«Thanks to the restrictive measures imposed by law in the last two years, the negative effect of the 110% Super Ecobonus on our public accounts has almost disappeared. However, from theintroduction of this relief until August 31st, the total costs borne by the State are close to 123 billion euros».
This is stated by Cgia of Mestreremembering that to date, the properties that have benefited from this measure since July 2020 have been just under 500 thousand. Therefore, considering that in Italy there are approximately 12.2 million residential buildings, the Research Office of the Confederation of Craftsmen estimates that «the so-called Superbonus affected only 4 percent of the total residential properties in the country». And he observes: «In such a delicate moment, where the next budget law will ask everyone to make sacrifices, having spent over 6 points of GDP to make a small number of homes more efficient makes anyone with a minimum of common sense angry».
Generally speaking – explains the CGIA of Mestre in a note – with the so-called 110 percent the State has spent a frightening amount, improving the energy efficiency of an infinitesimal share of buildings in the country. But, according to the first rumours, it seems to have favored property owners with a good/high income capacity more, rather than addressing as a priority the less well-off families who, in general, have a greater probability of residing in homes in poor condition. state of conservation and with a very low level of energy efficiency.
Modest environmental results
Not everyone, however, agrees that the 110% Super Ecobonus will contribute significantly to reducing polluting emissions – continues the CGIA note – even though there are no rigorous scientific assessments from an environmental perspective, the reduction of CO2 would be very contained. Again according to the Bank of Italy, the first evidence would demonstrate that in the best scenario the environmental benefits of the Superbonus would offset the financial costs incurred over almost 40 years. Not only that, there are some international experts who argue that the reduction in emissions obtained with the application of the Superbonus could have been greater if the electrification of room heating systems, cooking food and the production of domestic water had been encouraged. . In short, as an alternative to methane gas, it would be advisable to use electric vectors (such as heat pumps and induction plates), which are significantly more efficient than technologies that use fossil fuels.
With 123 billion we would have 1.2 million new public housing units
Those who politically wanted and continue to defend this provision argue that we should not only look at the expenditure that the State has borne so far, but also at the positive economic effects that it has generated. That is to say more revenue (Irpef, Ires, VAT, etc.), more employment, more GDP, more energy savings and less polluting emissions. It is a legitimate objection which, however, is easily refuted by the thesis supported for some time by the CGIA; if instead of using the Superbonus to almost exclusively incentivize private building interventions we had used this measure to demolish and rebuild only public residential buildings, the consequences just mentioned by the “supporters” of the 110 percent would have been practically the same. With 123 billion euros we could theoretically have built 1.2 million public housing units, 400 thousand more than there are in the country. With one substantial difference: in the second case we would have carried out an action of social justice that the measure currently in force has fearfully disregarded.
In Italy only 4.1% of buildings are affected
By August 31st, the building renovation/efficiency interventions carried out through the Superbonus were close to 500 thousand units (precisely 496,315). Although the costs borne by the State amount to 123 billion euros, only 4.1 percent of the total residential buildings in the country were affected by the tax break. At a regional level, however, Veneto recorded the highest appeal at 110 percent. With 59,652 certifications filed, the percentage impact of the latter on the number of existing residential buildings was equal to 5.6 percent. Followed by Emilia Romagna with 44,438 certifications and an incidence of 5.4 percent, Trentino Alto Adige with 11,342 interventions and again with a rate of 5.4 percent, Lombardy with 78,125 certifications and an incidence of 5. 2 and Tuscany with 38,532 operations and also with an incidence of 5.2 percent. On the other hand, the regions of Southern Italy “snubbed” the incentive: Molise and Puglia, for example, affected only 2.9 percent of their residential buildings, Calabria 2.6 percent and Sicily only 2.2 percent.
Each intervention cost an average of 247,800 euros. Over 400 thousand euros in Valle d’Aosta
Also at a national level, the average cost per residential building borne by the State was 247,819 euros. The maximum peak can be seen in Valle d’Aosta with 401,040 euros per property: followed by Basilicata with 299,963 euros, Liguria with 298,314 euros, Lombardy with 296,107 euros and Campania with 294,679 euros. Veneto closes the ranking with an average cost per intervention of 194,913 euros per building, Sardinia with 187,440 and, finally, Tuscany with 182,919 euros.