Simulating retrofit incentives and distributional effects of four tenancy law policies A model analysis using concrete buildings and retrofit options within the German regulatory context

The primary landlord-tenant dilemma arising from rent control prevents landlords from recovering costs of energy-efficiency retrofits, which mainly benefit tenants if the landlord undertakes the retrofit. This requires tenancy law to allocate retrofit and energy costs adequately. Previous research discusses the dilemma generally or examines policy options without numeric estimations of their long-term effects. This paper addresses this research gap by conducting a thorough comparative quantitative analysis of several policy options. The study analyzes the impact of Germany’s current system and three reform options on landlords’ and tenants’ financial costs and benefits using simulations across various building sizes and retrofit ambitions. Investment costs exceed energy savings in 12 of the 15 retrofit projects examined. The discounted project payoff — the lifetime benefit of the retrofit compared to maintaining the status quo — ranges from −1.07 to 0.11 €2023/m2/month. The status quo system and one reform option almost always incentivize landlords to forego retrofits. Only two reform options consistently incentivize landlord investment, albeit at tenants’ expense. A sensitivity analysis shows these systems’ effectiveness is not affected by the details of German general tenancy law and local rent markets’ characteristics (rent levels and their inflation, valuation of energy efficiency). Designing landlords’ retrofit premia to depend on the technically estimated energy demand cost savings is especially promising as it incentivizes retrofits when profitable. Seven cases where a retrofit is profitable for the landlord but not from a project perspective are primarily due to the rebound effect. Under this system, landlords’ and tenants’ benefits from the retrofit, compared to continued maintenance, range from −0.28 to 0.42 and −1.10 to −0.02 €2023/m2/month, respectively.

Publication Details

Journal
Universitätsbibliothek Kassel
Published
2025-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-2025051611150
Primary Topic
Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Simulating retrofit incentives and distributional effects of four tenancy law policies A model analysis using concrete buildings and retrofit options within the German regulatory context

Universitätsbibliothek Kassel
Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
article

Simulating retrofit incentives and distributional effects of four tenancy law policies A model analysis using concrete buildings and retrofit options within the German regulatory context

article en

Abstract

The primary landlord-tenant dilemma arising from rent control prevents landlords from recovering costs of energy-efficiency retrofits, which mainly benefit tenants if the landlord undertakes the retrofit. This requires tenancy law to allocate retrofit and energy costs adequately. Previous research discusses the dilemma generally or examines policy options without numeric estimations of their long-term effects. This paper addresses this research gap by conducting a thorough comparative quantitative analysis of several policy options. The study analyzes the impact of Germany’s current system and three reform options on landlords’ and tenants’ financial costs and benefits using simulations across various building sizes and retrofit ambitions. Investment costs exceed energy savings in 12 of the 15 retrofit projects examined. The discounted project payoff — the lifetime benefit of the retrofit compared to maintaining the status quo — ranges from −1.07 to 0.11 €2023/m2/month. The status quo system and one reform option almost always incentivize landlords to forego retrofits. Only two reform options consistently incentivize landlord investment, albeit at tenants’ expense. A sensitivity analysis shows these systems’ effectiveness is not affected by the details of German general tenancy law and local rent markets’ characteristics (rent levels and their inflation, valuation of energy efficiency). Designing landlords’ retrofit premia to depend on the technically estimated energy demand cost savings is especially promising as it incentivizes retrofits when profitable. Seven cases where a retrofit is profitable for the landlord but not from a project perspective are primarily due to the rebound effect. Under this system, landlords’ and tenants’ benefits from the retrofit, compared to continued maintenance, range from −0.28 to 0.42 and −1.10 to −0.02 €2023/m2/month, respectively.

Universitätsbibliothek Kassel
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.