the availability of
relevant data. A triangular distribution is often used because it is easy to understand and
because only three values are required to create the distribution, of which one is the most
likely value.
Boverket
68
Figure 15. Triangular distribution of the installation cost of heat cost allocators in
the standard building (SEK).
A triangular distribution has to have three values: one minimum value,
one most likely value and one maximum value. Here the minimum value
is set at SEK 36 000. We apply the most likely value SEK 51 000 and the
maximum value of SEK 66 000. The figure also shows the installation
cost one standard deviation above and below the mean value.
With these values, the installation cost will be in the range of SEK 36 000
– 51 000 in 50 per cent of the cases. It follows that the installation cost
will be in the range of SEK 51 000 – 66 000 in 50 per cent of the cases.
The data collected on operating costs varies between SEK 190 and 500
per apartment and year. The annual operating cost for the standard building with 24 apartments varies between SEK 4560 and SEK 12 000. Figure 16 shows how the operating cost is represented in the model.
Boverket
69
Figure 16. Triangular distribution of the annual operating cost when using radiator
metering in the standard building (SEK).
For the annual operating cost, we have applied a triangular distribution
with a minimum value of SEK 4560, a most likely value of SEK 8280
and a maximum value of SEK 12 000. In 50 per cent of the calculations,
the annual operating cost will be in the range of SEK 4560 – 8280, and in
50 per cent of them it will be in the range of SEK 8280 – 12 000. 68
Results of Monte Carlo simulations
69
10 000 calculations are made using the computer, and for each calculation values are randomly selected from the triangular distribution of the
installation costs and the operating costs. The benefit side is made up of
the value of the energy savings of reducing the building’s temperature by
1 ˚C. The final result – how many of the calculations are profitable and
how many are not – is summarised in a graph.
The outcome for the BBR standard building in Malmö, with EON’s district heating rate, is presented below.
68
The figure shows that in 5 per cent of cases, values between SEK 4560 and 5736 are
produced, and in 5 per cent of the cases values between SEK 10 824 and 12 000.
69
Appendix 2 contains a full analysis of when uniform probability distributions are applied for installation and operating costs.
Boverket
70
Figure 17. Profit/loss in Malmö for BBR standard building with radiator metering
and a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C in the building. EON’s district heating rate.
2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation period 10 years.
The graph shows that none of the 10 000 calculations yields a positive
outcome. The benefits produced by a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C at the
building level (the value of energy and power savings over 10 years) are
not large enough in any of the cases. The expected present value is a loss
of SEK 49 661. The “best” value outcome obtained is a loss of SEK
7184.
10 000 calculations for the BBR +75 standard building in Malmö produces outcomes as shown in Figure 18 below.
Figure 18. Profit/loss in Malmö for BBR +75 standard building with radiator metering and a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C in the building. EON’s district heating
rate. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent.
Calculation period 10 years.
Boverket
71
The interpretation of the histogram above is as follows. A property owner
is going to invest in individual metering and charging and opts for radiator metering. The property owner knows with certainty that the temperature reduction in the building will be 1 ˚C. However, installation as well
as operating costs are uncertain. Installation costs can vary randomly between SEK 36 000 and 66 000, and annual operating costs can vary between SEK 4560 and 12 000. Both of these costs can be assumed to have
a triangular probability distribution.
Under these conditions the expected outcome of the investment is a profit
of SEK 22 209. The worst possible outcome is a loss of SEK 18 517 and
the best a profit of SEK 62 294. One way of gauging the risk of an investment is to measure the standard deviation. Here it comes to SEK 13
885. Of the outcomes, 66.5 per cent will be +/- one standard deviation
from the mean value.70
The graph also indicates that the probability of a positive outcome (SEK
0 or more) is 94.3 per cent.
Table 13 lists results for the four standard buildings under evaluation,
placed in four different locations. Appendix 2 lists corresponding results
with the alternative district heating rates used.
70
The expected outcome and standard deviation of individual metering and charging can
be compared with the expected outcome and standard deviation of other energy efficiency
measures, allowing the measure with the best outcome to be chosen. See the presentation
in the section entitled “Cost-effectiveness – definition and additions”.
Boverket
72
Table 13. Profit/loss in four locations for different standard buildings with radiator
metering. Temperature reduction of 1 ˚C in the building. District heating rates
from companies in each location. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation period 10 years.
Profit/loss
Malmö, EON Värme
Standard building
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev
P of profit
BBR
-92 739
-49 661
-7 184
14 156
0.0 %
BBR +25
-67 877
-22 556
22 494
14 481
6.2 %
BBR +50
-49 008
-5 240
37 408
14 320
35.9 %
BBR +75
-18 517
22 210
62 295
13 885
94.3 %
Stockholm, Fortum Trygg
Standard building
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev
P of profit
BBR
-87 639
-48 248
-5 095
13 830
0.0 %
BBR +25
-62 460
-20 209
19 796
13 797
7.9 %
BBR +50
-47 758
-6 173
33 309
13 786
33.4 %
BBR +75
-21 773
20 310
62 495
13 963
92.4 %
Sundsvall, Sundsvall Energi
Standard building
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev
P of profit
BBR
-87 606
-47 092
-6 332
13 900
0.0 %
BBR +25
-57 896
-19 394
21 998
13 541
8.2 %
BBR +50
-31 011
13 163
58 970
14 067
81.3 %
BBR +75
-18 153
25 033
66 971
14 005
96.3 %
Kiruna, Tekniska verken
Standard building
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev
P of profit
BBR
-78 447
-37 900
4 165
13 773
0.1 %
BBR +25
-44 683
-4 576
35 625
13 876
37.5 %
BBR +50
-28 884
11 736
53 830
13 908
78.9 %
BBR +75
3 714
44 813
84 950
13 864
100.0 %
In the table “Min” refers to the lowest present value, “Mean” the expected present value and “Max” the highest present value of the calcula-
Boverket
73
tions. “Standard dev” specifies the standard deviation and is a measure of
the risk in the investment. “P of profit” shows the probability of a positive outcome, i e what proportion of the calculations yield a present value
of SEK 0 or more.
When existing buildings have an energy consumption which is in line
with current BBR requirements or just short of them, the calculations
show that it is hard to make an investment in radiator metering, with a 1
˚C temperature reduction in the building, profitable. The expected present
value (the mean value) is negative, and the probability of a positive outcome is low or very low. It is only when the building’s energy use is considerably higher than current BBR requirements that the expected present
value becomes positive, and the probability of profit is high.
The BBR +75 standard building in Kiruna is the one which in analyses
produces the best result at a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C. Here the expected present value (the mean value) is a profit of SEK 44 813, with a
minimum value of SEK 3741 and a maximum value of SEK 84 950 profit. The standard deviation is SEK 13 846. 66.7 per cent of the outcomes
are +/- one standard deviation from the mean value. Since the outcome of
all the calculations is positive, the probability of profit is 100 per cent.
What are the costs for residents?
In order to get an idea of what the costs are for individual residents, we
assume that the entire outcome (profit or loss) falls to them. 71 The results
are presented in Table 14 below, which shows the outcome for the BBR
+75 standard building in Malmö and Kiruna.
71
The total outcome is divided into an annual outcome via an annuity with 4 per cent interest and economic lifetime of 10 years for the investment. The annual outcome is then
divided into a monthly sum per apartment.
Boverket
74
Table 14. Profit/loss in Malmö and Kiruna for standard building BBR +75 with radiator metering. Monthly outcome per apartment. 2014 prices, unchanged in real
terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation period 10 years.
Total outcome
Monthly outcome per
apt
-18 517
-8.2
Mean (SEK)
22 210
9.5
Max (SEK)
62 295
26.7
94.30%
-
3 714
1.6
Mean (SEK)
44 813
19.2
Max (SEK)
84 950
36.5
100.00%
-
Malmö (EON Värme)
Min (SEK)
Probability of profit
Kiruna
(Tekniska verken)
Min (SEK)
Probability of profit
The table shows that if the outcome is divided into an average monthly
sum per apartment, this will vary between a cost increase of just over
SEK 8 and a savings of just under SEK 27 in Malmö. The expected value
is a monthly saving of SEK 9.5 per apartment. The corresponding sum
for Kiruna is an average monthly saving of SEK 19.2. For residents, in
other words, a temperature reduction of one degree leads to fairly moderate average monthly savings.
How many buildings would this involve?
As shown in Table 13, the expected outcome for the BBR +75 standard
building is positive in all four locations studied. The average outcome
varies between a profit of SEK 20 310 in Stockholm and of SEK 44 813
in Kiruna. The section “Heating of existing multi-dwelling buildings in
Sweden” details the energy performance for heating in three climate
zones. To get an idea of how many buildings this would in fact involve,
the following calculation was made.
We will limit ourselves to the BBR +75 standard building since this is the
only one that gives an expected positive outcome in all three climate
zones with a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C. We will further apply the
specific energy use of heating the building to 23 and 21 ˚C, respectively
(according to Figure 13). The standard building in Kiruna will represent
climate zone I, the standard building in Sundsvall climate zone II and the
Boverket
75
standard building in Malmö climate zone III. Using these assumptions,
we get the following estimated number of buildings:
Table 15. A rough estimate of the number of buildings encompassed by the calculations.
Energy
Energy
No of
No of
use at 23 use at 21 buildings buildings
˚C
˚C
if 21 ˚C
if 23 ˚C
Climate
zone
Standard building
kWh/m2
kWh/m2
I
Kiruna BBR +75
213.5
190.4
105
284
II
Sundsvall BBR +75
155.4
134.2
969
2 595
III
Malmö BBR +75
117.2
95.8
22 313
41 113
Total
23 387
43 992
As the table illustrates, the estimate depends on what limit is set for the
specific energy use of the affected buildings. With the limit at 23 ˚C, the
estimated number of buildings is just over 23 000, whereas if the limit is
at 21 ˚C the estimated number reaches just under 44 000.
Summary of the calculations
The results of the calculations thus far indicate the following. Assuming,
as we have, that the temperature reduction in the building is of 1 ˚C, individual metering and charging is not cost-effective in buildings with good
energy performance figures. Most of the country’s housing stock consists
of that type of building.
The analysis further shows that although the probability of profit can be
high in buildings whose baseline energy use is considerably above BBR,
average monthly savings are small. The question is whether the assumed
one-degree temperature reduction will come about in the first place, and
if it does, whether it will last. There are several things that suggest this
will not happen:
• According to SKOP’s survey, far from all residents change their behaviour in terms of energy use as a result of individual metering.
Among other things, the survey shows that only 45 per cent of residents with individual metering have actively tried to use less energy.
Of these, 38 per cent keep indoor temperatures lower.
Boverket
76
• Swedish property owners’ experience of individual metering and
charging is that energy savings are small or non-existent.
• The Act on energy measurement does not require that all heating costs
be divided individually, but the division must be based on measured
consumption. In Denmark, 30-50 per cent of costs are typically divided according to a fixed rate (living space). The economic incentive for
residents to reduce their energy use probably shrinks proportionally to
the size of the fixed cost.
In Step 2 we will go further in our analysis of the BBR +75 standard
building by introducing uncertainty to model’s benefit side as well.
Step 2. Three different outcomes for the temperature change
In the first step, the analysis was made on the assumption that the introduction of individual metering would lead to a certain temperature reduction of 1 ˚C in the building. In this second step of the analysis, we are letting the benefit side be variable as well.
The benefit side
Temperature changes in the building following the installation of individual metering are open to a variety of possibilities. If we set a limit in
the model for a temperature reduction of between 0 ˚C and 2 ˚C, it should
be possible for essentially any value within this range to arise. For example, a temperature reduction of 0.15 ˚C, of 0.83 ˚C or of 1.37 ˚C. The
most obvious approach would therefore be to have the temperature reduction in the model consist of a continuous probability function. Examples
of continuous probability functions are given in Figures 15 and 16, for installation costs and operating costs respectively.
However, calculations of energy use in the standard building have only
been done for a temperature reduction of 0, 1 and 2 ˚C. As a result, the
outcome of individual metering on the model’s benefit side can only assume three different values: no temperature change and reductions of 1
and 2 ˚C respectively. This is included in the model using a discrete
probability distribution (see Figure 20 below). 72 The decision situation
facing a property owner can then be illustrated with the following decision tree.
72
A discrete probability distribution means that the random variable can only assume a
given number of values. In this case, 0, 1 or 2.
Boverket
77
Figure 19. Decision tree with three different outcomes on the benefit side.
p1
investigate
p2
Invest in
IMC?
refrain
1-p1-p2
Zero degree
reduction
1 degree
reduction
2 degrees
reduction
A property owner can chose either to look at the cost-effectiveness of investing in individual metering, or not to. Should he or she choose to do
so, the property owner does not know beforehand which of the three alternatives will become a reality. The outcome can either be no temperature reduction with the probability p1, a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C
with the probability p2, or a 2 ˚C temperature reduction with the probability (1 p1 p2). The sum of the probabilities must add up to 100 per cent.
In part 1 of the commission we argued that a two-degree reduction in
temperature at the building level is unlikely as an effect of individual metering and charging. This is because the savings in SEK terms are small,
and because residents perceive temperature differently, i e everyone does
not act in the same way, from which it follows that everyone does not
lower the temperature by 2 ˚C. We further stated that property owners
who had tried individual metering had not seen a temperature reduction
of 2 ˚C. Despite these statements, we are allowing for the possibility of a
reduction by 2 ˚C in this analysis, albeit giving it a low probability.
As there is considerable uncertainty about the different probabilities, the
economic outcome will be analysed at the following values.
Boverket
78
Table 16. Probability assumptions for three different temperature reduction outcomes.
Temperature reduction due to IMD
0 ˚C
1 ˚C
2 ˚C
Total
20 %
75 %
5%
100 %
30 %
65 %
5%
100 %
40 %
55 %
5%
100 %
50 %
45 %
5%
100 %
Probabilities of 0 and 1 ˚C reduction in temperature are given different
values, while the less likely 2 ˚C reduction is given a 5-per cent probability in all the alternatives. In the first alternative in the table, the discrete
probability distribution in the model is as follows.
Figure 20. Discrete probability distribution on the benefit side of the model. 0 ˚C:
20 per cent, 1 ˚C: 75 per cent, 2 ˚C: 5 per cent.
No temperature reduction (0 ˚C) will be chosen in 20 per cent of the calculations, a 1 ˚C temperature reduction will be chosen in 75 per cent of
the calculations, and a 2 ˚C reduction will be chosen in 5 per cent of the
calculations.
Boverket
79
The cost side
Installation and operating costs are assigned the same triangular probability distributions as in step 1 of the analysis.
The total number of calculations is 30 000, and for each calculation the
computer randomly selects one of the values 0, 1 or 2 ˚C temperature reduction, as well as values from the triangular distributions of installation
and operating costs.
Since the benefit side can now assume three discrete values while installation and operating costs are represented by continuous probability functions, the outcome will have the following characteristics.
Figure 21. Profit/loss in Malmö for the BBR +75 standard building using radiator
metering. 0 ˚C: 20 %, 1 ˚C: 75 %, 2 ˚C: 5 %. EON’s 2014 district heating rates.
The histogram represents the situation in the BBR +75 standard building
in Malmö. In 20 per cent of the calculations (or 6000) the outcome will
be 0 ˚C; in 75 per cent of the calculations (or 22 500) the outcome will be
a temperature reduction of 1 ˚C; and in 5 per cent of the calculations (or
1500) the outcome will be 2 ˚C reduction. The left-hand cluster of bars illustrate the spread of the outcome at 0 ˚C. Since the value of the benefits
is SEK zero (0), the outcome will consist of costs only. The bars in the
middle of the histogram represent the outcome variation when the temperature reduction is 1 ˚C, and the right-hand bars the outcome variation
when the reduction is 2 ˚C.
Boverket
80
When the model chooses 0 ˚C, each calculation yields a loss of SEK 100
000 or more, and this reduces the expected present value of the outcome,
which is SEK 1155. The standard deviation is SEK 68 351. 75 per cent of
the outcomes fall within +/- one standard deviation of the mean value.
The probability of a positive outcome is 75.8 per cent, and represents the
number of all 30 000 calculations with an outcome of SEK 0 or more.
The effect of also including uncertainty on the benefit side of the model is
to worsen the outcome. The expected present value (the mean value) decreases sharply – in Malmö from SEK 22 210 to 1155 – and the risk of
the investment (the standard deviation) increases sharply – in Malmö
from SEK 13 885 to 68 351 – and the number of calculations with a positive outcome drops in Malmö from 94.3 to 75.8 per cent.
The table below compiles the results of all the calculations for the BBR
+75 standard building. 73
73
Boverket
The corresponding results with other district heating rates can be found in Appendix 2.
81
Table 17. Profit/loss in four locations for the BBR +75 standard building with radiator metering. 0, 1 or 2 ˚C temperature reduction in the building, with different
probabilities. District heating rates of companies in each location. 2014 prices,
unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation period 10
years.
Profit/loss
Malmö, EON Värme
P of 0 ˚C
Standard building
20 %
BBR +75
-157 901
30 %
BBR +75
40 %
50 %
Min (SEK) Mean (SEK)
Max (SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
1 155
200 869
68 351
75.8 %
-158 438
-12 882
203 480
76 439
66.4 %
BBR +75
-158 438
-26 919
203 480
81 410
56.9 %
BBR +75
-157 902
-40 956
200 869
83 955
47.6 %
Max (SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
P of 0 ˚C
Standard building
20 %
BBR +75
-157 939
-460
197 668
67 444
74.2 %
30 %
BBR +75
-158 356
-14 307
196 565
75 479
64.9 %
40 %
BBR +75
-158 356
-28 154
196 565
80 415
55.8 %
50 %
BBR +75
-160 541
-42 001
197 668
82 774
46.6 %
Max (SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
P of 0 ˚C
Standard building
20 %
BBR +75
-160 218
3 554
208 019
69 664
77.4 %
30 %
BBR +75
-156 564
-10 765
204 954
78 063
67.7 %
40 %
BBR +75
-156 564
-25 084
204 954
83 127
58.1 %
50 %
BBR +75
-160 218
-39 403
208 019
85 478
48.4 %
P of 0 ˚C
Standard building
20 %
BBR +75
-156 856
30 %
BBR +75
40 %
50 %
Max (SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
20 368
243 429
78 897
80.0 %
-160 831
4 071
242 035
88 269
70.0 %
BBR +75
-160 831
-12 227
242 035
94 160
60.0 %
BBR +75
-158 958
-28 524
243 429
97 106
50.0 %
Boverket
82
The table shows the probability (in percentage terms) of 0 ˚C as well as
the results for the four locations. In Malmö, for example, with a 20 per
cent probability of 0 ˚C (and a 75 per cent probability of 1 ˚C, and a 5 per
cent probability of 2 ˚C), the outcome is the same as that represented in
Figure 21. The expected present value (mean value) is a profit of SEK
1155, and the probability of a positive outcome (SEK 0 or more) is 75.8
per cent.
With a higher probability of 0 ˚C, the outcome worsens. In Malmö, with a
50 per cent probability of 0 ˚C (and consequently a 45 per cent probability of 1 ˚C, and 5 per cent of 2 ˚C), the expected outcome is a loss of SEK
40 956. The probability of a positive outcome is 47.6 per cent. The figure
below is a visual representation of this result.
Figure 22. Profit/loss in Malmö for standard building (BBR +75) and radiator metering. 0 ˚C: 50 %, 1 ˚C: 45 %, 2 ˚C: 5 %. EON’s 2014 district heating rates. 2014
prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation
period 10 years.
0 ˚C is assigned a probability of 50 per cent, meaning that 15 000 of 30
000 calculations carried out receive that value. The left-hand side of the
bar therefore contains most values. A temperature reduction of one degree has a probability of 45 per cent, and 13 500 of 30 000 calculations
fall within the central cluster of bars. 1500 calculations are assigned a
temperature reduction of 2 ˚C. The expected present value of the outcome
is a loss of SEK 40 956, the standard deviation is SEK 83 955, and the
probability of a positive outcome 47.6 per cent.
Boverket
83
The tendency in Malmö, for a worse expected outcome and a higher risk
when the probability of 0 ˚C is higher, can also be seen in the other locations, as shown in Table 17. In Kiruna, for example, with a 20 per cent
probability of 0 ˚C, the expected present value of the outcome is a profit
of SEK 20 368. The standard deviation is SEK 78 897. And the probability of a positive outcome is 80 per cent. With a 50 per cent probability of
0 ˚C, the expected outcome is a loss of SEK 28 524, the standard deviation is SEK 97 106, and the probability of a positive outcome 50 per cent.
Since we have also modelled a temperature reduction of 2 ˚C and assigned it a low probability of 5 per cent, the maximum values in the table
will be determined by this. In Kiruna, for example, the maximum outcome is approximately SEK 243 000. If this less likely outcome were to
occur in reality, and we assumed that the entire sum fell to the residents,
that would mean an average monthly saving of SEK 104 per apartment.
Sensitivity analysis
In the results presented above (the principal alternative), the variable energy price is assumed to be unchanged in real terms, i e that it increases at
the rate of inflation. Further, property owners’ requirement on returns, the
real rate of interest, is assumed to be 4 per cent annually.
If we let the variable energy price increase in real terms by 2 per cent annually (instead of 0 per cent), everything else being equal, this leads to
improved results. In Malmö, at a 20 per cent probability of 0 degrees (and
a 75 per cent probability of 1 degree, and 5 per cent of 2 degrees), the expected present value lands on SEK 8 746, the standard deviation on SEK
72 523, and the probability of profit 79.4 per cent. The corresponding
figures for the principal alternative, with the energy price unchanged in
real terms, are SEK 1155, SEK 68 351 and 75.8 per cent, respectively.
Improvements are also obtained for the other standard buildings and the
other locations.
If property owners’ requirement on returns is assumed to be 6 per cent instead of 4, as in the principal alternative, we obtain worse results. In
Malmö, at a 20 per cent probability of 0 degrees, the expected present
value is a loss of SEK 3675, the standard deviation SEK 62 077 and the
probability of profit 70.8 per cent. The corresponding figures for the principal alternative, with a 4 per cent real rate of calculation interest, are
SEK 1155, SEK 68 351 and 75.8 per cent, respectively. Worse results are
also obtained for the other standard buildings and the other locations.
Boverket
84
Conclusions
As with all investments, those in individual metering and charging are associated with uncertainty. There is considerable uncertainty on the benefit
as well as the cost side. It is unclear whether the temperature in a building
is reduced with individual metering, and if so by how much. A temperature reduction is necessary to generate benefits. Furthermore, the cost data obtained shows a considerable spread.
The question being answered in the report is this: when is profitable, in
the business economics sense, to divide the cost of heating using heat
cost allocators in existing multi-dwelling buildings? For the sake of clarity, the analysis has been divided into two steps. In the first step it is assumed that the introduction of individual metering leads to a certain
temperature reduction by one degree in the building. Installation and operating costs vary on the basis of predefined probability distributions. In
the second step, the temperature reduction is also allowed to vary in the
model, between 0, 1, and 2 ˚C with different probabilities.
When the temperature reduction in the model is held constant at 1 ˚C, at
the building level, the analysis shows that it is hard to get a return on an
investment in radiator metering in existing buildings when their energy
use is in line with current BBR requirements or slightly higher. The expected value (the mean value) is negative, i e unprofitable, and the probability of a positive outcome is low or very low. In order for the expected
value of the outcome to be positive, i e profitable, the building’s energy
use at the outset must be considerably above BBR. According to information from the register of energy performance reports, this would encompass a few hundred properties in climate zone I, a few thousand in
climate zone II and 25 – 40 000 properties in climate zone III.
There are, however, no guarantees that an investment in individual metering and charging actually leads to a temperature reduction in the building.
This is shown by Boverket’s follow-up, by SKOP’s survey and by the
experiences gained by property owners who made the investment. It is
therefore necessary to take this uncertainty, or risk, into account in the
analysis. This is done in the second step by introducing different probabilities into the model for a temperature reduction of 0, 1 and 2 ˚C.
The effect of including uncertainty to the benefit side in the model as well
is to worsen the outcome. The expected present value (the mean value)
drops, the investment’s risk (the standard deviation) rises sharply, and the
number of calculations with a positive outcome decreases. The calculation result shows that the most likely outcome for a property owner who
Boverket
85
invests in individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators is
that it will not be a profitable investment. The calculation result moreover
shows that such an investment is risky.
The variation in the cost data obtained and used in the calculation is considerable. Our assumption when calculating costs has been that the installation and operation will be trouble-free, but there are experiences of
problematic installations and perhaps especially of operation problems.
We have not included further costs for complaints etc – instead the operating cost only includes those associated with the service contract. Neither have we used the most expensive installation cost data from SABO.
The follow-up of Berndtsson’s 2003 report shows that implementing a
system like this is often fraught with difficulties, and that it can take years
to get it to work satisfactorily. All of these factors can imply higher costs
than those applied in the calculation.
If we turn away from calculations and look to reality we can see that
many property owners who once installed individual metering of heating
have abandoned it. This has been either because the temperature reduction in the building did not turn out as big as expected, or because the
cost became too high – or a combination of both. Siggelsten (2013) is of
the view that there is a strong resistance to individual metering of heating
in tenant-owner associations. This is explained by a low level of
knowledge about the technology and the perception that individual metering is not cost-effective. Tenant-owner associations often have difficulties
assessing the energy savings potential and profitability. In many respects,
experiences of individual metering and charging in Sweden point to the
same conclusions as the calculation results presented in this report.
Boverket’s overall assessment is that an investment in individual metering and charging using heat cost allocators will not be cost-effective, and
that the investment appears risky. Since a requirement for individual metering and charging of heating using heat cost allocators in all likelihood
would mean unprofitable investments for the majority of property owners, Boverket proposes that no such requirement be imposed on existing
buildings. It follows from this that Boverket is not making any proposals
for regulatory provisions.
Boverket
86
Individual metering and charging
using temperature metering
Boverket’s general assessment of individual metering and charging using
heat cost allocators is that it is not a cost-effective method. The government commission states that Boverket in that case is to consider whether
requirements should instead be imposed for temperature metering or for
other alternative metering methods. Boverket is not aware of any other alternative metering methods than temperature metering. We have therefore
examined temperature metering only.
The question being answered in this section is: when is it profitable, in a
business economics sense, to charge an apartment for its heating cost on
the basis of measured temperatures (temperature metering) in existing
multi-dwelling buildings?
The section explains, in brief, how temperature metering works and how
charging is normally done. It then describes the benefit side and the cost
side of metering and charging heating using temperature metering, and
Boverket’s calculation model. The final section presents the results of the
cost-effectiveness calculations, Boverket’s analysis of and conclusions
from these, and proposals.
This section shows that:
• The variation in the cost data obtained is considerable. Installation
costs vary between SEK 3640 and 7250 per apartment. Operating
costs vary between SEK 220 and 400 per apartment and year.
• It is unclear whether, and if so by how much, temperatures are reduced in buildings with temperature metering. The experience of public housing companies of temperature metering is that the temperature
remains the same or increases somewhat. A temperature reduction is
necessary to create benefits.
• Boverket’s assessment of the calculation results is that individual metering and charging using temperature metering is not a cost-effective,
or profitable, investment. This is because the expected present value is
negative in all the calculations.
• Since a requirement for individual metering of heating using temperature metering would imply unprofitable investments for many property owners, Boverket proposes that individual metering and charging of
Boverket
87
heating using temperature metering not be required in existing buildings. For that reason, Boverket is not making any proposals for regulatory provisions.
Charging on the basis of temperature
Those public housing companies that use temperature metering in their
housing stock apply more or less the same method for measuring temperature and charging on that basis. The rent usually includes a temperature
of 21 ˚C, but residents can often choose a temperature between 18 and 23
˚C, depending on the comfort level they desire. For every degree that the
temperature is lowered or raised, the resident receives or has to pay a corresponding sum of money. For example, residents in Lunds kommuns
fastighets AB (LKF) receive SEK 5 per m2 and degree. If the temperature
is reduced from 21 to 20 ˚C in an apartment of 70 m2, the household receives SEK 350 back per year. As the temperature is only measured during the heating period, which is seven months of the year, that makes
SEK 50 a month. 74 Other public housing companies with temperature
metering, e g Helsingsborgshem, Örebrobostäder and Kalmarhem AB,
use similar methods for charging.
The weakness in temperature metering is that an apartment’s temperature
can be raised by other sources than the heating system, e g heat generated
by people, heat from cooking or sun exposure. The temperature can also
be reduced by having windows open. Housing companies use different
techniques to deal with this, e g by disregarding extreme overtemperatures or punishing those tenants who air their apartments to an
unusual extent in order to lower room temperatures.
Article 9 of the Energy Efficiency Directive includes individual metering
that shows the final user’s actual energy use and provides information
about actual usage time. Appendix VII of the directive, which describes
the minimum requirements for billing and billing information, states that
the billing information must include current actual prices and actual energy use, as well as the possibility to compare the final user’s current energy use with their use during the same period in the preceding year. Temperature metering means that indoor temperature, not energy use, is
measured in the apartment. The metering method thus provides no information about actual energy use for each apartment, meaning that residents cannot be informed of this. It is therefore doubtful whether the
method is comprehended by the Energy Efficiency Directive. Irrespective
74
Consultation with LKF on 24 Mar 2014.
Boverket
88
of this, the same type of cost-effectiveness calculations will be made for
temperature metering as for radiator metering.
The benefit side – energy savings through lowered
temperatures
In order to analyse whether temperature metering is cost-effective, additional energy calculations were carried out on the assumption that the
temperature the standard building is lowered from 21 to 20 ˚C when the
metering method is introduced. This gives us the theoretical energy savings of a reduction in temperature by 1 ˚C.
Projektengagemang AB carried out the additional energy calculations to
highlight the potential energy savings. See Appendix 5 for a full report of
their work. Below is a brief summary of the method and the calculation
results.
Method for energy calculations
The calculations were made for the same standard buildings as those used
in part 1 of the report and in the analysis of heat cost allocators: a lowrise building with six apartments per floor, three entrances with stairwells, four floors and an area of 2 310 m2 Atemp. 75 The standard building
was placed in four locations – Malmö, Stockholm, Sundsvall and Kiruna
– representing three climate zones.
In the calculations it was assumed that the overall temperature of the
standard building would be reduced as a result of individual metering,
from 21 to 20 ˚C. The energy savings of this reduction in temperature
were calculated for four standard buildings with different specific energy
use (energy performance), intended to represent the existing housing
stock. The energy performance figures of the four buildings corresponded
to BBR’s minimum requirement for energy economy 76, and to 25, 50 and
75 per cent worse energy performance figures than BBR’s requirement,
which is equivalent to a specific energy use in the range of 90 – 250
kWh/m2. These standard buildings will be referred the below as BBR,
BBR +25, BBR +50 and BBR +75.
Results of energy calculations
The energy calculations show energy savings of 3,8 – 11,0 kWh/m2 and
year in the four standard buildings. Energy savings vary depending on the
75
The number of floors, stairwells and overall area of the building were modelled on
mean values of statistics in Boverket’s register of energy performance reports.
76
According to BBR 21, i e 90 kWh/m2/year in climate zone I, 110 kWh/m2/year in climate zone II and 130 kWh/m2/year in climate zone III.
Boverket
89
building’s energy performance and geographical location. Table 18
shows the results of the simulations for each standard building.
Table 18. Energy savings in kWh/m2 and year (Atemp) as a result of a temperature reduction for the building as a whole, from 21 to 20 ˚C.
Reduced energy use for heating at 1 ˚C temperature
reduction (kWh/m2/year)
Standard
building
Stockholm
Malmö
Sundsvall
Kiruna
BBR
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.8
BBR+25
6.1
6.3
6.9
7.4
BBR+50
7.2
7.5
7.9
8.7
BBR+75
9.2
9.7
9.9
11.0
Installation and operating costs
The cost items used in the calculation are for the installation of the meters
and the annual operating cost. Installation costs include the cost of material as well as work to install the equipment required for metering. The
operating cost here is for administering the data collection and billing
system.
Temperature metering is a technology developed and used by public
housing companies in Sweden. Cost data has also been obtained from
them. In order to learn about their experiences, SABO carried out a questionnaire survey on Boverket’s behalf among members who meter heating individually using this technology. Boverket also met with public
housing companies that meter heating individually using temperature metering, including Lunds kommuns fatsighets AB and Uppsalahem.
Installation costs
Below is a presentation of installation costs for temperature metering.
The information is from public housing companies and consultant Bo
Frank, who compiled installation and operating costs for Boverket. All
costs include VAT.
Boverket
90
Table 19. Installation costs for temperature metering, per apartment and including
VAT.
Source
Installation cost,
SEK/apt incl VAT
Comment
Consultant’s
report, Appendix 6
3 640 – 5 600 Price includes three sensors, a share in
a central unit, installation costs, initial
starting and programming.
Uppsalahem
6 000 – 7 250
Price includes installation and initial
starting, installation instructions and
documentation from supplier, wiring,
piping and installation of material provided. One collection unit per apartment.
LKF
4 200 – 4 800
Average price of installation.
Bostads AB Mimer
6 000
One meter per apartment on average,
24 meters in total, no collection units,
wired.
Marks Bostads AB
2 000
SEK 1000/meter for the meter and installation (estimated cost). Wireless. All
new material.
Appendix 6 includes a technical description plus detailed cost information on the installation of temperature metering. Consultant Bo Frank,
who compiled the information, specifies an installation cost in the range
of SEK 3640 – 5600, which includes the cost of the necessary equipment,
temperature meters and a share of the building’s central collection unit, as
well as installation and initial starting.
With the exception of Marks Bostads AB, the public housing companies
quote installation costs in the range of SEK 4200 – 7250 per apartment.
In most cases this includes the cost of meters, a central collection unit, installation and initial starting. Uppsalahem also includes the cost of piping
and wiring. Uppsalahem, as it happens, has a slightly higher cost – probably due to the fact that the system requires one collection unit per apartment. 77
Boverket’s assessment is that an installation cost in the range of SEK
3640 – 7250 per apartment is reasonable to use as input data in the costeffectiveness calculations for temperature metering.
77
Information from SABO’s survey of member companies with temperature metering,
consultation meeting with Fastighetsägarna, SABO, Uppsalahem and others on 13 Apr
2015, meeting with LKF on 24 Mar 2014.
Boverket
91
Operating cost
The operating cost of temperature metering depends partly on whether
the company maintains the system or whether this is done by an external
contractor. If the housing company maintains it, which is common among
the large public companies, it is hard to assess the operating cost. Helsingborgshem and Kalmarhem, for example, were unable to state a specific operating cost per apartment since much of the work is done by the
company’s employees.
Uppsalahem reported paying about SEK 360 per apartment and year for
operation, which includes measurement data collection, charging files, responsibility for the system, a web-based presentation system and fault reporting. 78 Additionally, the company devotes a couple of hours a month
to dealing with complaints and other maintenance of the building in question, e g replacement of faulty meters and collection units. A representative of Uppsalahem, who is responsible for the company’s temperature
metering, said that the actual operating cost is at least SEK 500 per
apartment and year, and probably more than that.79
Lunds kommuns fastighets AB (LKF) quotes an operating cost for their
temperature metering system of about SEK 320 per apartment and year.80
Flen Bosatd AB quotes a somewhat higher operating cost – SEK 400 per
apartment and year for the reading service. In addition to this, the company has had costs for information efforts (SEK 20 – 25 000), dealing with
complaints, information to new tenants etc.81
Boverket’s assessment is that operating costs of heat meters and domestic
hot water meters are similar to those of temperature metering. In each
case it is a matter of collecting and processing measurement data. Previously obtained information about operating costs of domestic hot water
and heat meters can therefore complement the above information on
costs. Hyresbostäder Norrköping quotes an operating cost of SEK 220
per apartment and year for its heating (heat meters) and domestic hot water operations. Bostads AB Mimer pays its energy company SEK 375 per
apartment and year for operations and billing. 82
78
Questionnaire survey by SABO of member companies using temperature metering.
Consultation meeting with Fastighetsägarna, SABO, Uppsalahem and others on 13 Apr
2015.
80
Meeting with LKF on 24 Mar 2014. SEK 300 for the service contract plus SEK 50 000
in total administrative costs per year, which makes about SEK 20 per apartment as 2719
apartments have temperature metering installed.
81
Questionnaire survey by SABO of member companies using temperature metering.
82
79
Boverket
92
To sum up, operating costs in the range of SEK 220 – 400, per apartment
and year and including VAT, are deemed appropriate for use in the costeffectiveness calculations. These costs are conservative as they do not include costs of e g dealing with complaints, providing information and
maintaining the metering system.
The calculation model
The model for calculating the cost-effectiveness of temperature metering
is an investment calculation created in Excel with the following components:
• Calculation period 10 years.
• Energy use for heating is divided on a monthly basis.
• Four locations are included: Malmö, Stockholm, Sundsvall and Kiruna.
• Two district heating rates for Malmö. Stockholm and Sundsvall, and
one rate for Kiruna.
• Real rate of interest, four per cent in the principal alternative.
• Installation costs and annual operating costs for the standard building.
• Calculations use 2014 prices.
• Prices include VAT.
The analysis is at the building level. To carry out the calculations, data on
the total energy use for heating at 21 and 20 ˚C is input for each standard
building in the four locations.
The model outputs:
• NV (benefits), which are present-value calculations of the benefits
(the value of the energy savings and the value of the power savings).
• NV (costs), which are present-value calculations of the costs (installation and operation).
NV (benefits) – NV (costs) > 0 means that the investment is costeffective.
Boverket
93
Calculations, results and analysis
The benefit side
The analysis for temperature metering assumes that 21 ˚C is included in
the rent. The introduction of temperature metering is assumed to lead to a
1 ˚C temperature reduction in the building, to 20 ˚C. The benefit side of
the calculation is held constant, while the cost side is allowed to vary in
accordance with the probability distributions specified.
Table 20 below presents the energy reduction that a lowering of the temperature from 21 to 20 ˚C leads to in two standard buildings, BBR and
BBR +75, in two of a total of four locations, Malmö and Kiruna.
Table 20. Energy use for heating in two different standard buildings in Malmö and
Kiruna, at 21 and 20 ˚C, and the change in percentage terms.
Malmö
Kiruna
Energy use for
heating
kWh
kWh/m2
21 ˚C
77 727
33.6
20 ˚C
68 474
29.6
21 ˚C
221 240
95.8
20 ˚C
198 530
85.9
Energy use for
heating
∆%
kWh
kWh/m2
176 450
76.4
165 293
71.6
439 884
190.4
414 495
179.4
∆%
BBR
-11.90 %
-6.3 %
BBR +75
-10.26 %
-5.8 %
The BBR standard building in Malmö uses 77 727 kWh a year for heating (33.6 kWh/m2) at a temperature of 21 ˚C. If the temperature is lowered by 1 ˚C to 20 ˚C, energy use is reduced by 9253 kWh (to 29,6
kWh/m2), or 11.9 per cent. In Kiruna the BBR standard building uses
176 450 kWh (76.4 kWh/m2) annually, at 21 ˚C. A lowering of the temperature to 20 ˚C leads to energy use being reduced by 11 157 kWh (to
71.6 kWh/m2), or 6.3 per cent.
When the standard building uses more energy from the outset, a lowering
of the temperature by 1 ˚C leads to a greater reduction in energy use, in
absolute terms. In percentage terms, however, the reduction is smaller. In
Malmö energy use is 221 240 kWh per year (95.8 kWh/m2) in the BBR
+75 standard building at 21 ˚C. A lowering of the temperature to 20 ˚C
leads to energy use being reduced by 22 710 kWh per year (to 85,9
kWh/m2), or 10.3 per cent. Finally, the BBR +75 standard building in Ki-
Boverket
94
runa uses 439 884 kWh per year (190.4 kWh/m2) at 21 ˚C. At 20 ˚C, use
is reduced by 25 389 kWh (to 179.4 kWh/m2), or 5.8 per cent.
In order to put a value on the reduction in energy use that a one-degree
lowering of the building’s temperature leads to, we use district heating
rates for each location.83
The cost side
As described in the presentation of installation costs, Boverket’s assessment is that installation costs in the range of SEK 3640 – 7250 per apartment are reasonable to use in the calculations. Thus, for the standard
buildings with 24 apartments, installation costs vary between SEK 87 360
and SEK 174 000. Assuming a triangular distribution of the cost, this can
be represented as follows.
Figure 23. Triangular distribution of the installation cost of temperature metering
in the standard building (SEK).
The minimum value is set at SEK 87 360, the most likely value at SEK
130 685 and the maximum value at SEK 174 000. The mean value is the
midway point in that range, and coincides with the most likely value. In
half of the simulations the installation cost will be in the range of SEK 87
360 – 139 680, while it will be in the range of SEK 130 680 – 174 000 in
the other half.
83
Boverket
See Appendix 7 for district heating rates.
95
The operating cost is in the range of SEK 220 – 400 per apartment and
year. For the entire building of 24 apartments, the range is SEK 5280 –
9600 per year. Here, too, we assume a triangular probability distribution,
which gives us a distribution as shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Triangular distribution of annual operating cost with temperature metering in the standard building (SEK).
The minimum value is set at SEK 5280, the most likely value at SEK
7440 and the maximum value at SEK 9600. The mean value is the midway point in that range, and coincides with the most likely value. In half
of the simulations the installation cost will be in the range of SEK 5280 –
7440, while it will be in the range of SEK 7440 – 9600 in the other half.
The benefit side of the model consists of the savings in energy and power
obtained during the lifetime of the investment when the temperature in
the building is reduced from 21 to 20 ˚C. This is held constant in all calculations. 10 000 calculations are carried out, and in each one value are
randomly chosen from the probability distributions for the installation
and operating costs. The final result – how many of the calculations are
profitable and how many are unprofitable – cam be summarised in a
graph.
The figure below is a graph of the outcome for the BBR standard building in Malmö, with EON’s district heating rates.
Boverket
96
Figure 25. Profit/loss in Malmö of the BBR standard building with temperature
metering. EON’s 2014 district heating rates. 2014 prices, unchanged in real
terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation period 10 years.
The BBR standard building in Malmö reduces its energy use by 9253
kWh per year when the temperature is reduced from 21 to 20 ˚C. The present value of the energy and power savings is SEK 62 417. As can be
seen in the figure, this return is not sufficient to obtain a positive outcome. None of the simulations yields a profit. The expected present value
is a loss of SEK 128 607. The “best” result is a loss of SEK 70 736. Table
21 presents the results for all four locations.
Boverket
97
Table 21. Profit/loss in four locations with different standard buildings using temperature metering. District heating rates of companies in each location. 2014
prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent. Calculation
period 10 years.
Profit/loss
Malmö, EON Värme
Standard building
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-183 675
-128 608
-70 736
0.00%
BBR +25
-158 278
-101 595
-47 851
0.00%
BBR +50
-140 566
-84 077
-27 915
0.00%
BBR + 75
-107 117
-52 317
2 250
0.04%
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-180 817
-125 149
-68 554
0.00%
BBR +25
-149 469
-96 258
-41 590
0.00%
BBR +50
-138 133
-81 619
-25 499
0.00%
BBR + 75
-109 986
-56 075
-2 412
0.00%
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-176 219
-121 544
-68 830
0.00%
BBR +25
-145 500
-91 358
-37 628
0.00%
BBR +50
-134 580
-78 028
-20 731
0.00%
BBR + 75
-106 382
-50 807
5 166
0.08%
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-168 731
-112 892
-59 986
0.00%
BBR +25
-136 219
-79 124
-24 544
0.00%
BBR +50
-117 360
-62 769
-7 839
0.00%
BBR + 75
-85 331
-30 609
23 678
5.62%
Standard building
Standard building
Standard building
The calculation results show that, given the assumptions about cost and
energy savings, it is not cost-effective to use temperature metering in the
Boverket
98
standard buildings. The expected present value (the mean value) is negative in every case, and the likelihood of a positive outcome is very low.
Conclusions
Installation costs are higher for temperature metering than for radiator
metering. The analysis assumes that the temperature in the building will
be reduced by 1 ˚C when temperature metering is installed. The expected
present value of the installation is negative in all of the standard buildings
looked at. The probability that the investment will be profitable is very
low.
Boverket’s conclusion from the calculations is that individual metering
and charging using temperature metering is not cost-effective. Since a requirement for temperature metering would imply unprofitable investments for many property owners, Boverket proposes that individual metering and charging of heating using temperature metering not be required
in existing buildings. For that reason, Boverket is not making any proposals for regulatory provisions.
The unambiguous result, and its implication that temperature metering is
not cost-effective, were reached under the assumption that the temperature would drop by 1 ˚C in the building following installation. The experience of public housing companies, however, is that the temperature
does not drop when temperature metering is installed. Almost without
exception, the housing companies with temperature metering that responded to SABO’s survey about their experiences of temperature metering reported unchanged indoor temperatures in buildings with temperature metering. Some companies even reported seeing temperatures slightly above the 21 ˚C that is usually included with the rent in buildings that
use temperature metering.
Boverket
99
References
Boverket (2008). Individuell mätning och debitering i flerbostadshus.
Karlskrona: Boverket ISBN: 978-91-86045-24-1
Boverket (2010). Energi i bebyggelsen – tekniska egenskaper och beräkningar – resultat från projektet BETSI. Karlskrona: Boverket.
ISBN: 978-91-86559-83-0
Boverket (2011). Teknisk status i den svenska bebyggelsen – resultat
från projektet BETSI. Karlskrona: Boverket. ISBN: 978-91-86559-71-7
Boverket (2014). Individuell mätning och debitering vid nyoch ombyggnad, rapport 2014:29. Karlskrona: Boverket: ISBN: 978-91-7563173-8
Energimyndigheten (1999). Utredning angående erfarenheter av individuell mätning av värme och varmvatten i svenska flerbostadshus,
(Utredare Lennart Berndtsson) Energimyndigheten, ER 24:1999,
Eskilstuna
Energimyndigheten (2003). Individuell värmemätning i svenska flerbostadshus – En lägesrapport. (Utredare Lennart Berndtsson) Energimyndigheten, projektnummer P11835-2, Eskilstuna
Energimyndigheten (2012). Vattenanvändningen i hushåll, rapport
2012:03. Eskilstuna: Energimyndigheten. ISSN 1403-1892
Jagemark & Bergsten (2003). Individuell värmemätning i flerbostadshus, rapport 2003:02. ISBN: 91-7848-956-3
Proposition 2013/14:174. Genomförande av energieffektiviseringsdirektivet. Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet
Promemoria N2013/2873/E. Förslag till genomförande av energieffektiviseringsdirektivet i Sverige. Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet
Siggelsten, Simon & Hansson, Bengt (2010). Incentives for individual
metering and charging, Journal of Facilities Management, vol. 8, nr.
4, pp. 299-307
Siggelsten, Simon & Olander, Stefan (2013). Individual metering and
charging of heat and hot water in Swedish housing cooperatives, Energy Policy 61, pp. 874-880
Boverket
100
Siggelsten, Simon & Olander, Stefan (2010). Individual heat metering
and charging of multi-dwelling residential housing, Structural Survey, vol. 28, nr. 3, pp. 207-2014
Siggelsten Simon (2013). Reallocation of heating costs due to heat
transfer between adjacent apartments, Energy and Buildings 75, pp.
256-263
Siggelsten, Simon et al (2014). Analysis of the accuracy of individual
heat metering and charging, Open house international, vol. 39, nr. 2
Svensson (2012). Problem och möjligheter med individuell mätning
och debitering av värme i flerbostadshus, www.bebostad.se.
Legal texts
Bekendtgørelse om individuel måling af el, gas, vand, varme og køling,
BEK nr 563 af 02/06/2014.
Bekendtgørelse om varmefordelingsmålere, der anvendes som grundlag
for fordeling af varmeudgifter, BEK nr 1166 af 03/11/2014
Bekendtgørelse om krav til målerinstallatører, som monterer, skalerer og
servicerer varmefordelingsmålere, BEK nr 1167 af 03/11/2014.
Boverket
101
Appendix 1 – Sensitivity analyses
Results of step 1 of the analysis using alternative
district heating rates
Table 22 presents the results of step 1 of the analysis (1 ˚C temperature
reduction) with alternative district heating companies for Malmö, Stockholm and Sundsvall.
metering. Temperature reduction of 1 ˚C. District heating rates from alternative
companies in each location. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest
rate of four per cent.
Profit/loss
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean Max (SEK)
(SEK)
Standard P of profit
dev (SEK)
Kraftringen
BBR
-85 162
-41 634
301
13 911
0.0 %
BBR +25
-55 564
-12 859
30 817
13 981
18.9 %
BBR +50
-38 308
3 802
46 153
14 052
59.6 %
BBR +75
-6 661
34 405
79 068
14 109
99.6 %
Stockholm
Min (SEK)
Mean Max (SEK)
(SEK)
dev (SEK)
EON Bro
BBR
-92 460
-50 358
-10 998
13 834
0.0 %
BBR +25
-61 995
-19 780
21 378
13 809
8.1 %
BBR +50
-47 029
-5 194
36 976
13 907
36.2 %
BBR +75
-19 750
23 075
65 765
14 126
94.6 %
Sundsvall
Min (SEK)
Mean Max (SEK)
(SEK)
dev (SEK)
Öviks Energi
BBR
-88 469
-47 430
-3 142
14 285
0.0 %
BBR +25
-52 163
-11 129
33 650
13 869
22.3 %
BBR +50
-36 292
5 879
47 993
13 980
66.1 %
BBR +75
-3 650
41 421
86 875
14 857
99.9 %
Boverket
102
Results of step 2 of the analysis using alternative
district heating rates
Table 23 presents the results of step 2 of the analysis (temperature reductions of 0, 1 and 2 ˚C) for the BBR +75 standard building located in
Malmö, Stockholm and Sundsvall, with alternative district heating companies.
metering. District heating rates from alternative companies in each location. 2014
prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent.
Profit/loss
P för 0 ˚C
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
Kraftringen
20 %
BBR + 75
-159 091
11 521
227 041
74 184
79.7%
30 %
BBR + 75
-160 055
-3 736
226 711
82 897
69.7%
40 %
BBR + 75
-160 055
-18 992
226 711
88 388
59.7%
50 %
BBR + 75
-159 091
-34 248
227 041
91 068
49.8%
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
Stockholm
EON Bro
20 %
BBR + 75
-157 071
1 890
201 663
68 877
76.3%
30 %
BBR + 75
-160 205
-12 233
203 079
76 966
66.7%
40 %
BBR + 75
-160 205
-26 357
203 079
82 029
57.2%
50 %
BBR + 75
-158 218
-40 480
201 663
84 432
47.7%
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard dev
(SEK)
P of profit
Sundsvall
Öviks Energi
Boverket
20 %
BBR + 75
-158 975
17 484
239 462
77 540
79.9%
30 %
BBR + 75
-158 163
1 526
241 480
86 743
69.9%
40 %
BBR + 75
-158 821
-14 431
241 480
92 403
60.0%
50 %
BBR + 75
-159 503
-30 389
239 462
95 165
50.0%
103
Results with uniform probability distributions for the
installation and operating costs
Figure 26. Uniform distribution of installation costs of radiator metering, per
apartment and including VAT.
Figure 27. Uniform distribution of annual operating costs of radiator metering, per
apartment and including VAT.
Boverket
104
Results of step 1 of the analysis using uniform probability
distribution
reduction) using a uniform distribution of installation and operating costs.
from companies in each location. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent.
Profit/loss
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-97 733
-49 661
-2 607
19 705
0.0 %
BBR +25
-71 441
-22 556
26 175
19 991
14.7 %
BBR +50
-53 640
-5 240
42 325
19 872
41.1 %
BBR +75
-23 366
22 210
67 463
19 574
85.1 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-93 626
-48 247
-2 053
19 482
0.0 %
BBR +25
-65 363
-20 209
24 781
19 499
17.2 %
BBR +50
-51 922
-6 173
39 084
19 436
39.7 %
BBR +75
-26 604
20 310
67 269
19 536
82.7 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-92 875
-47 092
-1 085
19 577
0.0 %
BBR +25
-62 818
-19 334
24 951
19 125
18.6 %
BBR +50
-34 685
13 163
61 347
19 647
71.9 %
BBR +75
-22 227
25 033
71 979
19 620
88.3 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max
(SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-83 702
-37 900
8 343
19 390
1.4 %
BBR +25
-49 956
-4 577
41 336
19 526
42.4 %
BBR +50
-34 152
11 736
58 206
19 576
69.3 %
EON Värme
Stockholm
Fortum Trygg
Sundsvall
Sundsvall Energi
Kiruna
Tekniska verken
Boverket
105
Profit/loss
BBR +75
-491
44 813
90 368
19 543
100.0 %
Results of step 1 of the analysis using uniform probability distribution and alternative district heating rates
reduction) using a uniform distribution of installation and operating costs
with alternative district heating companies in Malmö, Stockholm and
Sundsvall.
from companies in each location. 2014 prices, unchanged in real terms. Real interest rate of four per cent.
Profit/loss
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-88 092
-41 634
4 661
19 569
0.5 %
BBR +25
-59 727
-12 859
34 358
19 623
28.6 %
BBR +50
-43 353
3 802
50 784
19 711
55.6 %
BBR +75
-12 782
34 405
82 483
19 670
96.4 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-96 529
-50 358
-4 964
19 496
0.0%
BBR +25
-65 736
-19 780
26 153
19 450
17.7 %
BBR +50
-51 447
-5 194
41 198
19 576
41.2 %
BBR +75
-24 099
23 075
70 781
19 715
86.3 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max (SEK)
Standard
dev (SEK)
P of profit
BBR
-94 738
-47 430
686
19 868
0.0 %
BBR +25
-57 052
-11 129
35 510
19 514
31.5 %
BBR +50
-41 473
5 879
52 910
19 583
60.2 %
BBR +75
-8 556
41 421
91 480
20 295
98.8 %
Kraftringen
Stockholm
EON Bro
Sundsvall
Öviks Energi
Boverket
106
distribution
Malmö, Stockholm and Sundsvall, using a uniform distribution of installation and operating costs.
Table 26. Profit/loss in four different locations for the BBR +75 standard building
using radiator metering. 0, 1 or 2 ˚C temperature reduction in the building, with
different probabilities. District heating rates from companies in each location.
Profit/loss
P of
0 ˚C
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Max Standard P of profit
(SEK) dev (SEK)
EON
Värme
20 %
BBR +75
-162 633
1 155
206 323
69 704
68.9 %
30 %
BBR +75
-162 633
-12 882
206 323
77 712
60.3 %
40 %
BBR +75
-162 633
-26 919
206 323
82 775
51.9 %
50 %
BBR +75
-162 633
-40 956
206 323
85 093
43.4 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Stockholm
(SEK) dev (SEK)
Fortum
Trygg
20 %
BBR +75
-162 671
-460
203 022
68 788
67.0 %
30 %
BBR +75
-163 132
-14 307
203 022
76 742
58.8 %
40 %
BBR +75
-163 132
-28 154
203 022
81 619
50.6 %
50 %
BBR +75
-163 132
-42 001
203 022
83 883
42.2 %
Sundsvall Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
(SEK) dev (SEK)
Sundsvall
Energi
20 %
BBR +75
-163 079
3 554
212 695
70 991
71.6 %
30 %
BBR +75
-163 079
-10 765
212 695
79 197
62.6 %
40 %
BBR +75
-163 079
-25 084
212 695
84 129
53.7 %
50 %
BBR +75
-163 079
-39 403
212 695
86 563
44.8 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
Kiruna
Boverket
(SEK) dev (SEK)
107
Profit/loss
Tekniska
verken
20 %
BBR +75
-162 210
20 368
250 947
80 077
80.0 %
30 %
BBR +75
-162 458
4 071
250 947
89 417
70.0 %
40 %
BBR +75
-162 495
-12 227
250 947
95 285
60.0 %
50 %
BBR +75
-162 495
-28 524
250 947
98 107
50.0 %
distribution and alternative district heating rates
Malmö, Stockholm and Sundsvall, with alternative district heating companies and using a uniform distribution of installation and operating
costs.
Boverket
108
Table 27. Profit/loss in four different locations for the BBR +75 standard building
using radiator metering. 0, 1 or 2 ˚C temperature reduction in the building, with
different probabilities. District heating rates from companies in each location.
Profit/loss
P of
0 ˚C
Malmö
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
(SEK) dev (SEK)
20 % BBR +75
-162 834
11 521
231 393
75 467
77.3%
30 % BBR +75
-162 834
-3 736
231 393
84 229
67.7 %
40 % BBR +75
-162 834
-18 992
231 393
89 632
58.0 %
50 % BBR +75
-162 834
-34 248
231 393
92 121
48.4 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
20 % BBR +75
-162 241
1 890
207 852
70 272
69.8 %
30 % BBR +75
-162 393
-12 233
207 852
78 382
61.2 %
40 % BBR +75
-162 393
-26 357
207 852
83 319
52.6 %
50 % BBR +75
-162 393
-40 480
207 852
85 580
44.0 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
20 % BBR +75
-162 689
17 484
244 393
78 792
79.1 %
30 % BBR +75
-162 689
1 526
244 393
87 856
69.2 %
40 % BBR +75
-162 996
-14 431
244 393
93 527
59.3 %
50 % BBR +75
-162 996
-30 389
244 393
96 216
49.5 %
Min (SEK)
Mean
(SEK)
20 % BBR +75
-162 210
20 368
250 947
80 077
80.0 %
30 % BBR +75
-162 458
4 071
250 947
89 417
70.0 %
40 % BBR +75
-162 495
-12 227
250 947
95 285
60.0 %
50 % BBR +75
-162 495
-28 524
250 947
98 107
50.0 %
Kraftringen
Stockholm
(SEK) dev (SEK)
EON Bro
Sundsvall
(SEK) dev (SEK)
Öviks
Energi
Kiruna
(SEK) dev (SEK)
Tekniska
verken
Boverket
109
Appendix 2 – Energy performance in
Swedish multi-dwelling buildings
This appendix presents energy performance figures for Swedish multidwelling buildings, divided by climate zone and year of construction. The
figures were sourced from Boverket’s register of energy performance reports. The graphs below only include buildings that use district heating
exclusively. Of approximately 110 000 original energy performance reports for multi-dwelling buildings, just under 80 000 formed the basis for
the graphs.
There are three graphs which illustrate the energy performance for heating in multi-dwelling buildings by climate zone as specified in BBR 21,
and six graphs in which energy performance for heating is illustrated by
age category. Each graph includes both buildings with low energy performance figures for heating and buildings with high energy performance
figures for heating.
Energy performance for heating, by climate zone
Figure 28. Climate zone I, energy performance for heating. 7473 multi-dwelling
buildings using only district heating.
Boverket
110
Figure 29. Climate zone II, energy performance for heating. 10 420 multi-dwelling
Figure 30. Climate zone III, energy performance for heating. 61 639 multi-dwelling
Boverket
111
Energy performance by year of construction
Figure 31. Energy performance for heating. 32 115 multi-dwelling buildings using
only district heating. Year of construction before 1961.
Figure 32. Energy performance for heating. 25 038 multi-dwelling buildings using
only district heating. Year of construction 1961 – 1975.
Boverket
112
Figure 33. Energy performance for heating. 7923 multi-dwelling buildings using
Boverket
113
only district heating. Year of construction 2006 –
Boverket
114
Appendix 3 – District heating rates
Variable energy prices and power charges, including
VAT. 2015 rates.
Table 28. Variable energy prices (öre/kWh) and power charges (SEK/kW and
year) for Fortum Trygg and EON Värme, Stockholm.
Variable energy prices, Stockholm (öre/kWh)
Month
Fortum Trygg
EON Värme (Bro)
Jan
89.25
54.75
Feb
89.25
54.75
Mar
89.25
54.75
Apr
58.63
54.75
May
35.63
54.75
Jun
35.63
54.75
Jul
35.63
54.75
Aug
35.63
54.75
Sep
35.63
54.75
Oct
58.63
54.75
Nov
58.63
54.75
Dec
89.25
54.75
Variable power charges, Stockholm
Fortum Trygg
EON Värme (Bro)
Boverket
632.5 SEK/kW and year
1 437.5 SEK/kW and year
115
year/month) for EON Värme and Kraftringen Lund, Malmö.
Variable energy prices, Malmö (öre/kWh)
Month
EON Värme
Kraftringen, Lund
Jan
71.55
80.00
Feb
71.55
80.00
Mar
71.55
59.38
Apr
47.36
59.38
May
47.36
43.75
Jun
20.61
43.75
Jul
20.61
43.75
Aug
20.61
43.75
Sep
20.61
43.75
Oct
47.36
59.38
Nov
47.36
59.38
Dec
71.55
80.00
Variable power charges, Malmö
EON Värme
109.56 SEK/kW and month
Kraftringen, Lund
1 121.25 SEK/kW and year
Boverket
116
year) for Sundsvall Energi and Öviks Energi, Sundsvall.
Variable energy prices, Sundsvall (öre/kWh)
Month
Sundsvall Energi
Öviks Energi
Jan
66.88
53.75
Feb
66.88
53.75
Mar
66.88
53.75
Apr
37.50
53.75
May
11.88
53.75
Jun
11.88
53.75
Jul
11.88
53.75
Aug
11.88
53.75
Sep
11.88
53.75
Oct
37.50
53.75
Nov
66.88
53.75
Dec
66.88
53.75
Variable power charges, Sundsvall
Sundsvall Energi
Öviks Energi
Boverket
117
year) for Tekniska Verken, Kiruna.
Variable energy prices, Kiruna
(öre/kWh)
Month
Tekniska Verken
Jan
87.75
Feb
87.75
Mar
87.75
Apr
24.63
May
24.63
Jun
24.63
Jul
24.63
Aug
24.63
Sep
24.63
Oct
24.63
Nov
87.75
Dec
87.75
Variable power charges, Kiruna
Tekniska Verken
Sources: Fortum
http://www.fortum.com/countries/se/foretag/fjarrvarme/priser-2014/varaabonnemang/pages/default.aspx
EON Värme (Bro) http://www.eon.se/upload/eon-se-20/dokument/foretagskund/produkter_priser/varme/Prislistor_2014/Ftg%2
0Stockholm%20prislista%202014.pdf
EON Värme (Malmö) http://www.eon.se/foretagskund/Produkter-ochpriser/Varme/Fjarrvarmepriser-2014/Prislistor-2014/
Kraftringen, Lund
http://www.kraftringen.se/Foretag/Fjarrvarme/Fjarrvarmepriser-2014/
Sundsvall Energi
http://www.sundsvallenergi.se/default.aspx?id=1595&ptid=0
Boverket
118
Öviks Energi
http://www.ovikenergi.se/download/18.13f4fd9013a6c18921c934/13549
16640275/Prislista-fjv-foretag-ovik-2013+Ver.1.pdf
Kiruna Tekniska verken
http://www.tekniskaverkenikiruna.se/Global/Taxor%202014/Fj%c3%a4rr
v%c3%a4rmetaxa%202014.pdf?epslanguage=sv
Boverket
Box 534, 371 23 Karlskrona, Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)455-35 30 00
Website: www.boverket.se

Individual metering and charging in existing buildings

Transcription

Similar documents

Smart Metering Solution 3 - Ingeneo Advanced Metering

Aeuidhzsuic asiu dhaidu hicu asciu hasicu asicuas hicu

View Eldo Mix 101 PDF

Calibration Instructions – 500PT 1. Mark one of the metering rollers

SpectraFoo - Metric Halo

PolyTool 8420

Installation Instructions for 34-8 Billet Metering Block Kit

Kulturskolan - Hylte kommun

Interim Report January – June 2009