Individual metering of central heating: higher bills and colder homes
Splitting central heating costs by individual device sends bills soaring and cools homes: the radiator estimator and pipe losses are shared out equally.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Individual metering of central heating: higher bills and colder homes
The promise was fair: pay only for the heat you use. The result, judging by the cases piling up, is the opposite. Buildings where the bill goes up, homes that are colder than before, and the neighbour who complained about subsidising absent residents now finds he is paying more than ever. The individualisation of central heating, pushed forward by European regulation with a 2023 deadline, has become a great business for the intermediary and a bad deal for the owner.
The mechanism has a catch. In most older buildings the system is riser-based: several pipes run up through the floors, and there is no way to fit a real meter at the entrance to each dwelling. The solution is to install on each radiator a device that measures temperature and estimates consumption. An estimator, not a meter. If the sun hits it, if there is a radiator cover, or if the gadget breaks down, it simply makes the reading up. And even so, you are charged for every reading, every installation, every battery change and every visit.
What you pay when consumption cannot be measured
On top of the botched individual allocation there is a part that is not open to debate: the heat lost by the communal pipes. That energy cannot be measured and is split equally among all residents, whether or not they turn on their radiators. Hence the paradoxical effect described in several cases: those who switched off the heating to save money keep paying for the pipe losses, the device fees and the monthly readings.
Some argue the system works when the installation is properly done and thermostatic valves are added. One concrete case: a renovation with thermostatic valves and later meters brought spending down to roughly half. The nuance matters: that saving came about compared with neighbours who heated their homes with the windows open. It is not a defence of the device, but a recognition that other people's waste was also being paid for.
The building that gets colder as everyone heats only their own home
The energy argument turns on its head. Blocks built for central heating are designed to work with all radiators on: the insulation and heat distribution rely on that uniformity. When it is broken, a resident who turns on their radiator with the flats above and below switched off needs to spend far more to achieve the same feeling of warmth. Consumption stays the same or rises, but the heat does not translate into comfort.
The other side of the coin is the previous waste. There have been flats with the heating on full and windows open for hours because the cost was diluted among everyone. That behaviour existed and was an energy scandal. The question is whether the solution lies in splitting the bill badly or in fixing the installation.
Water and gas: the same pattern
Individualisation is not an isolated case. Something similar happens with water: works costing 2,500 euros per dwelling to separate meters, trinc by an individual fixed charge that can be ten times what was paid as a community. The utility argues it now manages more customers and more invoices. Those who wanted to stop paying for other people's water end up paying more for the privilege.
The alternative that does work
The technically clean option is to cut the connection to the communal circuit and install an individual boiler. That is what is done in new builds and some full renovations. The problem is the cost: boiler, annual inspections, minimum consumption charges and the loss of the efficiency of a large system. For a 130-square-metre flat, individual heating can exceed 600 euros a month in season, while a community with central heating spreads that cost over the whole year.
The full calculation, with the breakdown of fixed fees, readings and pipe losses, leaves a difference that surprises those who expected to save. The most reasonable prediction is that the regulation will go ahead and that riser-based buildings will keep paying for the botched job. With one caveat: where the installation allows real meters and thermostatic valves, the outcome may be different. Nobody has yet measured how many buildings fall into one case and how many into the other.
The promise was fair: pay only for the heat you use. The result, judging by the cases piling up, is the opposite. Buildings where the bill goes up, homes that are colder than before, and the neighbour who complained about subsidising absent residents now finds he is paying more than ever. The individualisation of central heating, pushed forward by European regulation with a 2023 deadline, has become a great business for the intermediary and a bad deal for the owner.
The mechanism has a catch. In most older buildings the system is riser-based: several pipes run up through the floors, and there is no way to fit a real meter at the entrance to each dwelling. The solution is to install on each radiator a device that measures temperature and estimates consumption. An estimator, not a meter. If the sun hits it, if there is a radiator cover, or if the gadget breaks down, it simply makes the reading up. And even so, you are charged for every reading, every installation, every battery change and every visit.
What you pay when consumption cannot be measured
On top of the botched individual allocation there is a part that is not open to debate: the heat lost by the communal pipes. That energy cannot be measured and is split equally among all residents, whether or not they turn on their radiators. Hence the paradoxical effect described in several cases: those who switched off the heating to save money keep paying for the pipe losses, the device fees and the monthly readings.
Some argue the system works when the installation is properly done and thermostatic valves are added. One concrete case: a renovation with thermostatic valves and later meters brought spending down to roughly half. The nuance matters: that saving came about compared with neighbours who heated their homes with the windows open. It is not a defence of the device, but a recognition that other people's waste was also being paid for.
The building that gets colder as everyone heats only their own home
The energy argument turns on its head. Blocks built for central heating are designed to work with all radiators on: the insulation and heat distribution rely on that uniformity. When it is broken, a resident who turns on their radiator with the flats above and below switched off needs to spend far more to achieve the same feeling of warmth. Consumption stays the same or rises, but the heat does not translate into comfort.
The other side of the coin is the previous waste. There have been flats with the heating on full and windows open for hours because the cost was diluted among everyone. That behaviour existed and was an energy scandal. The question is whether the solution lies in splitting the bill badly or in fixing the installation.
Water and gas: the same pattern
Individualisation is not an isolated case. Something similar happens with water: works costing 2,500 euros per dwelling to separate meters, trinc by an individual fixed charge that can be ten times what was paid as a community. The utility argues it now manages more customers and more invoices. Those who wanted to stop paying for other people's water end up paying more for the privilege.
The alternative that does work
The technically clean option is to cut the connection to the communal circuit and install an individual boiler. That is what is done in new builds and some full renovations. The problem is the cost: boiler, annual inspections, minimum consumption charges and the loss of the efficiency of a large system. For a 130-square-metre flat, individual heating can exceed 600 euros a month in season, while a community with central heating spreads that cost over the whole year.
The full calculation, with the breakdown of fixed fees, readings and pipe losses, leaves a difference that surprises those who expected to save. The most reasonable prediction is that the regulation will go ahead and that riser-based buildings will keep paying for the botched job. With one caveat: where the installation allows real meters and thermostatic valves, the outcome may be different. Nobody has yet measured how many buildings fall into one case and how many into the other.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (92 replies).
More summaries
-
Heating Cost Meters: Genuine Savings or Bureaucratic Scam in Spain?
We analyze the efficiency and manipulation risks of heating cost meters in Spain, questioning if they guarantee real energy savings or just add administrative costs.
-
A thermal switch that shuts the boiler off early and cuts gas bills
A forum user wired a thermal switch in series with the thermostat to stop the boiler earlier: he reports 22% less gas and €156 over two months.
-
Biomass boilers promise savings but raise doubts
A forum debates whether biomass really saves money: pellet prices have doubled to €0.23/kg and some calculate an installed boiler can cost up to five times more than oil.
-
Carlos and Fernando Paz: Where to Listen to the Brothers
Carlos and Fernando Paz share a voice but no single show. Find their podcasts on YouTube, iVoox, and radio stations.
-
Filters, reverse osmosis or distillation: the tap water battle
Filters, reverse osmosis or distillation: the WHO admits there is not enough data on drinking demineralized water, and the price of each system changes everything.
-
Charging batteries at night to use power by day: the numbers don't add up
A calculation using bargain-priced batteries and chargers plus DIY installation gave 18 cents per stored kWh, more than the peak rate. The sums just don't work.