Triple penalty for the tenant
In a recent SIA document, twenty energy renovations of rental buildings were studied in depth. Verdict? None reaches the calculated targets, one of them even allowing greater consumption than before the intervention. A document from which it appears that for each additional degree in ambient indoor temperature, a building consumes 11% more.
Knowing that the design temperature is 20 ° C and that the average temperature recorded on the said buildings was 23 ° C, it was noted an overconsumption of 33%! Thirty-three percent!
In the cases studied, it seems natural that the most ambitious renovations (Minergie-P and ECO type) are the least marked, because more controlled throughout the chain ... and that the nature of the property greatly influences the different "performances", ranging from the simple to the triple, respectively concerning cooperative housing, rental or PPE. It, therefore, appears that while the monitoring of exploitation, in its energetic aspects, is an eminently sustainable subject, capable of inducing significant savings in energy, it must, however, be noted that this phase is often neglected or badly prepared.
For the tenant, the penalty is then threefold: first, because the allowable rent increases are based on the theoretical calculation. Then, because the energy bills (and therefore overconsumption) are paid for by itself. Finally, because, as a taxpayer, the same tenant pays the pre-renovation subsidies ...