L’Ecobonus 2017

La Legge di Bilancio, approvata in Parlamento a fine 2016, anche quest’anno punta a sostenere economicamente modalità produttive o forme di consumo che riducono l’impatto ambientale. Il cosidetto “ecobonus” contiene delle interessanti opportunità nel campo dell’efficientamento energetico per privati e imprenditori.

Ecobonus nella Finanziaria 2017

Viene prorogato l’Ecobonus, detrazione fiscale per la riqualificazione energetica, e la proroga vale fino a 2021, con delle percentuali di detrazione tra al 70% e al 75% per i condomini. Per le abitazioni private la detrazione al 65% viene estesa al 2017.

Bonus ristrutturazione edilizia nella Finanziaria 2017

Il Bonus concesso alle ristrutturazioni è prorogato fino al 2017 con una detrazione del 50%. Rimane valido per il 2017 il Bonus Mobili con la possibilità di detrarre le spese di acquisto di mobili al 50%.

Bonus Alberghi nella Finanziaria 2017

Il Bonus Alberghi, prorogato fino al 2018 permette di detrarre le spese per il 65% della spesa.

Sisma Bonus nella Finanziaria 2017

Per il Sima Bonus vengono confermate le “scale” di detrazione che si applicano a seconda della classe antisismica raggiunta dopo l’intervento: i parametri da rispettare sono 50, 70, 80% per le case e 50, 75, 80% per i condomìni.

 

Non sono state approvate alcune detrazioni che erano state inizialmente ventilate:

– credito d’imposta 65% per le spese di classificazione sismica,

– bonus 65% per la bonifica amianto,

– possibilità della cessione del credito d’imposta anche per le opere in singole unità abitative,

– detrazione 50% per la sistemazione a verde di aree scoperte di pertinenza,

– ampliamento del perimetro della cessione del credito di imposta dai soli fornitori alle banche, per l’ecobonus e il sisma bonus.

 

Pillole di efficienza – UNI 11352 parte 2

Continua la serie di Pillole di efficienza, la serie di video offerta da ECIPA ESCo e dedicata all’efficienza energetica. Oggi parliamo della norma italiana di certificazione delle ESCo, la UNI 11352:2014.

Vendere l’efficienza energetica alla direzione aziendale

Often, industrial facility managers must convince upper management that an investment in system efficiency is worth making. The problem is that sometimes communicating this message can be more difficult than the actual engineering behind the concept. A corporate audience usually responds more readily to cash flow impacts than to a discussion of best efficiency points. By adopting a financial approach, the facility manager can relate system performance and efficiency to corporate goals and “win over” the senior management who make the final decision on capital investments in system upgrades.

In order to overcome the obstacles often encountered in the process of convincing upper management that a given investment in energy efficiency is worth making, you should consider the following points:

1. Gain some insight on/understand corporate priorities

Corporate officers are accountable to a chief executive, a board of directors, and an owner (or shareholders, if the firm is publicly held). These officers must generate revenue that exceeds the cost of owning and operating the facility. Plant equipment—including system components—are assets that must generate an economic return.

Plant capacity regularly has top priority, relate process improvement to capacity increase possibilities.

Finance officers seek investments that are most apt to demonstrate a favourable return on assets. When faced with multiple investment opportunities, these officers will favour options that lead to the largest and fastest returns.

This corporate attitude might lead industrial decision makers to conclude that system efficiency is a luxury that they cannot afford. This difference frequently exists between purchasing (equipment) and plant operation.

Many organisations consider only the initial purchase and installation costs of a system. However, plant designers and managers will benefit from evaluating the life-cycle cost of different solutions before installing major new equipment or carrying out a major overhaul. Plant operations can be a significant source of savings, especially because energy efficient equipment can minimise energy consumption and plant downtime. Make use of the concept of “total costs of ownership”.

It is also important for the company/corporate management to subscribe to Responsible Care/Sustainability principles; to be truly engaged in meeting environmental standards; and to be serious about OSHA aspects, among other things.

2. Measure the cash flow impact of the system efficiency

System efficiency and performance improvement projects can move to the top of the list of corporate priorities if proposals respond to corporate needs. Corporate challenges are many and varied, and this in turn opens up more opportunities to “sell” system efficiency as a solution. Opportunities for upgrading existing systems can be found in the inefficiencies that develop over time—such as changing system requirements, routine wear and tear, and poorly optimised controls. Once selections are made, the task becomes one of communicating the proposals in corporate (cash flow) language.

The first step is to identify and evaluate the total cash flow impact of a system efficiency measure. One proven way to do this is through a life-cycle cost analysis, as stated earlier. The result— a net gain or loss on balance—can be compared with other investment options or with the anticipated outcome of doing nothing.

The various aspects of plant efficiency interrelate. Energy efficiency , degree of automation, operational procedures, yield on raw material and waste production, process control, all these have their own and interrelated impact on plant efficiency. The best projects are those that combine these aspects.

3. Present the finances of system improvements

A simple (and widely used) measure of project economics is the payback period. This is the period of time required for a project to “break even” in terms of costs—the time needed for the net benefits of an investment to accrue to the point where they equal the cost of the initial outlay.

The simple payback equals the initial investment divided by the annual benefit. It is not an exact economic analysis as it doesn’t consider the time value of money, but is easy to use and understand. More sophisticated analyses take into account factors such as discount rates, tax impacts, and the cost of capital. One approach involves calculating the net present value of a project, which is defined in this equation:

Net present value = present worth of benefits – present worth of costs

Another commonly used calculation for determining the economic feasibility of a project is internal rate of return (IRR). This is defined as the discount rate that equates future net benefits (cash) to an initial investment outlay. This discount rate can be compared to the interest rate at which a corporation borrows capital.

Many companies set a threshold (or “hurdle”) rate for projects, which is the minimum required IRR needed for a project to be considered viable (if you don’t know this, it is important to find out before presenting your case for investment). Future benefits are discounted at the threshold rate, and the net present worth of the project must be positive in order for the project to be a “go”.

Besides the payback criteria, other arguments can be used to put a project up for approval, e.g. permit requirements, safety issues, product quality, etc.

4. Relate system efficiency to corporate priorities

Saving money in itself should be a strong incentive for implementing an energy efficiency project. Still, that may not be enough for some corporate decision makers. Some suggestions for interpreting the benefits of energy cost savings include the following:

  • A new source of permanent capital: regardless of how the investment is financed—borrowing, retained earnings, or third-party financing—the annual savings will be a continuing source of funds.
  • Added shareholder value: shareholder value is the product of two variables: annual earnings and the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio. Multiplying the earnings increment (annual savings) by the P/E ratio yields the total new shareholder value attributable to the system efficiency improvement.
  • Improved reliability and capacity utilisation: the efforts required to achieve and maintain energy efficiency will largely contribute to operating efficiency. By improving system performance, the facility manager can improve the reliability of plant operations.
  • Improvement in the bottom line: energy savings are cost reductions and thus improve the operating profits of the company.

5. Approach

A proposal for a system improvement project can be made attractive to corporate decision makers if the facility manager does the following:

  • Identifies opportunities for improving system efficiency
  • Determines the life-cycle cost of attaining each option and which external requirement will benefit from the action
  • Identifies the option(s) with the greatest net benefits or prioritise the options
  • Collaborates with financial staff to identify current corporate goals
  • Generates a proposal that demonstrates how the energy efficiency benefits will directly respond to current corporate needs
  • It will also work the other way around : from the opportunities in the process on one side and the various demands on the other plant manager can choose beforehand which projects they should start giving the available staff and money

Il grafico più importante

6Whenever I show up at a new client’s, the first thing they pass in front of me is their “Energy Profile,” or “Energy Report,” or (and this is the most accurate title) “Energy History.” These plots show some form of energy consumption over some time period, usually electricity and natural gas over the course of a year. This is a logical place to start, and you can acquire some real insights.

Take a look at the chart on the left here. (This is all fabricated data by the way.) This chart shows energy consumed through a typical week for an injection mold machine making plastic chairs. So what do we learn? Well, clearly something different happened on Friday. Maybe there was an early shut down, maybe operators were just paying less attention. Something seems to have been happening on Wednesday as well. These definitely call for some investigation. If nothing else, we’ll understand the weekly cycle better.

But, really, this chart doesn’t give us any sense of how our production rate drives our energy consumption. In ISO 50001 parlance, we would say that Time is NOT a Relevant Variable. Our energy consumption does not change because Time is passing! Our energy consumption changes because OTHER THINGS are changing. In this case, it is Production.

Take a look at the second chart. Oh my! Now we seem to be getting some useful information! We can see now, not only that energy consumption is proportional to Production, but we can see HOW it is related to Production. We can actually determine the mathematical relationship between the two. That means that given Production projections, we can compute Energy Consumption projections! Isn’t that a grand piece of information to pass to your CFO? You can also now deliver an estimate of marginal energy intensity per chair produced. Be careful now! You are making yourself profoundly useful to your top management!

Finally, you can identify a key insight for your own energy improvement efforts. This relationship tells you how much of your energy consumption is related to Production, and how much is Baseload. I’ve seen places where a simple analysis such as this revealed that the Baseload was over half of their monthly energy consumption! They had been working diligently on reducing energy consumption in their Production processes, but it turned out that the Baseload was the elephant in the room.

They asked me, “Why is it so much?” I said that I surely didn’t know, but that they had better find out.

(And if you’d like to see what this feels like from the elephant’s point of view, click here: https://twitter.com/PaulBirkeland/status/240609468910563328/photo/1)

Sul tamburo: le nuove schede TEE 37 e 38

Scheda tecnica n. 37E – Nuova installazione di impianto di riscaldamento unifamiliare alimentato a biomassa
legnosa di potenza ” 35 kW termici. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Allegato alla scheda tecnica n. 37E: procedura per il calcolo del risparmio di energia primaria ……………………….

Scheda tecnica n. 38E – Installazione di sistema di automazione e controllo del riscaldamento negli edifici
residenziali (Building Automation and Control System, BACS) secondo la norma UNI EN 15232 ………………….
Allegato alla scheda tecnica n. 38E: procedura per il calcolo del risparmio di energia primaria …………………………