- Buildings Guide
- Policy Guide
- Appliances Guide
The “energy-efficient refurbishment” KfW-programme, introduced in April 2009, together with its predecessor programme, saved 2,679 million kWh/yr of final energy and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 955,000 tons of CO2eq/yr in 2009. In combination with the “energy-efficient construction” programme, the two programmes reduced annual GHG emissions by 1.2 million tonnes of CO2eq/yr in the same year. 111,000 person-years of employment were created or secured by the refurbishment programme. The German federal government provided €2.0 billion to KfW for the programmes in that year. Using these government funds and further funds raised from capital markets, KfW made €8.9 billion available as soft loans with reduced interest or as grants in 2009 to promote energy-efficient investments for new and existing buildings. After the 2009 stimulus programmes, recent years saw government allocations of between €0.9 and €1.3 billion for the programmes, stabilising at €1.5 billion/yr recently. The state offers further financial incentives to make use of energy advice to avoid lost opportunities. The programmes promote an integrated optimisation of whole-building energy performance and are also linked to energy performance certificates.
In 2011, the energy-efficient refurbishment rate in Germany was at one percent, i.e. 200,000 building units per year, but the federal government has committed to increase it to two percent (BMWi & BMU 2010, p.22). Urgent action to decrease the energy consumption of these pre-1979 buildings is needed because they annually use 210 to 250 kWh/m2 for heating and domestic water heating on average (space cooling is very rare in Germany). The BMVBS (2012) estimates that buildings can save up to 80% of their energy demand through energy efficient refurbishments. These would also decrease the building sector’s share of about 38% to Germany’s energy consumption in 2012 (DENA 2012, p.11).
In order to increase the refurbishment rate to two percent, Germany offers comprehensive financial assistance to residential building owners and builders through the government-owned economic development bank KfW Bankengruppe, especially because the lack of capital is one of the core challenges to owners in undertaking action. For making these programmes more effective, KfW has established its KfW-Efficiency House (EH; in German: Effizienzhaus) scheme. Within this scheme, buildings can be classified into different categories. The better the category, the stricter the standards for the building’s primary energy demand and its heat losses due to transmission. Existing buildings that are to receive refurbishment must fit into one of the six EH classes after refurbishment: EH 115, EH 100, EH 85, EH 70, EH 55, Listed historic buildings (Denkmal) (from April 2012). New buildings are divided into EH 70, EH 55, EH 40. For both, new and existing buildings, the number indicates the building’s maximum allowed primary energy demand in comparison to a new building built to meet Germany’s minimum energy performance standard (MEPS) for buildings. For example, a refurbished EH 70-certified building demands only 70% of the primary energy of a comparable new building that just meets the requirements of the German MEPS. Moreover, there are maximum values for heat getting lost due to transmission for each category, as well. For instance, an EH 70 home may not lose more than 85% of transmission heat to that of a comparable new home. The minimum performance standards for new homes are stipulated in Germany’s Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV; Germ.: Energieeinsparverordnung).
Building owners can apply for grants or soft-loans with a grant element that is deducted from the total credit amount. The loans are provided via the local commercial banks, not directly from KfW. The better the EH category achieved, the better the funding conditions.
The loan conditions for both, builders and owners, are highly preferential. The payback period can be up to 30 years with an initial grace period or moratorium. Interest rates can be as low as one percent, depending on market rates of loans that are then reduced using the government’s budget support. The loan-application is processed via a local bank lowering the administrative burden for KfW and increasing the applicant’s information about the programme with the help of a local bank official. The grant option is managed directly by KfW. Moreover, KfW recommends including an energy advisor to plan and supervise the refurbishment or construction process, in order to make sure that the envisaged EH classification is achieved. However, with respect to EH 40 and EH 55 certifications, an advisor is mandatory. After construction or refurbishment, applicants must hand in all relevant data to KfW, which reserves the right to conduct spot checks – a safeguarding or monitoring mechanism to prevent fraud.
According to a series of evaluation reports, the energy-efficiency refurbishment programme saved 2,679, 2,450 and 1,247 GWh/yr of final energy demand and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 955,000, 847,000 and 475,000 tonnes of CO2eq/yr in 2009, 2010, and 2011 respectively (BEI & IWU 2010; IWU & BEI 2011; 2012). It saved €215 million and €125 million in heating costs and set employment effects in motion to the tune of 92,500 and 52,000 person years in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The other programme, energy-efficient construction reduced energy demand by 300 GWh/yr resulting in heating cost savings of €36 million in 2011. Additionally, it reduced emissions by 85,000 CO2eq/yr and triggered employment effects of 199,000 person years for the same period. In 2011, both programmes only received €0.9 billion from the government budget while additional tax revenues through value-added and other taxes are estimated at about €6.3 million. However, this is related total investment, not just for energy efficiency improvements.
In addition to the programmes for residential buildings, there are also similar programmes to assist the public sector, mainly for energy-efficient refurbishment of local authority buildings.
Germany’s residential building stock consists of about 17 million buildings and close to 39 million housing units. 75% of all housing units, of which nine million were refurbished by 2010 (Schröder et al 2010, p. 6), had been built before Germany’s first energy saving regulation became effective (BMVBS 2012).
The IWU (2008, p. 3) estimated the number of housing units to be close to 40 million with a useful dwelling area of around 3.5 bn m2. 29 million housing units (or 74% of all housing units) had been established before German legislation passed the first energy saving regulation in 1979 (DENA 2011, p. 5). These units contribute to a large extent of the energy consumption of the overall building sector (75%) compared to post-1975 housing units (DENA 2011, p. 7). It is estimated that pre-1979 buildings annually use 210 to 250 KWh/m2 for space and water heating.
By 2010, nine million pre-1979 housing units had received support for energy-efficient renovation by KfW’s refurbishment programmes (Schröder et al. 2011, p. 6). However, the energy-efficient refurbishment rate is still too low (around 1% per year) in order for this share of the building sector, which is close to 40%, to have a positive effect on Germany’s total energy consumption.
The German government has made it a priority to increase its building refurbishment rate from one to two percent p.a. and achieve higher energy savings per each refurbishment case; the refurbishment programme is a main tool achieve this goal.
It is a national policy.
Achieving high energy performance levels equivalent to low energy buildings and ultra low energy buildings (cf. bigEE interactive building guide for explanation), using the KfW’s Effizienzhaus (EH) voluntary classification scheme (cf. Actions targeted for explanation). New buildings have to incorporate combinations of technologies in order to fulfil the respective target values (energy demand, heat transmission).
The policies’ core target is to reduce the final energy demand of new and existing residential buildings.
The programmes promote an integrated optimisation of whole-building energy performance using the KfW’s Efficiency House (EH) voluntary classification standard. This standard is based on the German MEPS for buildings, the Energy Savings Ordinance (EnEV) of 2009, which stipulates the minimum energy performance of new buildings. The performance may vary depending on building specifics: building type (e.g. single-family house), location etc. In general, the energy consumption is measured by the Reference Building Method. This is a software tool taking into account all the relevant building specifics and calculating the energy maximum values for new or refurbished building units.
The Efficiency House scheme is based on this MEPS for new buildings. A building that is in line with the EnEV minimum criteria is referred to as EH 100, also the baseline for further classifications. There are different EH classifications for the refurbishment programme and the construction programme. If an investor wishes to refurbish a housing unit to EH 85, the unit must use 15% less energy than allowed by the MEPS.
The most important factor necessary for funding is that refurbished buildings are in line with KfW Efficiency House scheme. Depending on the categories achieved (EH 115 – 55) there are certain minimum criteria regarding the building’s primary energy demand (Q) and loss of heat due to transmission (H) as compared to similar new buildings. This method is called the reference building method utilising a software programme that needs various building information (e.g. size, location) to virtually design a reference building and then for determining the maximum values regarding primary energy demand and loss of transmission heat. The maximum values are then stipulated by the software (EnEV). If an investor wishes to refurbish or build his home in accordance with the EH 55 standard, the building’s energy performance must be 45% better than stipulated by the software.
The requirements for each EH standard are as follows:
EH 55: Q is ≤55% and H is ≤70% compared to the minimum standards of a reference building.
EH 70: Q is ≤70% and H is ≤85% compared to the minimum standards of a reference building.
EH 85: Q is ≤85% and H is ≤100% compared to the minimum standards of a reference building.
EH 100: Q is ≤100% and H is ≤115% compared to the minimum standards of a reference building.
EH 115: Q is ≤115% and H is ≤130% compared to the minimum standards of a reference building.
With respect to funding, investors have two choices. First, up to €75,000 can be provided via soft-loans covering up to 100% of the investments (KfW 2011 a, p. 4). The better the future energy performance of the building, the better the loan-conditions. The loan includes a grant element that varies substantially depending on the EH standard achieved (KfW 2011 a, p. 5).
EH Standard – Grant element deducted from the credit amount
EH 55: 12.5 %
EH 70: 10.5%
EH 85: 7.5%
EH 100: 5.0%
EH 115: 2.5%
(KfW 2011 a, p. 9).
The second alternative that investors of refurbishments can opt for is a grant-option. Again, the better the future primary energy demand and the lower the heat loss due to transmission, the better the grant element. However, the financial leeway given by KfW is much smaller, as only a maximum of €13,125 or 17.5% of the investment expenses are made available for the best performers (EH 55).
EH Standard – Grant rate in relation to the investment – Maximum funding (Grant)
EH 55: 17.5% – 13,125€
EH 70: 15% – 11,250€
EH 85: 12.5% – 9,375€
EH 100: 10% – 7,500€
EH 115: 7.5% – 5,625€
(KfW 2011 b, p. 8).
New buildings are classified into three categories only: EH 40, EH 55 and EH 70. This means that new buildings have to perform 60%, 45% or 30% better against the EH 100 benchmark.
With respect to funding, only soft-loans with a grant element are available. The maximum amount that can be acquired is €50,000. The grant element varies. Thus, the better the future energy performance, the higher the grant element.
Category – Grant-element deducted from the credit amount
EH 40: 10%
EH 55: 5%
EH 70: no grant element available
(KfW 2011, p. 2 et seq.; KfW, 2011 c, p. 4).
An EH 70 certified building is eligible to receive soft-loan conditions but there is no grant element deducted from the final credit amount.
(For a comprehensive overview of the German energy efficiency package for the building sector, see “Good Practice Policy Package for Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Germany”)
As stated under ‘Actions targeted’, the energy performance target requirements for the KfW programmes are closely linked to the German MEPS legal requirements for new buildings, using the KfW’s voluntary Efficiency House energy classification scheme.
In 2008, Germany also introduced an energy performance certificate which must be acquired if a building unit is to be rented or sold. This certificate has two important features. First, it shows the buildings energy performance on a green (excellent performance) to red (worst performance) scale. Second, it gives refurbishment recommendations. This provides some basic information if and how a building’s running costs can be reduced. Aspects regarding funding opportunities are made available by DENA or KfW.
The German Energy Agency (DENA) is responsible for the homepages of: and . The latter includes various information on how a DENA EH certificate can be acquired. Thus, the website also points to KfW’s energy efficiency programmes (DENA a). Furthermore, DENA provides tailor-made information about energy efficiency to specific target groups (households, industrial sector, service sector) through the website: .
Further information can be accessed via so-called Consumer Information Centres (Germ.: Verbraucherzentralen). The energy efficiency consultancy is subsidised by taxpayers’ money. That is why advice in the Consumer Information Centres only costs €5, on-site building visits are available at €45. Moreover, the government provides further funding opportunities for a more in-depth energy efficient building consultancy through the “Vor-Ort-Beratung” programme (On-site-Consultation programme).
An energy advisor can be assigned with the task of planning and overseeing energy efficiency measures within the energy efficiency refurbishment programme, whereby expenses can be funded with another KfW programme called “Energy Efficient Refurbishment – Special Funding.” Up to €2,000 of the expenses - but not more than 50% - can be granted (KfW 2011e).
To draw attention to the significance of energy efficient refurbishment and construction for households, the Federal Ministry for Building, Transport and Urban Development (BMBVS; Germ.: Bundesministerium für Bau Verkehr und Stadtplanung) has awarded the “Efficiency House” prize to building owners and architects of new and refurbished buildings, that combined energy efficiency with good architecture.
Moreover, the BMBVS opened an “Efficiency House Plus” in December 2011 that produces more energy than it uses and, additionally, can charge an electric automobile. Families of four were eligible to apply for living in the demonstration building for 15 months. On the one hand, this competition was launched to increase media awareness and, thus, raise the awareness of the public. On the other hand, the government hopes to receive valuable information about real-life conditions (BMVBS 2012).
Another policy that closely interacts with the KfW programmes is the fact that in Germany the annual rent can be increased by 11% of the investment in energy efficiency improvement , so that landlords can profit from their investments directly.
The energy savings from many of these instruments were evaluated for the government and summarised in the 2011 National Energy Efficiency Action Plan. However, the interactions in the package were not explicitly evaluated.
With the help of the EH certification scheme, KfW has developed a useful system to distribute funds and, more importantly, incentivise investors to invest in more efficient buildings.
The use of energy advisors is highly recommended by KfW and mandatory for some certifications. As this service is funded at various stages (Consumer Information Centre, On-site-Consultation, KfW Special Funding programme), investors can access it at low cost.
One of the innovative features is the funding of loans and grants. In 2011, the KfW programmes provided €6.5 billion to investors. However, only €936 million were allocated from the national household (KfW 2011f). “[T]he impact on the national budget remained limited as KfW raises funds on the financial market and federal money is only used as a subsidy for reduced interest rates. The loan to the homeowner comes from a normal bank, but is re-financed by KfW on the capital markets, with the German Federal Government providing a subsidy to keep interest rate low” (Schröder et al. 2011, p. 53).
Investors can chose between the two funding opportunities, grant or loan with a grant element. Thus, they can opt for what suits their interests most conveniently.
Although so-called “energy-plus houses” (Energieplushäuser) receive funding, there is no particular funding mechanism for the concept except the renewable energy feed-in tariff. They receive the same amount of funds for the energy performance optimisations through both programmes as EH 40 homes. It is argued by the government that energy-plus houses especially are at an early developmental stage, so the impact in absolute numbers they might have would be close to zero (German Parliament 2010, p. 9).
The CPI (2011, p. 20) criticises that EH 55 or EH 40 receive less attention from the public. Most of the investments go into rather “shallow measures” such as the EH 100. In order to incentivise investment for highly energy-efficient measures, KfW could consider increasing financial assistance for EH 55 and EH 40 or decreasing assistance for EH 115 and EH 100.
In general, the government has been criticised for providing too little funding for the programmes in order to reach the target of doubling the rate of energy-efficient renovation to 2 % p.a. Some experts think that €5 billion would be needed to achieve this target.
The policy package could also be improved.
Instead of only heavily increasing the financial incentives to investors, it could be more effective to provide a part of the government funding for local information centres, which act as a one-stop shop for energy advice and funding and also increase communication on energy efficiency and the programmes to potential investors, and organise networking and training of supply-side actors.
The most important precondition is the existence of KfW as the operating agency for the programme, see below.
Next to KfW, the commercial, municipal and co-operative banks with their local branch offices are vital as well, as they hand out the loans to investors. They need attractive conditions and training for this service.
The energy performance requirements and calculation methods established for the German MEPS (EnEV) are also important, as the programmes energy-efficient refurbishment and construction rely on EH 40 – 115 requirements which have been established by the German Energy Agency (DENA) based on the MEPS.
Moreover, the German government had to create and expand the network of officially recognised energy-advisors. They are an important pillar to the programmes.
Neither programmes are built from scratch but developed out of preceding programmes:
• Energy Efficient Refurbishment is the successor of the CO2 Building Refurbishment Programme
• Energy Efficient Construction was effective simultaneously to the Building Ecologically Programme since 2009, succeeding it in 2010 (for further information see KfW 2006 (German only))
Agencies or other actors responsible for implementation
KfW is the vital actor of the programme because it “has substantial experience with incentivizing retrofit investments in the residential sector through preferential loans and grants” (CPI 2011, p. 17).
KfW has the know-how to fund small-scale investments and the capacity to obtain capital at reduced interest rates. As it is a state-owned bank it also enjoys trust by investors.
In 2010, the German government provided €1.4 billion to KfW. Using this funding, KfW allocated €8.7 billion in loans and €100 million in grants to the programmes.
In 2011, €6.5 billion in credits and €52 million in grants were facilitated using €0.9 billion received from the German government .
For 2012 to 2014, government funds are to be increased to €1.5 billion/year.
(KfW 2012, pp. 2-9)
The impact of the programmes to Germany’s overall budget is low because most of the money is raised on capital markets, which investors must pay back (including some low interests) within a maximum of 30 years.
The basis for the calculation of the German MEPS and KfW’s EH voluntary classification standard are the European standards for calculation of building energy performance, EN 832.
KfW has normal routines for providing loans through commercial banks. This includes definitions of targets and conditions. For the energy efficiency in buildings programmes, the conditions are based on the calculations methods developed for MEPS and Energy Performance Certificates.
KfW was also able to draw on experience from two former programmes facilitating energy efficient construction and refurbishment (see also: pre-conditions for implementation).
While the 2001/2006 programme for energy efficient refurbishment funded combinations of energy efficient measures only, funds for the 2009 programme were made available to single measures as well as in order to expand the programme’s target group and to increase the potential energy saving potential of buildings (BEI & IWU 2010, p. 29).
Thus, the implementation of the 2009 programmes was rather a slight shift in KfW’s focus.
There is no explicit energy savings target for the programmes, but the allocation from the government’s budget will determine what can be achieved. Furthermore, in the German 2011 National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) there is an estimate of the energy savings the government expects KfW programmes to achieve by 2016, but this is not a formal or legal target for the programmes. Between 2008 and 2016 it is estimated that the Energy-Efficient Refurbishment programme will achieve 52PJ/yr and the construction programme will add 6.9 PJ/yr of accumulated annual energy savings (German NEEAP 2011, pp. 40-42).
Actors responsible for the design
The publicly owned promotional bank KfW Bankengruppe (80% by the Federal Republic of Germany and 20% by the 16 states or Bundesländer) is responsible for the programmes. Furthermore, other actors are responsible for accompanying measures such as the establishment of the Efficiency-House standard, developed by the German Energy Agency (DENA).
Actors responsible for implementation
For each calendar year, the programme impacts are estimated through an independent evaluation, e.g. BEI & IWU (2010) and IWU & BEI (2011; 2012) for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
The reports use a sample of buildings to estimate the overall impact on energy savings, energy cost savings by consumers, greenhouse gas emission reductions, employment, and VAT income to the government budget. Results are presented in the Impacts section of this example.
CO2 emission reductions of the Energy Efficient Refurbishment Programme are estimated to be at around 457,000 tonnes per year for the 2011 programme year. Measures funded since 2005 account for 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 each year (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 2).
Through the projects funded in 2011 from the Energy Efficient Construction programme, 85,000 tonnes/yr of CO2 are estimated to have been saved (as compared to the EnEV reference value). Since 2005, accumulated emissions reductions are just under 500,000 tonnes of CO2 /year (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 5).
Thus, both programmes massively contribute to lowering the environmental impact of Germany’s carbon footprint.
IWU and BEI calculate that the Energy Efficient Refurbishment programme, resulted in employment effects of 52,000 person years of which 38,000 are direct effects (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 42). Effects calculated for 2010 were 92,500 person years.
Direct and indirect employment effects that the Energy Efficient Construction Programme contributed to are estimated to be at around 199,000 person years of which 146,000 person years are direct effects (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 70). This adds up to 646,000 person years of emplyoment effects from 2006 to 2010 (IWU & BEI 2011, p. 90). This information is, however, based on the full costs of construction (not only energy-efficient measures).
Consequently, both programmes include environmental and economic sustainability aspects and induce the related co-benefits.
In the early years of the predecessor programmes, there were reports that the local banks were not always keen to promote the KfW loans in competition with their own loans or mortgages. KfW then improved the economic conditions and the training for local bank staff. In addition, the financial crisis since 2008 and the changes in bank regulation following it may have made it more attractive than before for the local banks to pass on KfW loans rather than using their own assets.
Overall energy savings
Energy Efficient Refurbishment programme
Energy savings for the 2009 programme year were calculated to be 2,679 million kWh/yr (BEI & IWU 2010, p. 70).
For the 2010 programme year, it was estimated that energy efficient refurbishments facilitated by the KfW programme resulted in energy savings of about 2,450 GWh/yr. Energy demand before the modernisation process was 7,876 GWh annually (IWU & BEI 2011, p. 25).
For 2011, the IWU estimates that final energy savings and primary energy savings amounted to 1,247 GWh/yr and 1,680 GWh/yr, respectively. This reflects the reduced level of government funding for the programme in 2011 vs. 2010.
Energy Efficient Construction programme
Between 2006 and 2010, the programme (and its predecessor “Building Environmentally-friendly ”) saved 1,341 GWh/yr as compared to the reference case. This means that new buildings only fulfilling the minimum criteria for new constructions instead of favouring more ambitious action (EH 40, 55, 70) would have used 3,310 GWh per year.
According to IWU calculations, final energy savings and primary energy savings for the year 2011 are at around 292 GWh/yr and 370 GWh/yr, respectively (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 2; p. 5).
(For more in-depth information on 2011 energy savings)
Specific energy savings
Energy Efficient Refurbishment programme
On average, KfW investors annually saved 82.2 KWh/m2/yr and 7,148 KWh/yr per building unit through the Energy Efficient Refurbishment Programme in 2010. This is about 31 % of energy savings. For new construction, the savings were ca. 40 % relative to the MEPS (IWU & BEI 2011).
59,715 applications for 180,376 building units received approval by KfW in 2011. Final energy savings are at around 72 KWh per year/m2 and 6,916 KWh per year/building unit (IWU & BEI 2012, pp. 14-16).
Considering that the cost-effective potential for energy savings in refurbishment in German dwellings is rather between 60 and 80 % than around 30 %, but that the programme achieved around 31 % of savings, the effectiveness of the programme in tapping the potential in each case is maybe 50 %. This could be improved but is better than for many other financial incentive programmes on building energy efficiency refurbishment. For new build, with savings of 40 %, the effectiveness is somewhat higher than 50 %. In addition, the rate of energy-efficient refurbishment can be increased further.
Amount of funding planned to be provided from the government budget to both KfW programmes together:
2012: €1.5 billion
2013: €1.5 billion
2014: €1.5 billion
(KfW 2011 f)
Amount of funding provided from the government budget to both KfW programmes together:
2009: €2.0 billion (including economic stimulus programme)
2010: €1.4 billion
2011: €0.9 billion (reduction to balance for the 2009 stimulus expansion of funding)
Energy Efficient Refurbishment
Programme administration costs of KfW and the local banks are unknown.
With regard to heating costs, IWU & BEI (2011; 2012) calculates savings of about €213 million/yr for the 2010 programme year and €125 million/yr for the 2011 programme year. Thus, each of the 181,000 building units refurbished in 2011 saved €690 per year or €60 per month. For an operating life of 30 years of funded energy-efficient measures, heating cost savings from 2011 alone reached €3.3 billion (present value) or €4.2 billion (nominal value) (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 40 et seg.). Energy cost savings (present value) therefore seem lower than the overall investments of €3.85 billion. However, this includes at least 30 to 80 % of costs (depending on energy efficiency action) that investors would have incurred anyway for scheduled refurbishment of walls, windows, roofs, or heating systems without improving energy efficiency. Comparing the energy costs savings only with the incremental investment for energy efficiency improvements will therefore demonstrate a net benefit.
Employment effects from the 2011 programme year add up to about 52,000 person years (92,500 from 2010) of which 38,000 are direct effects (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 42). The loan-option is responsible for 41,000 person years. Overall investments are €3.85 billion, of which €0.6 are VAT or government revenues. A multiplying effect of 1.69 results from additional input processes worth €2.25 billion outside of the construction industry increasing government revenues by about €0.7 billion (IWU & BEI 2012, p. 48).
The energy-efficient refurbishment programme thus results in round about €1.3 billion in additional taxes.
Energy Efficient Construction
The KfW programme for new buildings is estimated to have saved €35,566,000 of heating costs for 2011, which is €440 for each building unit and €35 each month. For 30 years of operating life IWU calculates total cost savings of €864 million (present value) or €1.1 billion (nominal value).
Employment effects amount to 199,000 person years of which 146,000 person years are direct effects. Overall investments account for €14.5 billion of which €2.3 billion are state revenues (VAT). Thus, the net turnover effect is €12.3 billion. Including input processes, net turnover is €21.5 billion which result in salaries and, again, in government revenues worth €2.7 billion (IWU & BEI 2012, pp. 70-72).
The energy-efficient construction programme thus results in total government tax revenues of €5 billion.
However, all of these investment, employment and tax numbers relate to the full cost of construction. The incremental costs of building much more energy-efficiently than required by law are only a few per cent of these, and therefore most likely lower than the energy cost savings.
Both programmes are cost-effective to consumers and even for the government budget. According to IWU & BEI (2012) estimations the new build and refurbishment programmes together result in about €6.3 billion of tax revenues, as compared to €0.9 billion of budget allocation to the programmes. However, this is based on the full cost of construction, not just the incremental costs of energy efficiency improvements.