Energy Efficiency

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 209–224 | Cite as

Energy efficiency inside out—what impact does energy efficiency have on indoor climate and district heating?

  • Sirje PädamEmail author
  • Agneta Persson
  • Oskar Kvarnström
  • Ola Larsson
Original Article


This research study analyses the relationships between energy supply, energy-efficiency measures and indoor environment. Heat load duration profiles were applied for the purpose of analysing the quantitative impact on district heating production of energy-efficiency measures implemented in the multifamily housing stock of three Swedish municipalities. Further information on interconnections between energy efficiency, indoor environment and district heating was provided by qualitative assessments and stakeholder interviews. The intuitive conclusion is that energy savings captured during the winter season are more attractive to energy utilities. This is often, but not always true. The impact from energy savings will differ based on the heat production profile and the ratio between electricity and heat production in combined heat and power plants. Interviews suggest that residents only occasionally are involved, and energy companies are rarely consulted when property owners are implementing energy-efficiency strategies in multifamily residential buildings. This implies inadequate understanding of the implications to indoor environment and district heating production. Improvements in energy efficiency that go beyond cuts in peak load demand generally imply losses in profitability for energy utilities. There is thus little economic incentive for utilities to help their customers to implement energy-efficiency measures. Most often, energy utilities try to provide incentives through the design of heating prices, but pricing models are often complex and can be too difficult for property owners to understand. In order to achieve energy efficiency in a manner which is favourable for several parties, increased cooperation will be necessary.


Heat load duration District heating GHG emissions Indoor environment Energy-efficiency measures Multifamily residential buildings Linkages between energy utilities, property owners and residents 



We are indebted to the members of the reference group at Fjärrsyn: Erik Dotzauer, Fortum Värme; Kerstin Mundt and Cecilia Ibanëz-Sörensson, both Norrenergi; Eric Johansson, Södertörns Fjärrvärme; Anna Karlsson, Vattenfall; Morgan Nielsen, Jämtkraft; Andreas Kertes, Öresundskraft; Roland Jonsson, HSB and Erik Thornström, Swedenergy.

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the R&D program Fjärrsyn for financial support, through Swedenergy and the Swedish Energy Agency.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors conducted the research while employed at WSP Sweden. A reference group made up of energy utility and housing sector representatives followed the research project and discussed the findings in the course of the research project.

Supplementary material

12053_2018_9684_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 11 kb)


  1. Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M., & Jakob, M. (2008). Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics, 30, 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BeBo (n.d.), (accessed 12.02.2017).
  3. BeLok. (n.d.). (accessed 12.02.2017).
  4. CIT, WSP and Profu. (2016). Fallstudier HEFTIG (Case studies HEFTIG, in Swedish), Study assigned by the Swedish Energy Agency, March 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Delmastro, C., Martinsson, F., Dulac, J., & Corgnati, S. P. (2017). Sustainable urban heat strategies: perspectives from integrated district energy choices and energy conservation in buildings. Case studies in Torino and Stockholm. Energy, 138, 1209–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Difs, K., Bennstam, M., Trygg, L., & Nordenstam, L. (2010). Energy conservation measures in buildings heated by district heating – a local energy system perspective. Energy, 35, 3194–3203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission Better regulation (n.d.). “Toolbox” (accessed 29.09.2017).
  8. Gerarden, T. D., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2015). Assessing the energy-efficiency gap. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Environmental Economics Program January 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Government Offices 2017. Sverige ska nå 50% energieffektivisering – arbetet har inletts. [Sweden will reach 50 precent energy efficency target – the work has begun]. (accessed 27.04.2018).
  10. Governmental proposition 2005/06:145. Nationellt program för energieffektivisering och energismart byggande (National program for energy efficiency and energy smart construction).Google Scholar
  11. IEA. (2014). Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. International Energy Agency, 2014.Google Scholar
  12. IEA (2007). Mind the gap – Quantifying principal-agent problems in energy efficiency. International Energy Agency, IEA 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Liu, L. & Thoresson, J. (2013). Exploring indoor climate and comfort effects in refurbished multi-family dwellings with improved energy performance, in sustainability in energy and buildings. In A. Håkansson, M, Höjer, R. J. Howlett, & C. J. Lakhmi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings (SEB’12) (pp. 463–478). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Lundström, L., & Wallin, F. (2016). Heat demand profiles of energy conservation measures in buildings and their impact on a district heating system. Applied Energy, 161, 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maidment, C., Jones, C. R., Webb, T. L., Hathway, A., & Gilbertson, J. M. (2013). The impact of household energy efficiency measures on health: a meta-analysis. Energy Policy, 65, 583–593.Google Scholar
  16. Maruejols, L., & Young, D. (2011). Split incentives and energy efficiency in Canadian multi-family dwellings. Energy Policy, 39, 3655–3668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pädam, S., Kvarnström, O., Larsson, O., Persson, A. 2016. Samband mellan innemiljö, energieffektivisering och fjärrvärmeproduktion; Analys för flerbostadshus med stöd av tre fallstudier, Energiforskrapport 2016–305.Google Scholar
  18. Persson, A. & Göransson, G. (2016). Fortfarande miljarder skäl att spara, on behalf of Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions SKL.Google Scholar
  19. Phillips, Y. (2012). Landlords versus tenants information asymmetry and mismatched preferences for home energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 45, 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Profu (2010). Så når vi de nationella energimålen – bebyggelsens energieffektivisering, Profu för Fastighetsägarna.Google Scholar
  21. Sayce, S., Sundberg, A. and Clements, B., (2010). Is sustainability reflected in commercial property prices: An analysis of the evidence base, RICS research report, January 2010.Google Scholar
  22. SKL (2011) Miljarder skäl att spara: lönsamma energimål i fastigheter [Billion reasons to save: profitable energy targets in buildings, in Swedish], SKL Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.Google Scholar
  23. SMHI Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (n.d.) (accessed 29.09.2017).
  24. SOU 2008:110: Vägen till ett energieffektivare Sverige, 2008.Google Scholar
  25. Sweden Green Building Council. (2014). Miljöbyggnad Bedömningskriterier för befintliga byggnader. Man, 2(2), 141001.Google Scholar
  26. Swedish District Heating Association, (2016). Miljövärdering av fjärrvärme, accessed 13.01.2017.
  27. Swedish Heating Market Committee. (2015). (Överenskommelse i Värmemarknadskommittén (VMK) 2015), accessed 13.01.2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sirje Pädam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Agneta Persson
    • 2
  • Oskar Kvarnström
    • 3
  • Ola Larsson
    • 1
  1. 1.WSP Sverige ABStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Anthesis GroupStockholmSweden
  3. 3.International Energy AgencyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations