Wegreenit, the energy requalification experts
16 May 2023
Article link: impresedilinews.it
They are energy efficiency experts or, if you prefer, smart builders. That is, experts in the energy requalification of the existing building stock.
As general contractors, they take care of construction at 360°, following the processes of: architectural and plant design, financial management, building practices, project management, supply of materials, construction management and site safety.
Their core business is building: apartment blocks, super condominiums, offices, shopping centres, hotels.
They are Wegreenit, a company with offices in one of the iconic buildings in the centre of Milan: the Palazzo di Fuoco in Piazzale Loreto (the name of the building, built in 1962 by architects Minoletti and Chiodi, was derived from its particular night lighting; nda). They are a joint stock company that carries out thermal insulation and roofing systems, deals with the upgrading of thermal heating and hot water production systems, the installation of photovoltaic roofing systems combined with storage systems, and the replacement of window and door frames and shading systems. Finally, they deal with the design and implementation of structural interventions, including seismic safety.
Fabrizio Candoni: President and CEO Wegreenit, energy requalification experts
In just over three years, Wegreenit has seen its turnover and employee numbers grow. At the head of the Milan-based retrofitting company is Fabrizio Candoni, who is President and CEO of Wegreenit.
In his professional career, which began some 30 years ago, Candoni has been involved in business development for multinational companies operating in various sectors, experience that led him to occupy the chair of vice president, with responsibility for energy, of Confindustria Russia in 2015.
From a corporate point of view, the companies are headed by the Group Holding (100% owned by Candoni himself), which controls the two joint-stock companies Wegreenit SpA and Wegreenit 2 SpA operating as general contractors, and Wegreenit Engineering, the Engineering Procurement and Construction (Epc) company.
Candoni was keen to begin the interview by starting with an achievement of which Wegreenit is particularly proud: the energy requalification of the super condominium in Via Mar Nero, in the western area of Milan.
‘We care a lot about this realization: it is our trophy asset. In terms of size and characteristics, it is one of the most important building sites in the city. Intervening on a super condominium of that size – 18 buildings, 550 housing units, works for 46 million euro – means solving an almost infinite number of problems. It means dealing with particularly complex procedures. Despite everything, we succeeded. And for us, this work represents a very good business card.
What kind of company are you?
We specialize in whole building energy efficiency. We were born that way and we persevere according to this model. We are not interested in ground-mounted photovoltaic projects. We do not intend to water down our business in any way.
We want to continue to do one thing well: building energy efficiency.
From the data provided, the company is growing year after year. With what trends?
This year we will close with a turnover of 120 million. Almost double the previous year: 2022 in which we had slowed down to understand what was happening on the incentives front. Here, today, 70 people work; we count on reaching 100 by the end of the year, net of acquisitions. With those we could reach 150 employees.
What do you intend to acquire?
Given that we want to grow here, in Italy, we are working to bring one or two companies with Soa certification into the company to be able to participate in PNRR tenders, even in markets other than residential. We are known as a smart builder of large envelopes. For construction, however, the winning model lies elsewhere.
Where exactly?
It lies upstream in the building process, it lies in the banking schemes that you are able to propose to the market
Back to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, how does Wegreenit fit into this context?
We place ourselves within the projects of the various energy efficiency measures planned for buildings, court citadels and schools. Measures worth around 15 billion euro.
In recent months, there has been much talk about the fate of the Superbonus and the companies involved in the work started with the incentives. How did it go for Wegreenit?
The numerous revisions made to the original regulation have caused problems for companies, many of which have not yet recovered from the setbacks. We, on the other hand, are on our feet, not least because we paid great attention to the financial aspect and banking. During the phases of regulatory uncertainty and the blocking of financing by the banking system, it was we who secured the resources and proceeded with the work. In this we were facilitated by our bank rating, which allowed us a good supply option.
But what does the latest reform of the Superbonus and house incentives mean for you?
We are on the market even without government incentives. We are experts in energy requalification and are targeting hotels, shopping centres and super condominiums. In the latter sector we will be there under two conditions: the minimum size of the intervention and the co-participation of private individuals.
What is your opinion of the government incentive policy?
The incentive system has been a very important building and energy policy initiative, which has created a supply chain and an allied industry. It is hard not to recognise it as a positive policy. It was the right move at the right time.
As an expert on energy requalification, how do you judge the effects on public spending?
I don’t think that a country like ours, with a cash flow of EUR 2,108 billion, can go into crisis over a few tens of billions of debts. The oil and gas world receives 35-40 billion in subsidies every year. This is, of course, a political choice. The public funds allocated to incentives have generated considerable economic returns, in addition to the environmental benefits.
So, in your opinion, should the state have continued without intervening?
Not at all. I too have criticisms of the approach that has been taken. The first criticism stems from the stratification of models that has resulted from the various reforms (I counted 18). These facts made it impossible for the system to withstand the strain.
The second concerns the duration of the incentives and their size.
In my opinion, the model should have been conceived as follows: incentives at 110% for a duration of six months, a period that would have served as a start-up and as a form of encouragement for an audience not used to policies of this type. Then, in the second phase, a reduction of the incentive to 50-70%. Three years after the start of the measure, we would now have a queue of users for reductions of no more than 30%.
In this way, we would have reduced the impact on public finances, and we would have had a user queue to decide quickly.
But the real problem is another.
What is it?
We now have to deal with what is contained in the European directive on the energy performance of buildings, which calls for the efficiency of something like 35 million apartment buildings.
And what do we do now, in the face of this European directive?
After years of the bonanza represented by the policy of incentives, are we asking private individuals, in this technical and economic endeavour, to make do? In this way, without public intervention and in the absence of incentives, it would take about 170 years to make our building stock efficient and bring buildings from class E to C as indicated by Brussels.
Exactly, the directive. What is your opinion of its contents?
As energy efficiency experts, we believe that making the national building stock efficient represents the future of the country’s economy, business and the fight against climate change. In the end, net of some changes that will be introduced over time in the conversion phase, we will have to carry out something like four million interventions in Italy. And we will be there in this decisive game.
But is there, in your opinion, an Italian specificity?
Of course there is.
Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland have building parks with different characteristics.
There are German cities where 40 per cent of the existing buildings are in the hands of funds and the houses are used for rent.
Here, on the other hand, housing is overwhelmingly owned. So it is almost inevitable that the directive will be read as a patrimonial asset. If we could instead get people to understand that it is a form of enhancing the value of housing and saving on the energy bill, even net of the environmental and climate benefit, perhaps then we would have hit the jackpot.
Yeah, and who puts up the money?
Therein lies the mystery. We need to understand who is funding the retrofitting operation. I think one should focus on these objectives: environmental benefit; asset benefit; economic savings due to reduced energy consumption. In order to put these three things together, politics must be far-sighted and seize these opportunities by intervening on the system of banks and large closed-end funds, which both show great interest in green policies. This would be a win-win operation. Finally, again, politics, if it believes in change, should first reduce and then eliminate incentives for fossil fuels.
