EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 13-XI-2008 
SEC(2008) 2864 
  
COMMUNICATION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
PROPOSAL FOR A RECAST OF THE  
ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUIL DINGS DIRECTIVE (2002/91/EC) 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
{COM(2008) 780 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2865} 
Lead DG : DG TREN  
Other involved services : SG, DG ECFIN, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG RTD, DG 
JRC, DG JLS  
CLWP reference : 2008/TREN048
 
EN 2   EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 
EU buildings sector and EU policy objectives 
Energy use in residential and commercial buildin gs represents the lion's share, about 40%, of 
the EU's total final energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. Activities related to buildings 
represent a large part of the EU economy, about 9% of EU GDP and 7-8% of EU 
employment, and the importance of the sector in terms of social, cultural and historic value is 
enormous. Therefore, the EU buildings sector can play a key role in achieving EU growth, 
energy and climate policy objectives, while contri buting to an improved level of comfort and 
lower energy bills for citizens.  
Energy efficiency of buildings is an important  part of broader initiatives on achieving EU 
energy and climate change objectives, as outlined in the Commission Communication Energy 
policy for Europe1, and plays a role in limiting the ne gative impact of high energy prices2. 
The European Council in its Presidency conclusions3, and the European Parliament in two of 
its resolutions4, have urged the Member States a nd the Commission to follow a proactive 
approach towards realizing the energy savings  potential. In response, the Commission has 
continued its work on strategic initiatives, also  on energy efficiency, w ith buildings being a 
basic element.  
The potential for cost-effective energy savings is  about 30% of the whole sector's expected 
energy consumption by 2020, which would lead  to significant economic, social and 
environmental benefits. The savings stimulat ed by the main current EU measures are 
estimated to result in about 15% total energy  savings. Thus, an additional potential of a 
further 15% energy savings has be en identified. This potential can be realized at very low or 
even negative CO 2 abatement costs, because of the rela tively low cost of energy relevant 
investments (when combined with other constr uction and renovation works in a building) and 
the very high value of energy savings compared  to the other sectors, making energy saving a 
very attractive approach for tack ling the climate change challenge.  
Buildings are often regarded as a "local" issue. Nevertheless, the buildings  sector is crucial for 
meeting the EU policy objectives  and the EU added value of energy savings is significant. 
Buildings concern every EU citi zen and with the high energy prices and their volatility energy 
efficiency is now becoming an important issue.  EU action on building could provide for more 
and better information on the energy savings possi bilities. The 'holistic approach' in this 
direction could also provide for improvements for the lowest quality houses in a proactive 
manner, as support from the national budgets fo r subsidising energy bills could now be 
targeted to long-term solutions for quality improvements in buildings.  
EU legislative action 
                                                 
1 COM(2007) 1 
2 COM(2008) 384 
3 11018/1/08, REV 1 and 7224/1/07, REV 1 
4 2006/2113(INI) and (2007/2106(INI)) 
 
EN 3   EN The existing EU core instruments in this co ntext, e.g. Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive (EPBD), Eco-design of Energy-usi ng Products Directive, and Energy End-use 
Efficiency and Energy Services Directive, have  proved to be a solid basis for achieving and 
supporting energy savings in the buildings sector. Amongst them, the EPBD is the main tool 
that provides for a holistic approach towards e fficient energy use in the buildings sector.  
The main objective of the EPBD is to prom ote cost-effective improvement of the overall 
energy performance of buildings, whilst ta king into account local conditions and 
requirements. The Directive covers the energy  needs for space and water heating, cooling, 
ventilation and lighting. It pr ovides for a holistic view on th e energy use of buildings and 
combines in a legal text different regulatory  (i.e. minimum energy performance requirements) 
and information based instruments (i.e. certificates and inspection requirements): 
• Member States have to set up mini mum energy performance requirements  for new 
buildings and for large existi ng ones that undergo major renovation. This means that these 
buildings shall meet certain national a nd regionally determined minimum energy 
performance levels, with the aim of achie ving improved energy performance, thermal 
comfort and lower energy bills. 
• Member States have to introduce an energy pe rformance certification scheme that provides 
information on the energy needs of a building and on what can be improved. It should be 
presented to potential buyers/tenants so that they have an independe nt assessment of the 
energy-use aspects of the buildings, enab ling informed decisions to be taken. 
• Member States shall establish a system for inspection of medium- and large-size heating 
and air-conditioning systems  at regular intervals so that their energy performance can be 
monitored and optimized. These systems are special ly targeted as they dispose of very high 
energy savings potential. Promotion campaigns can be undertaken by Member States as an alternative to inspections, provided it can be de monstrated that this approach would be of 
equal impact.  
These three main instruments take effect at different times of a building's lifetime. Minimum 
energy performance requirements are to be met at the time of construction or major 
renovation (i.e. every 25-40 year s approx.). An energy performa nce certificate is required 
only when buildings are newly constructed, sold or rented out and is valid for a maximum of 
10 years. The inspections of heating and ai r-conditioning systems are carried out more 
frequently, this being a function of the system si ze and fuel source. For instance, in the case of 
medium-sized boilers and air c onditioning systems Member States  are entitled to decide on 
the frequency of inspections regard less of whether or not the building is for sale or rent (as is 
the case for the energy performance certificate), whereas for large boilers it should be every 
two years, etc..  
Member States also have to develop thei r own methodology, or use European standards
5, for 
calculating the energy characterist ics and performance of buildings , whilst also ensuring that 
there are enough qualified experts to carry out the certific ations and inspections. 
The EPBD does not fix concrete EU-wide en ergy performance requirements, but obliges 
Member States to lay down holistic met hodologies, requirements, and inspection and 
                                                 
5 European standards are adopted by  a European standardisation body (CEN) and made available to the 
public. A package of 31 EPBD has been prepared by CEN acting on a mandate by the European 
Commission to support Member States for the national implementation of the EPBD. 
 
EN 4   EN certification regimes to rate the energy performan ce of buildings at a na tional/regional level. 
Thus, its approach takes national/regional boundary conditions, like outdoor climate and 
individual building traditions, fu lly into consideration and respects the subsidiarity and 
proportionality principles. Me mber States can go beyond the minimum prescriptions laid 
down in the Directive an d be more ambitious. 
Before the adoption of the EPBD in 2002, many Member States did not have energy 
efficiency requirements or promotional instrume nts in their regulations  and building codes. 
Therefore, in a number of countries the EP BD implementation has been a significant 
challenge but also, in parallel, an opportunity to improve the qua lity of their building stock. 
These challenges led to delay in transposition an d a number of infringement cases (21 cases at 
their maximum) and support actions were in itiated by the Commission. There has been 
positive reaction by the Member States and now 22 of them declare full transposition (which is still under evaluation by the Commissi on). Nevertheless, the implementation is a 
continuous process and there are st ill a number of challenges to be  resolved, such as low level 
of ambition, ambiguous interpretations, and poor enforcement by some Member States. 
The main contribution of the EP BD, so far, has been in bringing the subject of the energy 
efficiency of buildings onto political agendas,  into building codes and to the attention of 
citizens. In terms of implementation costs, seve ral Member States reported moderate costs, 
but with significant improvements in terms of  energy savings in the buildings sector 
stimulated by the Directive.  
Need for further activities? 
Despite the actions already undertaken within th e buildings sector, the main problem is that 
there is still a large cost-efficient energy savi ng potential that remains unutilized. Whilst the 
available data does not allow for a full assessmen t of the impacts of the current directive, 
rough calculations show that, if fully and prope rly implemented, the energy savings from the 
EPBD can be as much as 96 Mtoe final ener gy in 2020, this being 6.5% of EU final energy 
demand. However, its wording and the 'openness' of its provisions allow for various interpretations in its implementation. This woul d probably mean that its full impact may not 
be realized. 
Many of the potential social, economic and envi ronmental benefits at national and EU level 
are being neither fully explored nor fully explo ited. This is due not only to the complexity of 
the sector and the existence of market failures,  but also to limitations  of the current EPBD. 
The possible alternative ways of tackling the challenges are: (i) repealing the EPBD and 
replacing it by ‘soft’ instruments, (ii) business as usual through use of the existing instruments 
without adaptation, and (iii) EU action by comp lemented and improved instruments of the 
current EPBD. 
The first alternative, which is to repeal the EP BD and rely on 'soft law'  instruments, such as 
information, voluntary activities, financing measures, etc., would entail pro-active and 
ambitious actions from Member States wher ein the Commission would monitor and support 
the progress. However, the specifics of the sector, insufficient measures in many Member 
States, the high cost of “soft” instruments, a nd the fact that there is already a functioning 
Directive at EU level, all lead  to the conclusion that this alternative would not solve the 
problems at acceptable cost. In addition, repe aling the EPBD would send a very negative 
signal regarding the EU ambiti ons to pursue its policy objectives on energy efficiency. 
 
EN 5   EN The second alternative is to continue with the 'b usiness as usual' or ‘do nothing more’ than the 
existing measures, besides continued and improved  implementation. If such an approach were 
adopted a large potential, currently outside of  the EPBD, would remain untapped. Also, due to 
the limitations in the wording of the current EPBD, the full expected potential would not be realized. On the contrary, because of the vague ness of some provisions there may even be a 
negative connotation. For instance, because of  the lack of provisions on monitoring and 
compliance, the certificates might be of very poo r quality in some countries and considered as 
a useless bureaucratic burden imposed from Brussels.  
The third alternative is to re vise the EPBD. The main provisi ons of the current Directive 
would be kept, as they are already delivering,  but their efficiency would be significantly 
improved and their scope extended. By building on its current structure and provisions, as well as the implementing measures already under taken in Member States, the transposition - 
and indeed the comprehension of  these measures by all stake holders- would be eased, whilst 
at the same time provision could be made for tapping a larger share of  the energy saving 
potential and other related bene fits. The setting up of the concrete levels, requirements and 
mechanisms would, as under the current EPBD, be  left to the national/regional authorities in 
respect of the principles of s ubsidiarity and proportionality. 
The conclusion drawn from the three policy alternatives was that the largest contribution 
towards meeting the EU policy goals can be ach ieved through revision of the EPBD. This can 
be done with modifications of the current provis ions that would keep th e principles and their 
essence, but would significantly improve their e fficiency. In this case, the current Directive 
will be the starting point for the revised instrument and will constitute its 'backbone'. 
Therefore, the continued implementation of  the EPBD is of crucial importance.  
However, it should be emphasized that the solution is an integr ated mix of policy instruments 
and thus other non-regulatory m easures, although not sufficient on  their own, are necessary to 
complement the implementation of the Directive.  Therefore, the efforts in providing more 
financial and fiscal incentives, information, training of experts, a nd agreeing on voluntary 
actions should be strengthened. The 'soft law' instruments already contained in the current 
EPBD should be further developed. 
EU's right for undertaking these activities  
Climate change, security of energy supply and environmental protection are challenges that 
cannot be sufficiently addressed at national level only. Energy e fficiency provides part of the 
solution of these problems and the instruments on energy efficiency that have already been 
adopted at EU level, based on Art. 6 of the Treaty (environmental protection), reflect this 
need for Community action. 
The buildings sector is responsible for about 36 % of the EU's total CO
2 emissions and for 
about half of the CO 2 emissions which are not covered by the Emission Trading System. It 
disposes of a considerable co st-effective energy savings pote ntial which can hardly be found 
in any other area and which is attainable at co mparatively low costs. Therefore, it becomes 
evident that every country needs to urgently save energy in build ings but not all dispose of the 
knowledge needed.  
The buildings sector is also highly disaggregated and is experiencing a number of market 
failures (e.g.: partial internalization of ex ternalities in energy prices; principal-agent 
problems; split incentives; lack  of appropriate information, e ducation and training; low uptake 
 
EN 6   EN of new and innovative technologie s; etc.) which have limited th e rate of energy efficiency 
gains in the sector. Indicators show that while for example the energy consumption of 
industry is decreasing, that of households is constantly on the rise. Construction products, 
appliances and services re lated to buildings are an important pa rt of the EU internal market. In 
addition, with the increasing mobility of people  and number of businesses with operations 
across the EU, a similar way to measure, for example, the energy perf ormance of buildings 
would decrease the administrative burden for them.  
As energy efficiency objectives could not thus  far be achieved by Member States to a 
sufficient extent, then action at Community level is appropriate to facilitate and support the uptake of activities at national level. 
The main elements of the current EPBD have al ready been discussed fr om the point of view 
of the principles of subsidiar ity and proportionality when the Directive was tabled in 2001 and 
adopted in 2002. Furthermore, they have also been tested in practice, demonstrating the appropriateness of the approach. Since then the need for common action to tackle the 
challenges of climate change and energy depend ency have become even more apparent. In 
this Impact Assessment, subsidiarity and proportionality were guiding principles when developing the initial screening of options. Ne vertheless, some options, which could possibly 
not be in line with these two principles, were di scussed in the text as they have high potential 
for energy and CO
2 reductions. In this case appropriate in dication has been given in the text.  
What options for a better EPBD? 
The Impact Assessment concluded that severa l aspects of the curr ent EPBD could be 
improved. These in general refer, firstly, to the improvement of some ambiguous wording (in 
particular of definitions) and, secondly, to each of the main pillars of the current Directive. 
Within each pillar several options were chosen, based on a broad discussion with stakeholders and observations from the implem entation of the current EPBD.  
The options were analysed in view of their eco nomic, social and environmental impacts. For 
the analysis, the BEAM model (see Annex IV) and data/assumptions available in a large number of studies were us ed, as well as the knowledge and observations accumulated by 
following the implementation of the EPBD and discussion/inputs from Member States and 
stakeholders. The calculation of the impacts is bottom-up (i.e. based on following the construction, demolition and renovation rates, a nd energy-efficiency measures in building 
retrofits). The baseline is the latest update  (September 2007) of the PRIMES model of DG 
TREN which includes policies and measures impl emented in the Member-States until the end 
of 2006. The latest policy developments for th e ETS and non-ETS sectors are not included in 
the baseline. For some options, only qualific ation of the impacts was possible, due to 
limitations in the available quantitative data.  
The options discussed include a mix of policy instruments, including re gulatory and also non-
regulatory alternatives, like inform ation and other soft measures.  
The main areas where action is  required and within which va rious options needed to be 
discussed were: 
 
EN 7   EN General: Clarification and simplification  
This is essential for proper implementation of the EPBD. The need for action in this direction 
surfaced during discussions with representative s from Member States and via inputs from 
stakeholders. Two actions are key in this direct ion: (i) to clarify and simplify the text itself 
(i.e. certain definitions and pr ovisions), and (ii) to choose the proper legal format of the 
proposed revised text (recast vs. amendment).  
A: 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings when they undergo major renovation  
The current EPBD provision that only existing buildings above 1000m2 should meet certain 
energy performance requirements when undergoi ng major renovation (for  which either the 
investment is above 25% of the whole build ing value, excluding th e land, or the renovation 
concerns more than 25% of the building sh ell), means that only about 29% of the EU 
buildings sector falls within th e scope of this provision. The best moment for the introduction 
of energy efficiency measures is when a building anyhow undergoes major renovation, which 
is approximately every 25 years. At that stage,  the additional investment  needed is not high 
and -as the investment also leads to energy savi ngs- it is usually repaid during its lifetime.  
This provision therefore limits the impact of the Directive. Three possible options on the extensi on of the EPBD were analysed:  
Option A1: Lowering the threshold to 500 m²,  (all medium sized buildings).  
Option A2: Lowering the threshold to 200 m²,  (all buildings apart fr om small ones (mainly 
single family houses)).  
Option A3: Abolishing the 1000 m² threshold  (all buildings).  
For all options the current exceptions listed in Art.4 (3) for certain buildings (for example, 
buildings officially protected because of their ar chitectural or historical  merit, the stand-alone 
buildings smaller than 50 m², etc), are considered  to remain. Also, the possibility for Member 
States to go beyond the requirements, i. e. below 500 or 200 m² would remain.  
It should be highlighted that within the disc ussed options, Member States would still be 
responsible to set up the individual require ments of energy performance and thus the 
subsidiarity principle will be respected. Als o, the definition of major renovation would be 
retained as in the current EPBD, which means that, for example, renovation of an apartment 
in a large multifamily building would, in most ca ses, not be covered by the requirements. The 
effect on individual households would be limite d further by the fact that renovations are 
usually made 'step by step'. The current EPBD also entails that for existing buildings, when 
they undergo major renovation of a certain part, the energy pe rformance requirements are to 
be met only for this part and not for the whole building. For example, if the building shell is 
renovated this would not mean that the heat ing system should mandatorily be changed. 
A summary of the calculated impacts of the thr ee options is provided in  the table below.  
 Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 
Final energy savings in 
2020 (Mtoe/a) 3 5 20 
 
EN 8   EN  Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 
CO 2 emission reductions 
in 2020 (Mt/a)  8 14 51 
Capital costs in 2020 
(billion €/a)  1 (but 3 saved  
energy costs) 2 (but 7 saved 
 energy costs) 8 (but 25 saved  
energy costs) 
Job creation in 2020 10,000 21,000 75,000 
Administrative costs Low  Low Medium  
The analysis indicates that option A3 could most  significantly contribute to the realization of 
the EU policy objectiv es in question. 
B: Energy performance certificates  
The certificates, which are al ready mandatory under the current EPBD when buildings are 
constructed, sold or rented out , can be a powerful tool to cr eate a demand-driven market for 
energy efficient buildings, as they allow economi c agents to estimate costs in relation to 
energy consumption and efficiency. However, obser vations show that some certificates issued 
in some Member States are not of satisfactory quality, or they are not systematically made 
available during property transact ions, thus significantly restrict ing their real impact at the 
present time. Higher uptake of the recommendati ons, as shown on the certificates, for energy 
improvements of the buildings can stimulate further energy savings.  Therefore, several 
options have been analysed:  
Option B1: Quality and compliance requirements for certificates.  It is proposed that a 
requirement for random sampling checks of the qu ality of energy performa nce certificates and 
compliance with the building energy codes is ca rried out by public aut horities or accredited 
institutions. This regulatory instrument would en sure that the information on the certificates is 
of good quality and reliable. It is al so expected that it would trigge r an increase in the rate of 
renovations, and thus high energy savings as, du e to the improved quality, people would be 
more aware of the possibilities for improveme nts and of their cost-e ffectiveness. Proposing 
such requirements can be justified from a propor tionality point of view as, from the current 
practice, it has been evident that the low quality of certificates is one of the key factors for the 
credibility and market upta ke of the certificates in a number of Member States. 
Option B2: Requiring that the recommended cost-effective measur es of the certificate are 
realized within a certain time period.  The proposal is to requir e that the cost-effective 
recommendations on the certificate are implem ented within a certain period of time. The 
setting up of a definition for 'c ost-effective' and the period of time are to be decided at 
national or regional level. This regulatory instru ment can be introduced either for all buildings 
or only for those of the public administration. Due to data availability limitations, the introduction of such a requirement was only analy zed for tertiary sector buildings. This would 
be a significant financial burden for EU citize ns and businesses, and therefore such action 
would not be justified at EU  level if no sufficient financial mechanisms are ensured.  
Option B3: Making certificates a mandatory part  of property advertisement and/or property 
transaction documents . This would entail that informa tion on the energy performance of a 
building is included in advertisements and public ity for property transactions and that with 
each transaction the certificate ha s to be presented. The former is an information tool that 
would increase the awareness about  the certificates and energy efficiency. Such a requirement 
 
EN 9   EN at EU level has already been  made for the display of CO 2 emissions of cars and, taking into 
account the important contributi on such action may have, its in troduction would be in line 
with both the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. The latter is a regulatory measure 
that would limit the interpretations of the current text of the EPBD which already states that a 
certificate should be 'made available', but for which, nevertheless, there are some 
interpretations which mean that the certificates are not de facto  presented. 
Option B4: Requiring the linking of the certificates with ot her support or discouragement 
mechanisms . It is suggested that the energy efficiency improvemen ts of a building, which are 
achieved as a result of a financial incentive, are demonstrated or justified using the certificate. 
For example, if a certificate is made before a nd after the investment, the financial support may 
be given only if there are improvements to the ranking of the building. Th is will help property 
owners/tenants to make informed decisions abou t the cost-effectiveness of their investments 
and there will be a proof that the funding provi ded would really lead to energy savings. 
However, such a requirement would not be in line with the subsidiarity principle, as it would 
touch upon issues of national budge t spending. Furthermore, intr oducing such a text into a 
Directive based on Art. 175 (environmental prot ection) of the Treaty may not be possible 
from a legal point of view.  
A summary of the calculated impacts of the thr ee options is provided in the following table.  
  Option B1 Option B2* Option B3 Option B4 
Final energy savings in 
2020 (Mtoe/a) 21 12 ++ 
(lower than B2) ++ 
(lower than B2) 
CO 2 emission reductions 
in 2020 (Mt/a)  57 33 ++ 
(lower than B2)  ++ 
(lower than B2) 
Capital costs in 2020 
(billion €/a)  8 (but 26 saved 
energy costs) 5 (but 9 saved 
energy costs) Very low Strongly depends on 
type of measures 
Job creation in 2020 60,000 100,000 ++ ++ 
Administrative costs Low - medium High Very low Medium 
Comments CO 2 abatement 
costs of about  
-315 €/ton. High one-off 
investments; 
legal constraints  Measures outside 
EPBD, legal 
constraints 
* Impact quantified for the tertiary buildings sector  only, so figures do not contain the potential of the residential 
sector. 
The analysis indicates that options B1 and B3 could significantly contribute to the realization 
of the EU policy objectives in question. Option B4  could also be further developed outside the 
scope of the EPBD. 
C: Inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems  
These systems have a very high energy saving pot ential, up to 40-60% of their total energy 
use. At present, the current EPBD requires that  a regular inspection be  performed on systems 
above certain thresholds, although it is very unc lear what the outcomes of these inspections 
are and furthermore their quality is not always sa tisfactory. As a result, it is estimated that the 
EPBD as it is today can bring only 10% energy savings in this field by 2020. There is significant room for further savings, for wh ich two options have been discussed:  
 
EN 10   EN Option C1: Requiring an 'inspection report' for heating and air- conditioning systems.  It is 
proposed that an 'inspection report', to be dr awn up by an independent expert, is given to the 
building owner. It would include an energy effi ciency rating of the he ating/cooling system 
and recommendations for cost-effective measures . This information tool aims at providing 
practical and useful results to building owners when deci ding on retrofitting and would 
therefore increase the impact of the current EPBD provisions. In  this context, existing CEN 
standards for inspections could be further devel oped to allow for an efficiency rating of the 
installation systems. The recast EPBD could therefore refer to European standards and make 
the efficiency rating part of the inspection re port. Minimum energy efficiency installation 
requirements could then be set by Member Stat es. This would link the EPBD with the Eco-
design Directive. The inspecti on report would be an importan t upgrading to the existing 
requirements for inspection and would help co nsumers in identifying important possibilities 
for cost-effective energy savings and, hence, is justified from the point of view of 
proportionality.  
Option C2: Introducing compliance requirements. It is proposed that random sampling checks 
of inspection reports (pre sented in option C1) of different le vels of detail and frequency could 
be introduced. This regulatory tool could ensure  that the inspections ar e carried out regularly 
and are of satisfactory quality (which is not al ways the case at present). Similarly to option 
B1, proposing such requirements can be justifie d from a proportionality  point of view as, 
given the evidence from the current practice, it  has been witnessed that without compliance 
checks the usefulness and credibility of inspections is drawn into question. 
A summary of the calculated impacts of the two options is provided in the table below.  
 Option C1 Option C2 
Final energy savings in 
2020 (Mtoe/a) 5 ++ - +++ 
(higher than C1) 
CO 2 emission reductions in 
2020 (Mt/a) 15 – 20 ++ - +++ 
(higher than C1) 
Capital costs in 2020 
(billion €/a) Net benefits (investments minus 
energy savings) estimated to €2 billion 
per year. In the same magnitude as C1 
Job creation in 2020 46,000 23,000 
Administrative costs Low Medium 
Comment CO 2 abatement costs estimated to be 
around -133€/ton.  
 CO 2 abatement costs estimated to be 
in the same magnitude as option C1. 
The analysis indicates that take n together both options C1 and C2  could significantly 
contribute to the realization of the EU polic y objectives in question,  without leading to 
negative social or administrative implications. 
D: Energy performance requirements  
At present, Member States determine indivi dual energy performance requirements and their 
levels of ambition. These vary wi dely across the EU, ev en within similar climatic zones. In 
many Member States cost-optimal levels ar e not yet achieved, which means that the cost-
efficient energy savings and CO 2 emission reduction possibilitie s are not fully utilized. 
Furthermore, cross-border comparisons of how Me mber States have advanced in this respect 
are difficult due to diverse nati onal/regional approaches of calc ulation and setting up of the 
 
EN 11   EN underlying parameters. Therefore, further stimul ation at Community le vel, while respecting 
the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, could realize additional energy savings.  
Four options have been identified:  Option D1: Specifying EU–wide energy performance requirements.  The proposal would entail 
that specific energy performance requirement leve ls are proposed as an Annex to the revised 
EPBD, based on robust calcu lations that have to take into consideration vari ous factors, for 
example, different climate zones and buildin g types for residentia l and non-residential 
buildings. This regulatory instrument would allow for a large part of the energy savings potential to be reaped, as in some countries th e requirements are below cost-optimal level, but 
would require a high level of regulation at EU-level. It woul d ease cross-border operating 
businesses and support the internal  market of energy efficiency related construction materials 
and appliances. However, determining these levels would be a very demanding and highly disputed task. Such concrete regulation at EU le vel would not be in line with the principles of 
subsidiarity and proportionality.  
Option D2: Introducing a benchmarking mechanism.  The proposal is to include in the EPBD 
(i.e. as an Annex) principal parameters to calculate the cost-optimal level of energy 
performance requirements for buildings which can be used to compare the Member States' 
level of ambition in the implementation. The cu rrent provisions of the EPBD would not be 
changed regarding the minimum energy performan ce requirements, i.e. Member States would 
still have to set up the individual levels based on their national circumstances. In addition there would be a calculation methodology proposed, for exampl e, by the Commission, which 
would allow for a cross-check of how close na tional/local requirements are to the optimal 
levels. In order for this comparison to be carri ed out, Member States would have to provide 
input data or to calculate the levels for themselves but report the results. This would clearly 
indicate whether Member States are below the optimal levels, which would mean that money 
from energy savings is lost every time nationa l or local regulations are applied, or whether 
Member States are too ambitious in their re quirements and place an unjustified burden on 
their citizens.  
This is a "soft law" instrume nt and would not impose any requi rement for the Member States 
to correct their levels and thus would be in  line with the proportionality and subsidiarity 
principles. However, it is believe d that it would create significan t peer-pressure from the front 
runner countries, as well as from the construc tion industry and other stakeholders, and would 
ultimately move all Member States towards optimal energy efficiency requirements. The impact that is measured is the maximum possi ble, i.e. meaning that Member States would 
gradually correct their national levels, with half of them would adjusting their national levels to cost-optimal ones by 2020 and the remainder, possibly, by 2030.  
Option D3: Requiring an evolving improvement sc heme for the buildings stock focussing on 
the worst performing buildings (a kind of top-runner approach).  It is proposed that Member 
States monitor their building stock and la y down Action Plans on how to increase the 
refurbishment rate and the energy performance of  the worst performing buildings. This mix of 
instruments could tackle the most cost-effectiv e potential. However, it  would require that a 
significant quantity of presen tly unavailable good quality st atistical information on the 
building stock is collected, thus implying high ad ministrative costs. Such an approach would 
also be a considerable burden for the owners (some of them w ith low incomes) of the poorly 
performing buildings and this w ould also entail that Member St ates would have to provide 
 
EN 12   EN financial support mechanisms. This approach w ould not be in line w ith the subsidiarity 
principle as it would touch upon i ssues of nationa l budget spending. 
Option D4: Setting up EU–wide low or ze ro energy/carbon buildings/passive house 
requirements.  It is proposed that a requirement is  introduced that all newly constructed 
buildings must meet the low energy building requirements from a certain date onwards. 
Alternatively, Member States can be encouraged to set a definition and strategy for achieving the low energy building standard where the fina l and intermediary target years are clearly 
mentioned. These actions would lead to very  well performing new buildings and foster 
innovation.  
However, such a requirement would pose a sign ificant challenge to the construction industry 
to build such houses and would increase houses  prices by 7% to 15%. It would also not 
respect the subsidiarity and propor tionality principle, as it woul d require investments that are 
not in all cases cost-efficient and would creat e burden for the national budgets as they would 
have to support households that could not afford  to build such low energy homes. Therefore, a 
softer approach can be taken which is to include an obligation for the development of 
'roadmaps', wherein Member States would show their commitment toward achieving low 
energy/emission houses in the future and the co ncrete measures they plan to undertake. 
A summary of the calculated impacts of the four  options is provided in  the table below.  
  Option D1 Option D2 Option D3 Option D4 
Final energy savings in 
2020 (Mtoe/a) 10 5  
(up to 10 in 2030)+ 15 (if required for 
all new-build) 
+ (if graduall y with 
roadmaps) 
CO 2 emission reductions 
in 2020 (Mt/a)  24  13 
(up to 24 in 2030)+ 41 (if required for 
all new-build) 
+ (if graduall y with 
roadmaps) 
Capital costs in 2020 
(billion €/a)  6 (but 12 saved 
energy costs) 3 (but 6 saved 
energy costs) ++ 50 – 120 (if required 
for all new-build) 
Job creation in 2020 82,000 up to 82,000 + +++ 
Administrative costs Very high Very low High Low 
Comment CO 2 abatement 
costs of about -
250 €/ton. 
subsidiarity 
concerns CO 2 abatement 
costs of about -
250 €/ton.   Very high one- off 
investments if 
required for all new-
build   
The analysis indicates that option D2 coul d significantly and quick ly contribute to the 
realization of the EU policy ob jectives in question. Option D3  could be taken on board by 
Member States when starting national activities,  in particular related to the National Energy 
Efficiency Action Plans. Option D4 could, due to economic and legal constraints be 
considered in a less prescribed form, i.e. by national visions/roadmaps. 
 
EN 13   EN Furthermore, the role of the public sector to ac t as a leading example in energy efficiency is 
dealt with in the Impact Asse ssment by proposing stricter deadlin es for the public sector than 
for other sectors to comply with EPBD obliga tions and by proposing an obligatory realization 
of energy efficiency measures which are reco mmended in the energy performance certificate 
of a building. 
Conclusions 
The results for the most cost-effective and benefi cial options (indicated in bold in the tables 
above), with all available quantifications, show significant positive impacts which are 
possible if the Directive is revised, that would make use of a large part of the remaining 
potential in the buildings sect or and would also contribute to the realization of the full 
potential of the current EPBD.  Furthermore, such a revision would create a simplified and 
improved framework for energy savings. The mini mum total impact of the options identified 
as being most beneficial and for wh ich quantification was possible, is: 
– 60 – 80 Mtoe/year energy savings in 2020, i.e. reduction of 5-6%  of the EU final energy 
consumption in 2020; 
– 160 to 210 Mt/year CO 2 savings in 2020, i.e. 4-5% from EU total CO 2 emissions in 2020; 
The impact on the labour market would also be important. It is expected that 280,000 (to 
450,000) potential new jobs will be created by 2020 by the revise d EPBD. This would mainly 
be in the construction sector itself as well as for the services of energy certifiers, auditors and inspectors of heating and air-conditioning systems.  
The investment requirements and the administra tive costs of the measures were analysed and 
are relatively low compared to the benefits and the returns. For example, abolishing the 1000 m
2 threshold on an EU scale would lead to €8 b illion/year additional capital investments but 
would trigger €25 billion/year energy cost sa vings in 2020, which also  means considerably 
negative CO 2 abatement costs These calculations have been made on the basis of conservative 
estimations about oil prices (e.g. 55$ per barrel oil in 2005,  100$ in 2020 and 119 $ in 2030 in 
year 2005 prices). With higher oil prices it can be expected that returns on investment would 
be in even shorter periods and the potential would be even higher. 
The investment needs differ substantially across Europe depending on the social and 
economic conditions, on the initial state of property and on the type of renovations people 
undertake. They are not equally distributed amongst EU citizens, i.e. there will be additional 
costs for those who make major renovations of their buildings or are engaged in property 
transactions. However, with the high oil prices  these initial investme nts will have attractive 
returns. The overall benefits for society in te rms of reduction of energy consumption and thus 
reduced CO 2 emissions and energy import dependency, job creation, especially at local and 
regional level, positive health and labour produ ctivity far exceed the costs of the measures 
analysed. 
 
 
EN 14   EN 1. Procedural issues and consultation............................................................................. 15 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................. 15 1.2. Consultation and expertise ......................................................................................... 15 2. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 17 2.1. Overarching problem definition................................................................................. 17 2.2. Actions in the EU....................................................................................................... 18  
2.3. Remaining problems .................................................................................................. 26 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 28 
3.1. EU policy objectives .................................................................................................. 28 3.2. Specific policy objectives .......................................................................................... 29 3.3. EU's right to act......................................................................................................... . 30 
3.4. EU value added .......................................................................................................... 30  
3.5. Subsidiarity and proportionality................................................................................. 32 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 3 3 
4.1. Repealing the EPBD and replaci ng it by ‘soft’ instruments ...................................... 33 
4.2. Business as usual........................................................................................................ 3 4 
4.3. EU action by complemented and improved instruments ........................................... 35 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 37 
5.1. Main analytical approach ........................................................................................... 37 5.2. Clarification and simplification.................................................................................. 38 5.3. 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings  when they undergo major renovation ...... 40 
5.4. Energy performance certificates ................................................................................ 44 5.5. Inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems................................................... 53 5.6. Minimum energy performance requirements............................................................. 58 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 68 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 74 
ANNEXES 
I Summary of public consultation 
II Summary of the survey to the Member Sates 
 
EN 15   EN III Summary report of th e consultation meeting 
IV Main methods and assumptions V EU buildings sector 
1. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The Energy Efficiency Action Plan of 20066, endorsed at the Spring 2007 European Council7 
and further supported by the June 2008 Europe an Council, details a plan for achieving 20% 
energy saving by 2020 and highlights the importance of the buildings sect or to this end. One 
possible measure with significant potential that is discussed and evaluated in the Action Plan 
and its Impact Assessment8 is the strengthening of existing policies, and in particular, of the 
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (hereinafter EPBD) 2002/91/EC. Possible action 
in this direction feat ures on the Commission Legislative Work Programme of 2008 as one of 
the four strategic priorities on energy9 and on the Commission Simplification Rolling 
Programme for 2008-200910 aimed at better regulation and lawmaking.  
Energy efficiency of buildings is an important  part of broader initiatives on achieving EU 
energy and climate change objectives as  outlined in the Commission Communication Energy 
policy for Europe11 and on limiting the negative impact of high energy prices12. The European 
Council in its Presidency conclusions13, and the European Parliament in two of its 
resolutions14, has urged the Member States and the Commission for a proactive approach 
towards realizing the energy savings potential. In response the Commission is preparing an 
encompassing Strategic energy review 2 pack age to be adopted by the Commission in 
November 2008. Action on buildings, as discussed in  this Impact Assess ment, would be part 
of this package. 
The Impact Assessment has been prepared in th e first half of 2008 to evaluate options that 
could be explored in this area. It does not prejudge the final fo rm of any decision to be taken 
by the Commission.  
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
The impact assessment is based on a wide range of  information sources such as material from 
the Member States, experts, stakeholders, as well as from conferences , public consultations 
and studies. The process was supported inside  the Commission by an Inter Service Steering 
Group, lead by DG Energy and Transport (DG TREN). 
                                                 
6 COM(2006)545 
7 7224/1/07, REV 1 
8 SEC(2006)1174 
9 COM(2007) 640 final 
10 COM(2008) 33 final 
11 COM(2007) 1 
12 COM(2008) 384 
13 11018/1/08, REV 1 and 7224/1/07, REV 1 
14 2006/2113(INI) and (2007/2106(INI)) 
 
EN 16   EN 1.2.1.  Member States and Stakeholder consultations  
DG TREN has a very good understanding of th e challenges encoun tered by the Member 
States with the implementation of the EPBD at national/regional level, as there has been a continuous exchange of information based on regular contacts since the existing Directive 
was adopted in 2002. While DG TREN closely follo ws the transposition of the EPBD into 
national legislation, it also extensively discusses the implementation with national 
representatives in regular meetings. The Ener gy Demand Management Committee is one such 
discussion platform to follow the status of implementation and challenges of the Directive between Member States and the Commission which usually meets twice a year (a summary of 
Member States’ input on the impacts of the EP BD and need/possibilities for its modification 
is included in Annex II).  
Further intensive discussions were  held in the context of two dedicated initiatives, so-called 
Concerted Actions (01/2005-06/2007 and 12/2007- 11/2010), which were initiated under the 
Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the EU (implemented by the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI)) to provi de support to the Member States for 
transposing and implementing the EPBD. The Con certed Actions consist of regular 2 - 3 day 
meetings (about twice a year) of all Member States' representatives - involving around 100 
participants of national authorities and institutio ns directly in charge of implementation of the 
Directive in each Member State. Best practices  and detailed questions on transposition are 
discussed in the plenary sessi ons and parallel workshops held therein. The exchange of 
information continues in between the meetin gs via working groups, internet meetings, 
newsletters and a supporting web based service platform.  
DG TREN has many bilateral c ontacts with stakeholders, such as property and industry 
associations, banks and energy services compan ies to assess how the EPBD impacted their 
businesses. Some major stakehol ders contributed with position papers presenting their ideas 
on how to increase energy efficiency of buildings in the framework of the EPBD. 
At the beginning of 2008, DG TREN organized, with the support of the EPBD Buildings 
Platform, the "Energy Performance of Buildings Di rective: Next steps" Conference as part of 
the EU Sustainable Energy Week. The objective s were to present DG TREN's preliminary 
ideas for gaining more energy saving from buildings and to initiate a consultation  on the 
elements of the Directive which could be revised (see Annex III for its summary). The conference was attended by more than 150 partic ipants and the ideas for the challenges and 
possibilities for further steps were discu ssed and in general very well accepted. 
To further widen the scope of ideas on how to  upgrade the energy perf ormance of buildings, 
DG TREN also launched an online consultation for a period of eight weeks, starting from 
April 25
15. There were in total 246 responses, of wh ich 82% organizations and 18% citizens, 
originating from 22 Member States and severa l countries outside the EU (for summary see 
Annex I). There has been a strong support of th e revision of the EPBD (more than 75%). The 
answers indicate a clear wish for clarification or simplification to extend the scope of the 
existing Directive concerning e.g. specific defini tions or lowering/abo lishing of existing 
thresholds, and strengthening the role of it s instruments, e.g. the Energy Performance 
Certificate. Furthermore, suggestions were made for a better European harmonization that 
                                                 
15 It was in the form of questionnaire and was published on the Commission's webpage 'Your voice in 
Europe' and on the webpage of DG TREN 
 
EN 17   EN would ease cross-country comparisons and impr ove business environment. Also a stronger 
role of the public sector  to act as a leading ex ample was clearly proposed. 
1.2.2.  Studies  
Broad knowledge exists on the different economic, social and environmental dimensions 
associated with the energy perf ormance of buildings, and is well documented in various 
studies, including those s upported by the EU within its Inte lligent Energy Europe Programme 
and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development. However, these studies, 
many of which arise from grass -roots initiatives supported at Eu ropean or national level, are 
fragmented with regards to the issues discusse d and countries covered. Hence, this impact 
assessment considers the results of a large num ber of studies having very different scopes.  
The National Energy Efficiency Action Plans of  the Member States, submitted within the 
reporting obligations of the Energy end-use e fficiency and energy services Directive 
(2006/32/EC), were also consulted for informati on on the energy efficiency measures taken in 
the buildings sector of Member States. 
In addition to the literature already available, the assessments made in this document are also 
based on the analyses and data provided by an ex ternal consultant, who was contracted by DG 
TREN to provide support with th e quantification of the various  impacts resulting from the 
options discussed in this impact assessment. The task of the consultant was to screen available 
studies for best practice examples and foremost  to provide estimates for costs and benefits 
based on official statistical data and modelling tools.  
1.2.3.  Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
This Impact Assessment has been on the agenda of the Impact Assessment Board hearing on 
16 July 2008 and a written procedure in September 2008. 
All items of the Impact Assessment Board opinion of 22 July 2008 were comprehensively 
addressed in a revised version of the Impact Assessment resubmitted on 4 September 2008. In its second opinion the Impact Assessment Board asked for new modifications of the document 
mainly on: (i) further in-depth analysis of subsid iarity aspects; (ii) a nother clarification on the 
analysis of costs and be nefits of the options analysed; (iii ) assessing administrative costs of 
the options analysed using the EU Standard Cost Model; (iv)  further clarification of the 
problem definition; and (v) possibility for a di scussion of the other foreseen EU measures 
which possibly target on energy efficiency of buildings. 
Points (i), (ii) and (iv) have been addresse d in this Impact Assessment by adding and further 
explaining the text. The administrative costs ha ve been analysed based on available studies, 
referred in the text. As the reque st in point (iii) to use the EU  Standard Cost Model came at a 
very late stage it was not met. The same applies for point (v). 
2. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Overarching problem definition 
The EU buildings sector can play a key role  in achieving EU growth, energy and climate 
policy objectives, while contributing to an impr oved level of comfort and lower energy bills 
for citizens. To meet the common policy targets on energy and climate change Member States 
 
EN 18   EN need to act in all fields, ETS and non-ETS. Th e policy frame for non-ETS is also given in the 
EEAP of which buildings constitu te an important element.  
However, the problem is that a large part of the cost-effective27 energy efficiency 
potential is not realised in practice . The potential of the buildings sector is estimated at the 
possibility for 28% cost-efficient energy savi ngs by 2020 for the sector (or 143Mtoe final 
energy) which could be translated in 11% redu ction of the total EU final energy consumption 
and 11% reduction of EU total CO 2 emissions. This potential is for both existing and newly 
constructed buildings. This will result in a number of other benefits (see Annex V).  
Narrowing of the gap between the realisable pot ential and its real uptake is the Commission's 
main motivation for initiating a discussi on and analyzing the possible options.  
Before proceeding to identifyi ng the concrete problems and s uggestions for actions it is 
important that a good understanding of the buildings sector is developed and of the existing 
policy that was developed to partially tackle the problem. This presentation is provided in 
Annex V and the following Section 2.2. Taking thes e actions into account a discussion of the 
remaining problems is included in Section 0. 
2.2. Actions in the EU 
After the oil crises of the 1970s, many govern ments around the world realized the impacts 
energy supply disturbances can have on their economies and the benefits of decreasing their 
energy needs. As a consequence, significant en ergy efficiency gains were realized which, for 
example, resulted in about 30% reduction of the energy intensity of households and service 
sector by 1990 compared to 1973 in the biggest eleven OECD countries16. 
 
Figure 1.  The impact of energy efficiency improvements on energy use in several OECD 
countries. Source: Geller et. al  2006 
The instruments varied from country to country  but included building codes, financial and 
fiscal initiatives, research and developmen t programmes, and information and education 
campaigns. From the frontrunners, Sweden and De nmark were the first to introduce energy 
                                                 
16 Geller et. al . Polices for increas ing energy efficiency: Thirty years of experience in OECD countries. 
Energy Policy 34 , 556–573. Data refer to 11 OECD countries OECD countries Australia, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States, 
2006.  
 
EN 19   EN efficiency requirements in their buildi ngs codes in 1947 a nd 1961, respectively, and 
requirement for provision of information on the energy consumption of buildings as a 
certificate in 199717. The introduction of thermal insulati on requirements reduced the heating 
energy consumption per unit of floor area in Germany by 30% over 1978-1993 period. However, at that time, fewer activities were  carried out in other Central and in Eastern 
European countries, which is also true for many EU-15 countries. In the 1990s, energy 
efficiency gains slowed worldwide and only rece ntly there was a new ups urge of attention and 
dedicated policy. 
At EU level, several energy polic y measures have been introdu ced since 1970's, but the major 
policy initiative was the adoption of the En ergy Performance of Buildings Directive 
2002/91/EC (EPBD) in 2002.
 
2.2.1.  Energy Performance of Buildings  Directive (EPBD) (2002/91/EC) 
The main objective of the EPBD is to prom ote cost-effective improvement of the overall 
energy performance of buildings, while taking in to account local conditions and requirements. 
The Directive covers the energy needs for spac e and hot water heating, cooling and lighting 
and has three main pillars: energy performa nce requirements for new buildings and for 
existing that undergo major renovation, energy perf ormance certificates, and the inspection of 
boilers and air-conditioni ng systems. The Directive sets the basic principles and recruitments 
and leaves significant room for Member States  to establish the concrete mechanisms and 
numeric requirements and ways to implement them. To this end Member States shall : 
• Set up minimum energy performance requirements  following their national/local 
situation. This means that whenever a new building is constructed or a large existing one 
(above 1000m2) undergoes major renovation18 certain nationally or regionally 
determined minimum levels of energy efficiency should be met. This level for new build may be, for example, one value that repr esents the maximum permissible energy 
consumption or CO
2 emissions of a building. For existing buildings it may refer to a value 
for certain components. For instance, if the windows are replaced then only the efficiency 
of this component should meet the national or regional minimum requirements and not the 
other components (such as roof, façade, fl oor, heating/cooling system) or the whole 
building. The holistic approach for new-build gi ves maximum flexibility for the choice of 
system or design to reach the value and th us stimulates innovation. In parallel, the 
component approach for existing buildings prov ides that owners/tena nts are not burdened 
with huge expenses when they  want to carry out partial renovation. To promote further 
innovation for all new buildings above 1000 m2 the feasibility of alternative systems  
(i.e. renewables, co-generation, district heating and cooling, and heat pumps, under certain 
conditions) is to be consider ed and taken into account. 
• Establish a national scheme for energy labell ing of the buildings (see examples from 
Germany and England & Wales below; simila r for example to the energy efficiency 
labelling of household appliances). This Energy Performance Certificate  shall include 
                                                 
17 Laustsen. Energy efficiency requirements in bu ilding codes, energy efficiency policies for new 
buildings. IEA Energy Efficiency Working Party note by the Secretariat, 2007  
18 Major renovations are cases such as those where the total cost of the renovation related to the building 
shell and/or energy installations such as heati ng, hot water supply, air-conditioning, ventilation and 
lighting is higher than 25 % of the value of the building, excluding the value of the land upon which the 
building is situated, or those where more than 25 % of the building shell undergoes renovation. 

 
EN 20   EN information on the energy consumption needs of  a building, its rati ng compared to other 
buildings, and recommendations for cost-effect ive improvements. The Certificate shall be 
provided to the (potential) buyer/ tenant when buildings are cons tructed, sold or rented out 
by their owner. The aim is to provide informa tion so that informed choices can be made 
and also to provide with gui dance on the cost-efficiency a nd savings possibilities for 
possible improvements of the property. All public buildings  or buildings frequently 
visited by the public above 1000 m2 should have certificates that  are to be displayed in a 
place that is visible to  the general public.   
 
    
 
     
 
     
 
Figure 2 . Examples of Member States Energy Performance Certificates 
• Introduce inspection requirements so that heating and air-conditioning systems  above 
certain thresholds should be regularly checked for their efficiency19. Boilers and air-
conditioning systems are addresse d because they play a signif icant role for the building's 
energy consumption and their efficiency ca n be improved considerably. Instead of 
inspection requirements, boilers may have a pr omotion scheme that should have the same 
savings effect as the inspection schemes.  
These three main instruments take effect at different times of a building's lifetime. Minimum 
energy performance requirements are to be met when buildings are built or they undergo major renovation (i.e. every 25-40 years). The energy performance certificate is re quired only 
when building are newly constructed, sold or rented out and is valid  for a maximum of 10 
years. The inspections of heating and air-c onditioning systems are more often. The regularity 
is a function of the size and fuel source (e .g. for medium sized boilers and air conditioning 
systems Member States should decide on the re gularity, for large boilers it should be every 
two years, etc.) and the inspections are inde pendent of the sale or  rent of a building. 
In this way the Directive calls for setting up a regulatory policy instru ments measures (i.e. 
minimum requirements) along with informative ones (i.e. the certificat es and inspections). 
The use of mix of policy instruments provides for means of addressing various challenges of 
the sector and developing a coherent  approach towards problem solution. 
                                                
 
19 For boilers fired by non-renewable liquid or solid fuel with rated output of 20 kW to 100 kW – regular 
inspection, for boilers above 100 kW – inspection every two years (with possibility for expansion to 
four years for gas boilers). For all heating installation with boilers of effective rated output of more than 
20 kW older than 15 years – a one-off inspection is required. For air-conditioning systems with 
effective rated output of more than 12 kW – regular inspection required. 
 
EN 21   EN To achieve the above-mentioned requir ements the Member States should: 
• Establish (or use the re levant CEN standards) a methodology for calculation of energy 
performance of buildings . Such is needed for the cal culation of energy performance 
requirements and carrying out of the certific ations. This includes calculations on the 
quality of insulation of the building, the e fficiency of heating, cooling and lighting 
installations, ventilation needs, position and orientation of the building, heat recovery, active and passive solar gains and other rene wable energy sources, and also takes into 
account local conditions, such as climate a nd economic aspects (e.g. labour costs).  
• Ensure that certification and inspections requirements  implemented in practice are 
carried out in an independent manner by qualified and accredited experts. 
Summary of the main provisions of the EP BD are included in the following figure. 
 
   
Scope New build 
(all)  New build 
> 1000m2: 
  Existing 
buildings 
(all)  
when sold or 
rented out:  Existing 
buildings 
> 1000m2 
undergoing 
major 
renovation:  Public 
buildings 
> 1000m2  Heating and 
air-
conditioning 
systems Requiremen t - Minimum 
requirements
- Certificate  - Minimum 
requirements 
- Consid. of 
alternative 
systems 
- Certificate  -Certificate  - Minimum 
requirements
- Certificate  - Certificate 
displayed at 
a prominent 
place  - Regular 
inspection 
depending 
on size 
Basic requirements: holistic calculation me thodology in place, sufficient number of 
independent experts 
The deadline for the  implementation  of the provisions on energy performance requirements 
was January 4, 2006, whilst for certification and in spection - due to the challenges that MS 
have with training and accrediti ng experts to carry out the certi fications and inspections - a 
justified derogation of up to three years (until  January 4, 2009) was allo wed of which most of 
the Member States took advantage of20. 
Before the adoption of the EPBD the majority  of Member States did not have energy 
efficiency requirements in thei r regulations and building code s, nor did they have long 
running, sustained instruments for their prom otion. Therefore, the implementation in a 
number of Member States has been a huge chal lenge, but also in parallel an opportunity for 
improving the quality of their buildings stock. Th e complex nature of the Directive requires 
framework legislations as well as in many cases i ndividual pieces of legislation for each of its 
main provisions. Also, the development of sta ndards and software has been required for the 
proper implementation of several provisions. Furt hermore, in some countries the EPBD is to 
be implemented at regional level. For example,  this means that in Austria there should be 
transposition of all Articles in all nine Länder, in Italy in all twenty regions, whilst in the UK 
                                                 
20 In total, 23 Member States have opted for the additio nal three-year extension to apply Art. 7, 8 and 9 of 
the EPBD, as provided for by Art. 15 ibid.   EPBD: Holistic approach 
towards lower energy needs in buildings 
 
EN 22   EN apart from in England and Wales, Scotland, and No rthern Ireland, enforcing legislation is also 
needed for Gibraltar. 
These challenges led to delay in  transposition and a number of infringement cases (at their 
maximum 21) and support actions were initiat ed by the Commission to speed up the process. 
Since 2006, the transposition has improved tremendous ly and now all Member States have at 
least framework legislation on the issue. By  August 2008 twenty two Member States have 
reported that their EPBD transposition is complete. The Commission is now in the process of review of the notified legislation and cons idering closing some of the seventeen ongoing 
infringements. Nevertheless, if it identifies that  there is no full conformity on all Articles or 
lack of full implementation in all regions, the cases will be kept open and will advance in their stages. Apart from legal conformity, the real a nd ambitious implementati on of certain articles 
is questionable in some Member States which is due to, as described in Section 2.3.2, the 
ambiguous EPBD wording and large room for vari ous interpretations, p oor enforcement, and 
the lack of possibility for comparisons betw een the national/regional implementing measures 
(i.e. setting up of requirements that are far from the optimal levels). 
Building on the EPBD, some countries have ev en gone beyond its requirements. For example, 
about one third of the EU Member States ha ve extended the requirements to all existing 
buildings that undergo major renovations, whilst se veral Member States have set targets to 
reach low energy/passive house standards for new build. In some countries or regions, the 
installation of renewable systems, or the implementation of the cost-effective recommendations on the certificates with specifie d pay-back time, are made mandatory for all 
or certain types of buildings. Mo re good practices are included as examples in the discussions 
of Section 5. 
The main contribution, so far, of the EPBD  is in bringing the subject of the energy 
efficiency of building onto political agendas, into buildings codes and to the attention of 
citizens. Nevertheless, it is early and very difficult to  quantify the real impact of the Directive 
for the whole Community because of highly disaggregated nature of the sector, the 
complementarity of energy improvements to other policy objectives, slow transposition, and lack of proper monitoring. Still, calculations
21 of EPBD expected impact show that, if fully 
and properly implemented, the energy savings from the EPBD can be as much as 130 Mtoe22 
or 7% reduction of the total EU primary energy supply in 2020 (or 96 Mtoe final energy), evidently a very high figure. Therefore the curr ent EPBD is already c ontributing considerably 
to the EU energy policy objectives. However, th ere are a number of lim itations arising from 
the low level of ambition to its implementation and also from its wording. These remaining challenges are discussed in Section 0. 
2.2.2.  Other regulatory instruments  
In addition to the Energy Performance of Buildi ngs Directive, there is a comprehensive set of 
legislation in place on both the European and th e national level, the requirements of which 
impact on the energy performance of buildings. Th e following table presents the main pieces 
of legislation interacting with the EPBD and offering complementary requirements to enhance 
energy efficiency in buildings. These activit ies in an energy consuming and GHG emitting 
                                                
 
21 SEC(2006)1174 
22 In the EEAP IA the figure: 125 Mtoe for EU-25 is provided. 130 Mtoe is an extrapolation to EU-27. The 
conversion factor used is 1.35 as included in Annex IV.  
 
EN 23   EN sector (buildings), which is not covered by the EU Emission Tr ading System (ETS), are also 
an important part of the response to the climat e change challenge: due to the enormous cost-
effective energy and CO 2 emission savings potential of the bu ildings sector, it is evident to 
take action in this field in or der to achieve the EU's overall CO 2 abatement targets in the 
macro economically optimum and therefore ch eapest way, which would not occur if CO 2 
abatement measures were limited to the ETS sectors. 
 
EN 24   EN Table 1: Main legislation influencing the energy performance of buildings 
Directive Purpose Requirements influencing the energy performance of 
buildings 
Energy end-use 
efficiency and energy services 
Directive (ESD) 
(2006/32/EC) Enhance cost-effective 
improvement of energy end-use efficiency in the 
Member States (in non 
ETS-sector)  To achieve the indicative fixed en ergy savings target in 2016, 
the Member States can opt for en ergy efficiency measures in 
the residential and tertiary sector such as improving heating 
and cooling systems, insulation and ventilation, hot water 
installations and lighting. The use of standards and norms improving the energy ef ficiency of buildings are also eligible 
measures (Article 4 and Annex 3). 
The funds foreseen by the ESD can be used to finance energy audits and to provide financing (loans, grants, etc.) for energy 
efficiency improvement measur es. The funds are open to all 
providers of energy efficien cy improvements measures 
(Article 11). 
ESD requires the MS to ensure the availability of high-quality 
energy audits (Article 12).
 
Directive on the promotion of cogeneration 
(2004/8/EC) Creates a framework for 
promotion and development of high 
efficiency cogeneration 
of heat and power.  According to Article 5 of the EPBD, the feasibility for the use 
of cogeneration of heat and power in new buildings (>1000 m²) has to be considered and taken into account before construction 
starts.  
Eco-design of energy-using 
products Directive (2005/32/EC) Establishes a framework 
for setting Eco-design 
requirements for all energy using products in 
the residential, tertiary 
and industrial sectors. A set of implementing measures establishing eco-design 
requirements are in preparatio n for a range of energy using 
products, which have a decisive impact on the energy performance of buildings, such as boilers, water heaters, 
office lighting, residential room conditioning appliances, 
electric motors in commercial buildings and domestic 
lighting.  
Construction 
products Directive 
(89/106/EEC) Ensure that declaration 
of performance 
accompanying the 
product is accurate and reliable. Developing specific standards for buildings products and 
components such as insulation and windows concerning the 
declaration of conformity. 
 
Promotion of the use 
of energy from 
renewable sources (Proposal 
COM(2008) 30 final) Establishes a common 
framework for the 
promotion of energy from renewable sources. With respect to their building regulations and codes, Member 
States shall promote the use of  renewable energy in heating 
and cooling systems and equipment  that achieve a significant 
reduction of fossil energy consumption and they shall use 
energy or eco-labels or other appropriate certificates or 
standards developed at national or European level, where these exist, as  the basis for encouraging such systems and 
equipment. 
Sustainable 
Production and Consumption and 
Sustainable 
Industrial Policy 
Action Plan 
(Proposal)  New dynamic framework 
to improve the energy and environmental 
performances of 
products.  The proposals to extend the Ec o-Design Directive as well as 
the Energy Efficiency Labelli ng Directive to cover more 
products and to promote Green Public Procurement will 
impact on buildings products.  
Community 
guidelines on state 
aid for environment. 
protection (2008/C 82/01) Apply to State aid for 
environmental 
protection. Investment and/or operating aid enabling undertakings to 
achieve energy savings will be considered compatible with 
the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of 
the EC Treaty, if certain conditions are fulfilled. 
 
EN 25   EN 2.2.3.   Provision of information and expertise  
The European Commission has started many activ ities to promote and support energy saving 
in buildings. These also give a good understandi ng of the challenges and opportunities that 
Member States, industries, a nd citizens are faced with.  
Activities on exchange of information and experience  include the Concerted Action I and II 
that provide fora for discussi on of specific challenges and exch ange of best practices among 
representatives of Member States. Furthermore the EPBD Buildings Platform is established - 
a dynamic web portal that aims at disseminati ng information on the energy efficiency of 
buildings and related act ivities and at providing support on  the EPBD implementation via a 
helpdesk and more detailed and targeted info rmation to all interested stakeholders and 
citizens. Many events  have also been organized to disc uss the opportunities and challenges 
with a large number of e xperts and stakeholders.  
Research  on the possibility for improved energy efficiency of buildings and the development 
of sustainable communities has been carried out within the EU Research and Development Framework Programmes and the barriers and po ssibilities for energy saving policy and 
solutions have been revealed within the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme  which in the 
recent years has supported about 70 projects re lated to energy aspects of buildings. In 
addition, the Commission mandate d the European standardiza tion body – CEN to develop a 
set of 31 EPBD CEN standards  which cover different elements of the calculation procedures 
for evaluating energy performance of a building and of its various systems and components, 
heating and air-conditioning syst ems inspection procedures and other relevant procedures. 
The work on all standards is completed now a nd only few are not offi cially published yet. 
Furthermore, the EU's dissemination activi ties like ManagEnergy and Sustainable Energy 
Europe initiate many actions to prom ote energy efficiency in buildings. 
2.2.4.  Financial and fiscal instruments  
The largest energy saving potential in the buildings sector lies  with the existing buildings 
when they undergo major renovations. The lack of  information and lack of financing appears 
to be one major limitation for reaping this ener gy savings potential but also for carrying out 
renovations. Due to the importance of energy cons umption in buildings, but also because of 
the sector's social and employ ment impacts, many countries ha ve established financial and 
fiscal schemes to stimulate energy saving investments.  
At the European level, the financial schemes include such as the Cohesion Fund . For the 
2007-2013 period, EUR 4.2 billion of the Cohesion policy funding have been allocated to 
energy efficiency for the housing sector projec ts in Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Ma lta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and 
Slovenia. A change in the minimum energy pe rformance requirements for existing and new 
buildings will increase the investment needs for the buildings' owners but reduce energy costs. 
Member States are also allowed to appl y a reduced VAT rate until 31/12/2010 (VAT 
Directive 2006/112//CE) to a specific list of  labour intensive services, including the 
renovation and repairing of private dwellings . On 7 July 2008 the Commission adopted a 
proposal on reduced VAT rates. This Proposal pr ovides for the option for Member States to 
apply reduced VAT rates to the whole housing sector an d certain services relating to some 
non commercial buildings (including the suppl y and construction of housing, the renovation, 
repair, alteration, maintenance and cleaning of  housing and of places of worship and of 
 
EN 26   EN cultural heritage and historical monuments rec ognised by the Member Stat es concerned). This 
Proposal is currently under discussion in the Council. 
Consequently, the supply of services includ ing the combined supply and installation of 
equipment which aims at increasing energy e fficiency and saving or  using sustainably 
generated energy relating to the buildings menti oned, would be eligible for reduced rates, if 
the Proposal is adopted by the Council. 
Additionally, the Commission is currently analys ing the possibility of  applying reduced VAT 
rates to environmentally friendly goods and services not mentioned above, as well as the abolition of the possibility to apply reduced ra tes to environmentally harmful products. In the 
near future the results of the Commission's anal yses will be presented, as a part of a more 
global communication on the role of taxatio n in energy and envi ronmental policy, 
accompanied by relevant proposals and recommendations.  
Under the revised Community Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection which 
were announced as part of the Climate Ac tion package of January 23, 2008, energy savings 
are eligible for state aid. It is up to the Member States to develop schemes for the support of 
energy savings activities. 
 
2.3. Remaining problems  
Major energy savings potential in the buildings sector is still available . Various factors 
limit the utilisation of the potential. Some come  from the complexity of the sector and the 
existence of market failures, while others stem  from limitations of the regulatory framework. 
2.3.1.  General challenges of the sector and market failures  
The EU's buildings sector is a true example of the EU's diverse nature. Different climates, 
building traditions and cultural, historic and economic factors have re sulted in significant 
variations between the EU Member  States and even between thei r regions. Therefore, detailed 
regulation and complete harmonization at EU  level is not possible and is not sought. 
However, a certain level of harmonization of the approaches and certain instruments are 
needed in order to ensure that energy aspects are considered seriously, that there can be a 
possibility for comparison of the achievements and transfer of experience, but also to 
facilitate the companies that operate at EU level. This diversity and disaggregation of the 
buildings sector  also poses significant difficulties in  obtaining quantitative data about the 
sector.  
The other significant barrier is the existe nce of imperfect market conditions or market 
failures . A typical example for such failure is the lack of complete internalization of all 
externalities in energy prices . In many countries, this has led to a low priority for energy 
efficiency in buildings as energy demand is distorted. Although most of  the investments in 
energy efficiency improvements have low pay-b ack times, especially if done within the 
renovation cycle, they still requ ire substantial upfront costs for many European citizens and 
companies. Therefore both the lack of sufficient initial investments and the low priority of energy considerations are some of the main ch allenges. The EU and a number of individual 
Member States have realised, or are starting to  comprehend, that there are societal benefits 
that may have a high private co st. To partially compensate for these market failures, some 
 
EN 27   EN financial and fiscal support mechanisms are already established (as described in Section 
2.2.4), but new and additional fina ncing tools are needed .  
Another market failure that is ve ry relevant for the sector is imperfect information , i.e. the 
general lack of good quality and understandab le information on en ergy performance of 
buildings and on potential energy savings. The problem is further exacerbated by the 
'principal-agent problem' or the fact that it is of seller’s or leaser’s advantage not to provide 
information on energy consumption if the prope rty they offer is of poor energy performance 
quality.  
Furthermore, as the tenant normally pays the en ergy bill, then the incentive for the owner to 
invest in energy efficiency is weak. This also relates to another market failure, the so-called 
split incentives . For instance, in the Netherlands, this pr oblem is relevant to 40% of the total 
energy use in the commercial sectors and 41% of  energy use for heati ng in the residential 
sector23. There only about 40% of private and 59% of social rental residential buildings have 
proper roof insulation, while for the privatel y owned sector, this figure is up to 70%. 
Therefore, provision of clear and reliable informa tion at affordable cost, at the correct time 
and at low transaction costs to prospective tenants and buyers is cr ucial for making energy 
efficiency investments more attractive. So me requirements for information provision are 
already included in the EPBD (i.e. Energy Performance Certif icates). However, there are 
certain problems in interpretation and ambition that limit their full impact. 
The low uptake of new and innovative technologies  is one of the main consequences of the 
two problems mentioned above. The lack of suffi cient information limits the uptake of these 
technologies and the cost of some is prohi bitive for their higher market uptake.  
Other commonly recognized problems are related to the low number of trained 
professionals  (such as architects, energy auditors, build ers, installers) that  can successfully 
integrate, evaluate, construct and maintain  a low energy consuming building. Also, the 
behavior of the inhabitants  is of significant im portance as even a zer o energy house can turn 
into an energy waster. The re bound effect of having bigger houses occupied by less people 
but also subject to excessive heating or cooli ng are other general problems that, although very 
important, are also very difficult to tackle.  
2.3.2.  Regulatory limitations 
Limitations of the existing regulatory fr amework, in particular EPBD and the 
national/regional measures that implement it, are also preventing the higher reductions of 
energy consumption. These originate, firstly, fr om lack of clarity and the complexity of 
certain provisions of the EPBD and, secondly, from the low level of ambition in its implantation.  
Representatives of Member States and st akeholders claim that there are some definitions and 
wording of the Directive that are not clear eno ugh, and create confusion and difficulties in 
implementation, resulting in differences betwee n Member States and even between their 
regions. For example, the term 'public building' is explained in the preamble and Article 7 of 
the Directive in two different ways. Als o, the requirements for provision of the 
                                                
 
23 IEA. Mind the gap: Quantifying Principal-Agent Pr oblems in Energy Effici ency. IEA: Paris, 2007 
 
EN 28   EN recommendations from the Energy Performa nce Certification are not very clear to 
stakeholders and national or local policy-makers. This leads to a situation that the recommendations on how energy efficiency  can be improved, are not shown to the 
tenants/buyers. 
Another limitation comes from the thresholds that are set in the Directive. As mentioned in 
Section 2.2.1, EPBD provisions call on Member States to require that certain minimum 
energy performance levels are met when existing buildings above 1000 m
2 undergo a major 
renovation. Because of this 1000 m2 threshold for existing build ings, the EPBD covers only 
about 28% of the EU -15 buildings stock24. In introducing energy efficiency measures when 
retrofitting, the costs are on average between two and three times less than when done 
separately. This in general mean s that, with renovations below 1000 m2, an opportunity for 
cost-effective energy savings for the owner might be lost. However, in a number of Member 
States, this 1000 m2 threshold has been lowered or abolishe d so that all buildings that undergo 
major renovation have to fulfil certain energy performance requirements. 
There are a number of limita tions that stem from the low ambition in the implementation . 
For instance, the experience with the  Certificate shows that in some cases they are of very 
poor quality and do not provide sufficient and correct  information. This raises questions 
regarding the usefulness of  the certificates. Furthermore, the currently required inspections of 
boilers and air-conditioning sy stems have limited impact on their energy performance 
improvement, as their objective is not incl uded in the Directive and due to missing 
specifications and requirements. This is the experience of Member States that have already implemented an inspection scheme. The energy performance require ments set by Member 
States do neither fully meet expectation with regard to their level of ambition . If they 
were set in a cost-optimal way (i.e. taking into account a number of parameters, such as 
climate, oil prices, labour and products cost s) this would mean th at once a building is 
constructed, or an existing large one is unde rgoing major renovation, the result is the optimal 
of what is available at market and a reasona ble pay-back times. At present there are many 
Member States that do not have cost-optimal re quirements. This means that the occupier of 
the building pays more for their energy bill than is economically reasonable. 
More detailed explanations of these shortcom ings and limitations are provided as background 
information when the policy options are discussed. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
3.1. EU policy objectives 
The EU has set ambitious targets in Energy Policy for Europe25 of 20/20/20% for reduction of 
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions , and increased share of renewables by 
2020. Urgent actions are needed in  the light of the mounting scie ntific evidence  of climate 
change26 and high oil prices and the ever growin g energy dependency. The buildings sector 
                                                 
24 Ecofys for Eurima. Mitigation of CO2 Emissions from the Building Stock - Beyond the EU Directive 
on the Energy Performance of Buildings, 2004 
25 as outlined in the Commission Communication An Energy Policy for Europe COM (2007) 1 
26 as outlined in the latest report of the Intergover nmental Panel on Climate Change of 2007 the preceding 
report of Sir Nicholas Stern on the economic costs for non-action (reference)  
 
EN 29   EN has significant untapped poten tial for cost-effective27 energy savings. Thus it can contribute to 
all the energy policy targets.  
The objective here is to harness the unrealized, cost-effective energy saving potential. The 
important role of the buildings sector was recognized with the adoption of the SAVE 
Directive28 in 1993 and later through a holistic approach as laid  down in the Energy 
Performance of Buildin gs Directive of 2002 . Consultation on possible further actions for its 
realization was initiated in the Commission's Green Paper on Energy Efficiency: Doing More 
with Less29 of 2005. The outcomes resulted in the adoption by the Commission of the Energy 
Efficiency Action Plan30 in November 2006. In the action plan, making buildings more energy 
efficient was identified as one of the five priority actions, with the strengthening of the EPBD identified as playing a key role with highest positive impact. The Acti on Plan was endorsed at 
the spring 2007 European Council. 
From the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy
31, the buildings sector can support 
the fulfilment of its objectives  on climate change and clean energy, sustainable consumption 
and production, but also on social  inclusion, demography and mi gration. A possible revision 
of the EPBD will be complementary to th e actions included in the recently adopted 
Sustainable Consumption and Production package. 
In the light of the growing energy prices an d related social conseq uences, the energy use 
reduction of the buildings sector is key area to be tackled as it  would ease the difficulties for 
many EU citizens to pay their bi lls by providing a long-term so lution and not only short-term 
fixes through, for example, energy subsidies. Therefore, actions in  this area, esp. the revision 
of the EPBD to further help Member States in developing policies on the issue, are included 
in the Commission’s Communication Facing the challenge of higher oil prices  of April 
200832. 
3.2. Specific policy objectives 
The following specific objectives can be identif ied based on the problems of energy efficiency 
in the buildings sector and while taking into account existing measures: 
• Provide a simple and unambiguous legal framewo rk that will provide clear guidance and 
ease the transposition and implementation 
• Ensure that the policy instruments us ed stimulate further energy savings 
                                                 
27 Cost-effective can be interpreted in different ways. In a study (Boonekamp 2006) for the Energy 
Efficiency Action Plan it is mentioned that the World Energy Assessment 2000 (Jochem, 2000) has 
been used and it refers to the term ‘life cycle co sts’. This suggests that the pay-back time of the 
investment can be equal to the tech nical lifetime of the saving measure. However, this is an extended 
definition of cost effectiveness compared to other sour ces, e.g. the 3, 5 or 8 year pay-back time that is 
currently used in the Nether lands (Menkveld et al, 2005). 
28 Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving 
energy efficiency (SAVE). Repeal ed by Directive 2006/32/EC.  
29 COM(2005) 265  
30 COM(2006)545 
31 10917/06,  
32 COM(2008) 384 
 
EN 30   EN • Ensure that the measures have a wider covera ge of the EU buildings stock and relevant 
energy consumption but are at low additional cost 
• Ensure that buyers/tenants/owners receive good quality information at a reasonable cost on 
the energy performance of buildings and about  the performance of their heating and air-
conditioning systems 
• Establish a base for cost-effective energy pe rformance requirements for buildings or for 
their comparison 
• Stimulate the public sector to show good example in bui ldings' energy efficiency. 
3.3. EU's right to act 
The EU's actions regarding ener gy performance of buildings ar e primarily based on article 6 
of the Treaty,33 which states that environmental prot ection requirements must be integrated 
into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development. This requirement has to be seen in the light of article 174(1) of the Treaty, which specifies that the Community policy on the environment shall contribute to preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the 
environment and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources.  
The importance of coordinated action in energy efficiency has been stressed in previous 
legislative documents, such as the Council Decision of 29 October 1991 concerning the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community (SAVE programme)
34 and Council 
Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to  limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving 
energy efficiency (SAVE).35 These considerations led to the EPBD Directive which was 
adopted on the legal basis of article 175(1) of  the Treaty. In the framework of a possible 
revision of the current EPBD Directive, these legal bases for EU action remain unchanged. 
3.4. EU value added 
Climate change, security of energy supply and environmental protection are challenges that 
cannot be sufficiently addressed at national level only. Energy e fficiency provides part of the 
solution of these problems and the instruments on energy efficiency that have already been 
adopted at EU level reflect th is need for Community action. 
The buildings sector is responsible for about 36 % of the EU's total CO 2 emissions and for 
about half of the CO 2 emissions which are not covered by the Emission Trading Scheme. It 
disposes of a considerable co st-effective energy savings pote ntial which can hardly be found 
in any other area and which is attainable at co mparatively low costs. Therefore, it becomes 
evident that every country needs to urgently save energy in build ings but not all dispose of the 
knowledge needed.  
The buildings sector is also highly disaggregated and is experiencing a number of market 
failures (e.g.: partial internalization of ex ternalities in energy prices; principal-agent 
problems; split incentives; lack  of appropriate information, e ducation and training; low uptake 
                                                 
33 Recital 1 of the EPBD. 
34 Decision 91/565/EEC. 
35 Repealed by Directive 2006/32/EC. 
 
EN 31   EN of new and innovative technologie s; etc.) which have limited th e rate of energy efficiency 
gains in the sector. Indicators show that while for example the energy consumption of 
industry is decreasing, that of households is constantly on the rise. Construction products, 
appliances and services re lated to buildings are an important pa rt of the EU internal market. In 
addition, with the increasing mobility of people  and number of businesses with operations 
across the EU, a similar way to measure, for example, the energy perf ormance of buildings 
would decrease the administrative burden for th em. Member States also stimulated the 
Commission to take action in or der to ease tackling the potent ial at national level in this 
complex and highly fragmented area by common EU efforts (see Annex III). 
Due to the identified market failures the pr oposed revised directive justifies the action on 
energy performance of buildings also in the framework of the Climate and Energy package 
proposals (not approved yet). Moreover, the revision of the EPBD will lead also to 
clarification and simplification of an existing directive. In  tackling a sector with high 
reduction potential at relatively low cost, the revised EPBD will reinforce the effects of the 
Climate and Energy package.  
Buildings are often regarded as a "local" matter.  Local people/legal enti ties own buildings and 
these are controlled by national/regional legi slation. The buildings sector is nevertheless 
crucial for meeting the EU policy objectives stat ed above and the EU added value of energy 
savings is significant which justif ies action at EU level, since: 
• Although buildings are stationar y, the construction products and services and the heating, 
air-conditioning and lighting devices and system s sectors are important part of the EU 
internal market. Furthermore, nowadays th e everyday activities  of many people and 
businesses are not limited to a single countr y. Increasing the rate of  renovation rates and 
the quality of building (resulting thus in incr eased sales of insulati on materials, windows, 
heating and air-conditioning systems, etc.), wo uld have a positive effect across the related 
business sector. In addition, with  the increasing numb er of Europeans that live in a country 
other than their native one and companies th at have their businesses activities across the 
EU, similar ways to measure, for example th e energy performance of  the buildings they 
rent or buy, would mean signi ficant decrease of administra tive burden. Not surprisingly 
requests for EU unification of methods and even complete harmonization of individual 
requirements come from owners of service-prov iding chains (such as supermarkets, hotels, 
etc.) and from construction materials and products manufacturing industries. 
• It would contribute to nationa l and EU security of supply policy objectives. Energy savings 
lead to decreased energy demand and reduced ne ed for generation capacity, or the so called 
Nega Watts (or negative Watts, coming from  the analogy with Mega Watts (MW), of 
installed capacity and meaning that with th e decrease of energy demand less power plants 
will be needed). These Nega Watts would lead  to the decreased energy dependency of the 
Union. Furthermore, it is rationa l to have an EU-wide approach  on efficiency given the EU 
energy policy priorities for creating an inte rnal energy market and the common approach 
on energy security.  
• It might direct Member States to a sect or that has significant potential for cheap CO 2 and 
thus will contribute significantly toward s climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
Traditionally there is a focus on CO 2 reductions on the supply side and from large 
consuming units. The buildings sector with its disaggregated nature and underestimated 
positive impacts is often overlooked. Howeve r, if the greenhouse gas reduction and 
renewables increase objectives are to be met, action in the sector is a must.  
 
EN 32   EN • It could stimulate sustained activities  on national energy efficiency improvements in the 
buildings sector that need to be taken in all  EU Member States. This has been proven by 
the impact of the current EPBD. As men tioned, before 2002 only a limited number of 
Member States had embarked on adopting polic y measures to improve the efficiency of 
their building stock (see Section 2.2.1).  
• EU experience could serve as a leading intern ational example and esta blish the Union as a 
forerunner in the area, this also being benefi cial for EU businesses. In a time of emerging 
pressure for action on reduced energy consump tion the activities at EU level are closely 
followed worldwide . Developed and developing countries  are starting to adopt similar 
approaches to the EPBD, which will contribute to lower global CO 2 emissions. Therefore, 
the EU can show leadership on sustainable building policy and be a recognized player on 
the international scene (as shown by the fi ndings of the 2008 Impact Assessment on the 
recast of Directive 92/75/EEC  on the indication by labe lling and standard product 
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances, 
Annex 7). 
• It might create peer-pressure for improvement s of the building stock within all Member 
States and also internationally which could possi bly lead to faster adoption of policies, but 
also stimulate innovation and cost-reductions. This would be facilitated by an EU-wide 
system for the comparison of the different national requirements. 
3.5. Subsidiarity and proportionality 
Given the national importance of this sector, EU policies have added value beyond the 
confines of subsidiarity and proportionality .  
The main elements of the current EPBD have al ready been discussed fr om the point of view 
of the principles of subsidiar ity and proportionality when the Directive was tabled in 2001 and 
adopted in 2002. Furthermore, they have also been tested in practice, demonstrating the appropriateness of the approach. Since then the need for common action to tackle the 
challenges of climate change and energy depend ency have become even more apparent.   
National differences cannot be ignored. EU action has to take into account the specificity of 
each Member State and the diverse nature of its building stock, climatic and economic circumstances and, thus, the fact  that it is not possible nor necessary to set up the exact 
requirements at a EU-level . Emphasis should therefore focus on the establishment of a 
harmonized approach which creates the basis for coherent and mutually reinforcing 
mechanisms  for energy efficiency improvements in  the sector, while at the same time 
Member States retain control over setting, in  a transparent and comparable way, the 
individual levels .  
These have already been the main guiding princi ples of the current EPBD and should be kept 
in any action that is to  be undertaken. Its preamb le refers to the subs idiarity principle and 
clearly delineates the borderl ine between national/regional action and Community one:  
“In accordance with the principles of subsidia rity and proportionality as  set out in Article 5 
of the Treaty, general principles providing fo r a system of energy performance requirements 
and its objectives should be established at Comm unity level, but the detailed implementation 
should be left to Member States, thus allowing ea ch Member State to choose the regime which 
corresponds best to its particular situation. Th is Directive confines itself to the minimum 
 
EN 33   EN required in order to achieve those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for 
that purpose.” 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
A number of activities have been initiated to reap the potential benefits of the buildings 
sector. Legislation promoting energy efficiency of buildings exists at EU level. However, 
there is still large room for improvements (a s discussed in Section 0). The fundamental 
question concerns the best approach to addre ss the remaining challenges and barriers and to 
achieve the relevant EU objectives. In this respect three alternative approaches can be 
considered: (i) repealing the EPBD  and replacing it with ‘soft’ instruments, (ii) business as 
usual through use of the exis ting instruments without adapta tion, and (iii) EU action by 
complemented and improved instruments. 
4.1. Repealing the EPBD and replacing it by ‘soft’ instruments 
Soft instruments, such as the open method of coordination, voluntary agreements, provision of 
information, financial incentives, etc. are an alternative approach to the use of legal 
requirements. This would entail  proactive and ambitious actions  from Member States while 
the Commission would monitor and support the progress. If the actions undertaken are 
sufficient to achieve the EU po licy objectives at low social a nd economic cost and to provide 
EU citizens and businesses with lower energy bills  at the same or better levels of comfort, 
then the existing legislation, especi ally the EPBD, can be repealed. 
The method of open coordination refers to th e use of “soft law mechanisms”, such as 
guidelines and indicators, benchmarking and shari ng of best practice. Its success is very much 
dependant on the willingness of each individual Member State to  adopt appropriate measures 
as there are no sanctions, but only possible peer pressure and naming and shaming. As 
mentioned in Section 3.3 activ ities on energy performance im provements of the buildings 
sector are justified on environmental, but also on internal market grounds. The energy 
savings, environmental and security of suppl y benefits were often overlooked in many EU 
Member States, one of the reasons being that ac tions dealing with ‘my home – my castle’ may 
not be appealing to the voters ev en if they are beneficial and cost-effective but, nevertheless, 
require some additional up-front investments and time. Also the energy prices ha ve not been a 
major challenge to the citizens for many years,  although fuel poverty ex ists in all Member 
States. Now with the high oil prices and clim ate change manifestation, the governments are 
starting to realize the importance of the sector. 
Voluntary agreements can be anot her efficient tool for achievi ng policy objectives without the 
need for governmental intervention but on the grounds of good dialog ue and understanding 
from all parties. For example, these could be  agreements between governments and buildings 
industry or property owners so that all new bui ldings or all major renovations of the existing 
building stock meet certain energy performa nce requirements, or that good quality 
information on energy performance of buildings is  always provided when transactions occur. 
Today, such agreements are used  in some limited cases when au thorities want to go beyond 
the existing, already ambitious , legally binding minimum requi rements set within the EPBD 
and in countries where there is a tradition of su ch type of instrument, e.g. in the Netherlands 
where they are used to reach the standa rds of energy 'neutral buildings' by 2020.  
The observed very limited use of voluntary ag reements on improving energy performance of 
buildings is due to the specificities of the se ctor (such as the high share of individual 
 
EN 34   EN ownership and the large number of SMEs in the construction sector) that would entail 
significant transaction costs for a negotiation of and compliance ch ecks. Also it is not in the 
interest of the building owner to provide adeq uate information on the energy efficiency of 
their property that is to be rented out or sold, especiall y, if it is not satisfactory.  
Providing good quality and understandable informa tion that reach citizens and stakeholders at 
the right moment  is an important factor behind the success of energy savings policy 
objectives and a number of initiatives in this di rection have been initiated (some of those at 
Community level were described in Section 2.3.3). However, for such measures to have a 
high impact, several conditions should be met, i.e.: (i) the information should reach a very 
large number of people around the EU ; (ii) as property transactions are happening all the time, 
any campaign should be maintained over long periods of time; (iii)  information provided 
should be regularly updated as the cost-effectiv eness of measures can change within short 
periods of time. Meeting these three conditions will mean very high costs and an additional burden to the national budgets. 
Increased provision of financial support could be another 'soft law' approach. In this case, 
Member States should provide fi nancial means to property owners  or tenants to increase the 
energy efficiency of their buildings or fiscal incentives, such as for instance, the German KfW 
programmes. This would trigger energy savings,  but to achieve signifi cant impact it would 
require substantial financial re sources to be provided that ma y be a serious burden to the 
national/regional budgets. At present, there are some subsidy programmes that provide 
financial assistance to fuel poor households to pay their energy bi lls. However, this approach 
is not sustainable in long-term as it does not  reduce energy bills and can have only limited 
impact. 
Some countries, such as the UK and its Energy Effici ency Commitment, have introduced an 
obligation on the suppliers (but can also be on producers or di stributors) to achieve certain 
savings at their consumers (usually including a proportion of fuel poor households). This is 
done through investing, in most of the cases, in  the lowest cost measures. The costs are born 
by all consumers and if they are not high this in strument (also called white certificates) can be 
very efficient. However, it cannot be used to  achieve the significant potential as it would 
dramatically increase the energy prices. 
The specifics of the sector, slow uptake of natio nal measures, if not supported at EU level, 
and the high cost of “soft” instruments, toge ther with the fact that there is already a 
functioning Directive at EU level leads to the conc lusion that it is not appropriate to repeal the 
EPBD and depend only on “soft law” to solve the problems and objectives as outlined in Sections 2 and 3. In additi on, repealing the EPBD woul d send a very negative signal 
regarding the EU's ambitions to  pursue its policy objectives, bot h within its Member States 
and also internationally. The EPBD has certain limitations but it has already laid the basis for 
action and this has been recognized as an EU achievement. Its transposition has been a 
challenge but is progressing well and Member St ates are starting to see its importance. In the 
times when energy efficiency action is requested by all, repealing of a well-established legal document cannot be justified. 
4.2. Business as usual 
The 'business as usual' or ‘do nothing more’ alternative implies that there is no need for 
additional measures beyond the existing ones, including continued implementation of the 
current EPBD and all related regulatory and non -regulatory instruments (described in Section 
 
EN 35   EN 2.2), which, combined with the no rmal market operation, are to deliver the cost-effective level 
of energy performance. This approach can be supported with measures that can maximize the 
impact of the EBPD by encouraging its full tr ansposition. The Commissi on has already relied 
heavily on infringements to strongly move fo rward EPBD implementation, has already won 
one case against a Member State and has several others brought before the Court or at the 
final stage of the infringement process. As mentioned in Section 2.2.1 this had a very positive 
impact on accelerating the adopti on of needed legislation and now  most of the Member States 
declare complete transposition. The Commission has also alre ady undertaken a number of 
additional activities, i.e. by fundi ng projects on information exchange and research of the best 
practices, and the de velopment of standards, to  support the implementation. 
The full impact of the existing EPBD in 2020 is estimated to be a reduction of about 96 Mtoe 
of final energy consumption36, while the remaining cost-effective potential in the buildings 
sector, not covered by the existing Directive, is an additional saving amount of 143 Mtoe 
(final energy) as mentioned (see Section 2.1).  
This would mean that even if the EPBD is fully implemented a large potential would still 
remain unutilized (which equals about 11% of EU to tal final energy consumption and CO 2 
emissions, see Annex V). 
In addition, if this approach is adopted, the limitations of the curren t legislation will remain  
and may even have a negative influence on the possibilities for achieving EU energy and 
climate change policy objectives. For example, if no measures are adopted to tackle the 
problem with the very poor quality energy perf ormance certificates that are issued in some 
Member States only to fulfill the legal requirements, they may become a “useless administrative burden” set by Brussels and have  even a negative impact on the perception for 
energy savings and for any future measures.  
4.3. EU action by complemented and improved instruments 
A third alternative is to improve the existing regulatory instruments. An encompassing 
regulatory framework has already been develo ped at EU level, and although it has some 
limitations, it can serve a good base upon which one can built and thus th e efforts should be 
focused on its improvement. From the number of  adopted legal documents (some listed in 
Section 2.2), the EPBD is the one that deals in a holistic way with energy use of buildings
37. 
They have emphasized the need and benefits of  strengthening the EPBD . This option scored 
first amongst all options discusse d in terms of potential energy savings and high in terms of 
cumulative effect. 
While building on the current EPBD, the meas ures already undertak en by national and 
regional authorities for its implementation would be the ba se which will be upgraded. This 
would ease the transposition and un derstanding of the measures by all stakeholders while at 
the same time tapping a larger share of potenti al and related benefits . For this reasons the 
original EPBD requirements and basic structur e should be kept and improved or extended for 
                                                 
36 SEC(2006)1174  the data there provided for primary energy or 125 Mtoe for EU-25 is extrapolated to EU-
27 and converted into final energy. Due to lack of ambition of implementation of the EPBD or lack of 
clarity of some provisions this potential may not be fully realized. However, it is not possible at present to calculate what would be the impact of this. 
37 i.e. RES directive, EuP implementing measures, Construction Products Directive that are under 
discussion now. 
 
EN 36   EN the cases when this is proven necessary and be neficial. This is the underlying principle for 
each of the options that are anal yzed in the text to follow. 
This approach allows for the use of a combina tion of policy instruments, such as regulatory, 
provision of information, comparisons between Me mber Sates instruments. Still, the concrete 
levels, requirements and mechanisms are determined at national/local level so that the subsidiary and proportionality are respected. 
Based on the knowledge gathered, analysis and broad consulta tion, a conclusion was reached 
that several aspects of the EPBD need to be tackled in order to reach the specific policy 
objectives. These in general refer, firstly, to th e issues of improvement of the wording and, 
secondly, to each of the four main pillars of  the current Directive, namely: (i) 1000 m
2 
threshold for existing buildings when they unde rgo major renovation; (ii) energy performance 
certificates; (iii) inspection of boilers a nd air-conditioning systems; and (iv) energy 
performance requirements. Within  each pillar several options are discussed. The selection of 
the options is a result of pre-sc reening of a larger number of op tions that were raised in the 
last several years by Member States' represen tatives and stakeholders based on observations 
of EPBD implementation and various analyses  of possible actions (see Section 1.2).  
Under all main pillars of EPBD the improvement  options comprise all type of measures (in 
line, like combining approaches in  4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). The options are: 
• General: Clarification and simplification 
• 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings when they undergo major renovation 
– Option A1: Lowering the threshold to 500 m², to include all medium sized 
buildings. 
– Option A2: Lowering the threshold to 200 m² , to include all bu ildings apart from 
small ones (mainly single family houses). 
– Option A3: Abolishing the 1000 m² thre shold to include all buildings. 
• Energy performance certificates 
– Option B1: Quality and compliance requirements. 
– Option B2: Requiring the recommended cost-e ffective measures of the certificate 
are realized within a certain time period. 
– Option B3: Making certificates a mandatory part of property a dvertisement and/or 
property transaction documents.  
– Option B4: Requiring the linking of th e certificates with other support or 
discouragement mechanisms.  
• Inspection of boilers and air-conditioning systems  
– Option C1: Requiring an 'inspection report' for heating and air-conditioning 
systems. 
 
EN 37   EN – Option C1: Introducing compliance requirements. 
• Energy performance requirements 
– Option D1: Specifying EU – wide energy performance requirements. 
– Option D2: Introducing a benchmarking mechanism. 
– Option D3: Requiring an evolving improveme nt scheme for the buildings stock 
focussing on the worst performing buildings  (a kind of top-runner approach). 
– Option D4: Setting up EU–wide low or zero energy/carbon buildings/passive 
house requirements.  
As a conclusion from the three discussed policy  alternatives the revision of the EPBD is 
the appropriate action to meet the EU policy objectives  given the problems and the ways 
they are tackled at present. In this case the cu rrent Directive will be the starting point and the 
'backbone' of the revision. Therefore, the continued implementation of the EPBD is of 
crucial importance .  
However, it should be emphasized that the solution is in an in tegrated mix of policy 
instruments  and thus other non-regulatory measures, which otherwise would not be sufficient 
on their own, are necessary to complement the implementation of the Di rective. Therefore the 
efforts in providing more financial and fiscal in centives, and informati on, training of experts, 
and agreeing on voluntary actions should be continued and further developed. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
For each of the options presented in the previo us section, a general description is provided 
followed by explanation of what is proposed, and evaluation of th e benefits and limitations in 
terms of their economic, social and environmental impacts. 
5.1. Main analytical approach 
For the baseline the latest avai lable update (September 2007) of the PRIMES model of DG 
TREN was used. It includes polic ies and measures implemented in the Member States up to 
the end of 2006 and was used in order to ensure consistency w ith other impact assessments 
and publications of the European Commission on energy. The Ecofys BEAM model was used 
by the consultant to this Impact Assessment fo r the calculations of the economic, social and 
environmental impacts. Building up on PRIMES, the EU building stock was replicated by the 
model  to calculate the impact of the individual options. The calculation of the impacts is 
bottom-up (i.e. based on following the cons truction, demolition and renovation rates, and 
energy-efficiency measures in retrofits). BE AM is a holistic model that reproduces the 
building stock by using referenc e buildings. With regard to all factors quantified, the 
calculations of the BEAM model take th e interactions between the individual 
measures/options analysed into consideration and eliminates overlaps in the results. The 
individual options analysed we re not calculated independen tly by the model but within 
connected loop model runs. Additionally, where modelling of the impacts was not possible by 
the BEAM model, the results of  the studies available were us ed and extrapolated to EU-27. 
 
EN 38   EN Out of the BEAM model and study results, the CO 2 abatement costs are calculated (annual 
capital costs of a measure in 2020 minus annual  energy cost savings of a measure in 2020 
divided by annual CO 2 emission savings of a measure in 2020) and are consistent through the 
whole text. The year 2009 was assumed to be the starting year of measures analysed. This e.g. 
means, assuming the annual renovation rate of 2.5% in the buildings sector, by 2020 27.5% of 
all existing buildings would be renovated (11 * 2.5%), therefore be subject to annual capital 
costs for the renovation presented under this  option and achieve the energy cost and CO 2 
emission savings presented. 
For some of the options only qualification of th e impacts was possible due to limitation of the 
available quantitative data and the complexity of  the issues. If data are not reliable or missing, 
but there is enough evidence from  experience and prac tice, only qualitativ e conclusions are 
made. In addition, as there are few studies that include the w hole EU, extrapolation is often 
needed.  
The calculations were made for year 2020 as  the 20% target for energy consumption 
reduction is for the year 2020. However, the benef its would continue to increase in the future. 
To demonstrate this, projections for the year 2030 were also occasionally presented. 
For further details and assumptions see Annex IV and footnotes in the text. 
5.2. General: Clarification and simplification 
The simplification and clarification is essent ial for proper implementation of the EPBD. The 
need for action in this direction surfaced in di scussions with the Member States at the Energy 
Demand Management Committee (see also the su mmary of a questionnaire in Annex II) and 
Concerted Action meetings, and inputs from st akeholders. Such actions have also been 
requested by a majority of the re spondents to the public consultation. 
Two actions are essential in this direction. The first action is the choice of proper legal format 
of the proposed revised text. The second is to cl arify and simplify the text itself i.e. certain 
definitions and provisions. These shall be an inseparable part of the EPBD revision and be 
carried out to support its smooth and comp lete transposition and implementation. 
5.2.1.  Simplification through the use of appropria te legal form (recasting vs amendment) 
Energy efficiency in buildings is part of the Commission's Better Regulation Strategy, in 
particular of the Action plan "Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment"38. 
Although the policy options will re main the same, the measures would be strengthened and 
clarified.  
The choice of a legal form for th e final text of the Directive to  be proposed is important from 
the point of view of simp lification, as it can provide for improved understanding and 
simplified implementation. In this respect the tw o possible instruments of  revision at disposal 
are: amendment or recasting. The main differen ce between them is that in the recasting, the 
new text of the Directive will be a consolidatio n, in other words it will be a single new legal 
document, and not a second one that includes only the revised parts, as in the case of 
                                                 
38 COM/2002/0278 final 
 
EN 39   EN amendment. This will improve readability and will facilitate comprehension for both 
implementing authorities and aff ected stakeholders alike.  
As the principles of the exis ting EPBD should be kept, the re casting is an opportunity to 
develop further EU and national policies and measures related to energy efficiency in the 
buildings sector, based on what has been learnt  from the implementation of the current EPBD, 
and on the ambitions implied by the EU and nationa l targets. It is crucial that the current 
EPBD be properly implemented and on time. The forthcoming recasting should not be an 
excuse for delay in implementation of the current Directive. 
5.2.2.  Clarifying and simplifying certain provisions 
One of the factors that limit the full realisa tion of the energy saving potential intended by the 
EPBD is the wording of some of its provisions and definitions. The Di rective could achieve a 
higher degree of consolidation, le gal certainty and simp lification of legisla tion by being more 
unambiguously worded on certain aspects. This  has been detected by responsible national 
authorities in the EPBD Concerted Action, ba sed on their experience with implementing the 
existing Directive. National implementing bodies should therefore be provided with a clear 
legal framework which ensures better overall c oherence of their legislations and thereby 
simplifies its implementation and application fo r involved parties, such  as the construction 
sector, designers, energy services comp anies, installers and building owners. 
There is room for improvement of several EPBD definitions, su ch as 'public buildings', for 
which special EPBD provisions apply, inter alia the display of the energy performance 
certificate at a prominent place: The definition of public buildings in EPBD recital 16 shall also be used in Article 7(3), instead of having two different  wordings. 'Major renovation', 
'alternative systems' and 'air-conditioning system s' are further terms, whereof the existing 
Directive contains vague or ambiguous descripti ons. "Passive heating" and "passive cooling" 
are elements which, although implicitly brought up in the existing Dir ective (recitals 8, 10, 
and 18, article 3 and its reference to Annex part 1), could be hi ghlighted and stressed more in 
the text of the Directive. This would also refl ect the relevant proposal for stimulating "passive 
heating and cooling" of the Commission's En ergy Efficiency Action Plan (Annex, part 1)
6. 
Furthermore, clarification of certain provisions could be made , where it has not been made 
clear in the existing EPBD what exactly is requ ired to be done, at what time, and by whom: 
i.e. with regard to the required recommendations  within the energy perf ormance certificate of 
a building and how/when exact ly it is to be made available to an interested buyer or tenant of 
a building or building unit (Article 7 of the ex isting EPBD). Wherever available (e.g. as for 
air-conditioning systems), these definitions in  the EPBD should now be taken from the 
relevant, recently developed 31 CEN standa rds, in order to further simplify the 
implementation of the EPBD provisions. 
In order to address the public sector  as a leading example more strongly than in the existing 
EPBD, this sector could be required to comply with obligations of th e revised EPBD earlier 
and in a stricter way than the private sector ha s to. This would be in line with the relevant 
activity announced in the Commission's Ener gy Efficiency Action Plan 2006 and with the 
Commission's Green Public Procurement initiati ve of 2008. Furthermore, the public sector 
could be required to realize cost-effective measures which are recommended in the energy 
performance certificate of a building (see option B2 in chapter 5.4) w ithin a certain period. 
 
EN 40   EN 5.3. 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings when they undergo major renovation 
Current situation:  The EPBD requires that owners of buildings larger than 1000 m² upgrade 
the energy performance of their buildings to meet the nationally set requirements, when these undergo major renovations
39. In relation to the total EU-27 building stock, this means that 
only 29% of the total conditioned floor area and 27% of CO 2 emissions caused from total 
space heating are covered by the above menti oned legal provision. If the figures for the 
residential and commercial build ings are considered separate ly, it shows that mostly 
residential house owners do not  have to meet any minimum energy requirements when 
renovating, as 86% of the residential floor area is  left out of the scope of the Directive (see 
Figure 2). On the other hand, sinc e commercial buildings are usua lly larger than residential 
ones, almost two third of the commercial floor  area is already covered by the legal provision 
for major renovations. This means that large part  of the existing buildings do not fall within 
the scope of the EPBD and therefore the possibil ities for the realization of energy savings and 
CO 2 emission reductions potentials that lie with them are not exploited. 
 
Figure 2. Floor area distribution and CO 2 emissions by threshold categories in 2005 (Source: 
BEAM) 
However, at least 9 Member States40 transposed the EPBD wit hout a 1000 m² threshold, 
hence requiring energy performance upgrades for all existing buildings41 undergoing (major) 
renovations. The national reasons for not intr oducing a 1000 m² limit were diverse. For 
instance, Denmark and Germany had already in place strong regulation and introducing a threshold would have weakened existing building le gislation. Finland e.g., stated that 40% of 
the heating energy consumption of  the building stock would have  been excluded with such a 
                                                
 
39 See endnote 18 
40 K. Engelund Thomson et al and Member States answers to the questionnaire circulated at the 
Committee meeting in March 2008 (see Annex X): Thresholds related to renovation of buildings (not 
published yet): The following countries do not have a minimum 1000 m² threshold: Flemish Region of Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, German y, Latvia, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Sweden.  
41 Most countries do have a minimum m² threshold, usually equivalent to the smallest type of building, 
such as 10, 40 or 50 m². 

 
EN 41   EN threshold. Portugal on the other hand argued that  energy savings measures are cost-effective 
for every building and therefore no exception shoul d be made for smaller ones. On the other 
hand, Cyprus opted for a 1000 m² threshold, because it had no experience with similar buildings regulations in the past and therefor e wanted to set a threshold in accordance to 
common practice in the construction industry. Ho wever, even the less experienced Member 
States now dispose of a couple of years of expe rience on this topic since the EPBD has been 
adopted in 2002.  
Proposal:  Keeping in mind that buildings with less than 1000 m² are responsible for 73% of 
total CO
2 emissions caused by the building stock, it seems appropriate to discuss whether 
abolishing this threshold, or at least lowering it  to cover more buildings, are feasible options 
to increase the amount of energy saved in the buildings sector in a cost-effective way.  
The following three options are l ooked into for more details: 
• Option A1: Lowering the threshold to 500 m² to include all medium sized buildings.  
A 500 m² threshold would cover 81% more resi dential (i.e. 25% of total) and 26% more 
commercial (i.e. 83% of total) floor area as with the current threshold in the Directive. 
Buildings between 500 m² and up to 1000 m² are medium sized multifamily houses and medium sized office buildings. 
• Option A2: Lowering the threshold to 200 m² to  include all buildings apart from small 
ones.  
With this option, mainly just the owners of single family houses will not have to consider 
minimum energy performance requirements while refurbishing their homes. This threshold 
would then cover almost 100% of the commerci al and 35% of the residential floor area. 
• Option A3: Abolishing the 1000 m² thre shold to include all buildings. 
The minimum conditioned area of a stand-alone  building is usually about 50 m². Abolishing 
the 1000 m² would mean that all buildings with an  area of more than 50 m² are subject to legal 
requirements when undergoing major renovations. 
It should be highlighted that within the disc ussed options, Member States would still be 
responsible to set up the individual require ments of energy performance and thus the 
subsidiarity principle will be respected. Als o, the definition of major renovation would be 
retained as in the current EPBD, which means that, for example, renovation of an apartment 
in a large multifamily building would, in most ca ses, not be covered by the requirements. The 
effect on individual households would be limite d further by the fact that renovations are 
usually made 'step by step'. The current EPBD also entails that for existing buildings, when 
they undergo major renovation of a certain part, the energy pe rformance requirements are to 
be met only for this part and not for the whole building. For example, if the building shell is 
renovated this would not mean that the heat ing system should mandatorily be changed. 
Eliminating or lowering the 1000 m² threshold for buildings undergoing major renovation will 
not change the overall framework of the EPBD , nor the possible exceptions foreseen for 
certain categories of buildings, such as stand-al one buildings smaller than 50 m². In order to 
assess the three options presented above, it is necessary to weight  the gains made in terms of 
energy savings, reduction of CO
2 emissions and job creation against the energy related 
investment costs for the owners of the sma ller buildings and for the administration to 
implement and control this new legal requirement. 
 
EN 42   EN Impact : The most meaningful indicator is the to tal costs savings, as it shows the difference 
between the energy costs saved in a specific year and the costs of capital raised (interest rate 
and amortization) for carrying out an energy pe rformance upgrade in the context of a major 
renovation. In the very short term, i.e. in 2010,  introducing lower or no  thresholds will not 
have any decisive additional impact on the to tal costs savings, sin ce only a small proportion 
of the buildings stock will by then have undergone major renova tion. However, the 
accumulation of energy savings from energy rela ted renovations of an increasing number of 
buildings will by 2020 have a decisive impact: 19.8 Mtoe or  4 % of the final energy 
consumed by the residential and service sectors (510 Mtoe in 2020 according to PRIMES) in the EU-27 can be saved additionally if the thre shold is abolished (option A3). Furthermore, 
the total costs savings from this option w ill amount to an additional €17 billion per year 
compared to those reached  through the current EPBD. 
The economic benefits for the buildings industr y can be derived from a higher demand for 
energy saving appliances such as insulation material, multi-glazed windows or more energy efficient boilers, heating and cooling systems. The impact on the labour market in terms of 
additional employments create d was assessed based on turnove r values in the buildings 
industry.
42 According to these calculations, appr oximately 75.000 additional jobs in EU-27 
could be created and maintained in 2020 when  eliminating the 1000 m²  threshold (see Table 
1). See Annex IV for the assumptions.  
Table 1. Impact on job creation in terms of additional jobs created in 2020, by threshold 
option, compared to the 'business as us ual' scenario (BAU), Source: Ecofys 
Scenario Jobs in 2020 Change compared to BAU 
BAU (existing EPBD (> 1000 m²)) 149 000 --
Option A1 (EPBD > 500 m²) 159 000 + 10 000
Option A2 (EPBD > 200 m²) 170 000  + 21 000
Option A3 (EPBD > 50 m²) 224 000 + 75 000
The economic and environmental impacts have been quantified based on the Ecofys Building 
Area Model (BEAM), which provi des estimates for final energy savings, energy related 
investment costs, annual capital costs, saved annual energy costs and total costs savings for 
the three threshold options and for the years 2010, 2020 and 203043. The results are presented 
in terms of additional costs and benefits comp ared to the business as usual scenario (BAU), 
which is the current Directive.  
Table 2. Estimated impacts of different thresholds for minimum energy performance 
requirements for major renovations, S ource: BEAM model (see Annex IV) 
Impacts for EU-27  2010 2020 2030
Final energy savings, Mtoe/a 
BAU (EPBD > 1000 m²) 
compared to 2009 4.4 47.1 75.8
                                                 
42 The estimates area based on a simplified method neglecting smaller effects but offering a good 
indication of possible employment related impacts of energy efficiency measures. For this purpose, the 
assumed additional turnover from energy efficiency projects is divided by the average turnover per 
employee in the construction sector and multiplied by a specific factor 1. This factor depends on the 
labour intensity of the measures carried out. Fo r this impact assessment, it was assumed that the 
additional turnover is caused by the usual mix of mate rial and labour costs as presently observed in the 
building industry of the EU-27.  
43 See Annex IV for more information on the BEAM and the assumptions made for compiling the 
estimates. 
 
EN 43   EN Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 0.3 2.8 3.2
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 0.5 5.4 5.7
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 2.0 19.8 21.2
CO 2 emissions, Mt/a 
BAU (EPBD > 1000 m²) 
compared to 2009 12 129 204
Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 1 8 9
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 1 14 15
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 5 51 55
Energy related investment costs, billion €/a 
Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 2 1 1
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 4 3 2
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 12 11 7
Annual capital costs for energy related investments, billion €/a 
Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 0 1 2
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 0 2 4
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 1 8 13
Saved energy costs, billion €/a 
Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 0 3 4
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 0 7 8
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 2 25 31
Total cost-savings, billion €/a (Saved energy costs - capital costs) 
Additional impact compared to BAU: 
Option A1 (EPBD >500 m2) 0 2 2
Option A2 (EPBD >200 m2) 0 5 4
Option A3 (EPBD >50 m2) 1 17 18
The CO 2 abatement costs (total cost sa vings per year divided by annual CO 2 savings of an 
option) and annual capital  costs per saved ton CO 2 can be calculated out of the table above, 
which results e.g. for option A3 ("EPBD >50") in the following values: 
Option A3  (EPBD >50)  2010 2020 2030 
Abatement costs in € per 
saved ton CO 2 -200 -333 -327 
Annual capital costs in € 
per saved ton CO 2 200 157 236 
It should be noted that the annua l capital costs per saved ton CO 2 presented in the table above 
cannot simply be compared to e.g. those of i nvestments in renewable energy techniques, as 
this would neglect the benefits  (energy cost savings) which ar e linked to energy efficiency 
measures. So the presented CO 2 abatement costs are the appropriate indicator for cross-
comparisons of the economy of measures, a lthough negative abatement costs have to be 
interpreted with care in general. 
 
EN 44   EN Regarding the additional administrative burden which a change in the threshold would cause, 
a survey undertaken44 in the framework of the Buildings Platform has revealed that most 
Member States assessed the current ad ministrative burden as moderate or  small.  Extending 
the legal requirements for major renovations  to the entire building stock should not 
considerably impact on the administrative burden. 
At the level of citizens, the impacts materiali ze at the moment of a major renovation as they 
need to meet the national building code requirements. This could mean for instance the moment when a building/refurbishment permit is needed. Realizing energy efficiency 
measures when retrofitting costs, on average,  between two and three times less than when 
done separately. This in general me ans that by every renovation below 1000m
2 which is not 
combined with efficiency measures, a unique op portunity for cost-efficient energy savings is 
lost for the owner. The level of requirements and the related additional costs vary from one country to another but normally rema in moderate when planned properly. 
The investment needs differ substantially across Europe depending on the social and 
economic conditions, on the initial state of the property and on the type of renovations people undertake. For example purchasing a high effici ent boiler would require about €800 additional 
to the price of an average boile r sold today on the market. Howe ver, in 4-5 years these would 
be reaped from the savings on the energy bill  and afterwards the household would save €250-
300 annually until the end of the lifetime of the boiler (15 years). An example from the UK 
shows that if there is no lo ft insulation in a building a nd in a renovation the recommended 
270mm are installed, then the investment costs for the household would be about €600. 
Annually €150 would be saved on the energy bill so the payback time will be only about 4 
years. If there is already 50 mm insulation, the investments would be the same but energy 
savings only €40 and thus the payback time about 16 years. 
Well insulated and acclimatized buildings have a probable positive effect on the persons 
working, learning or living in them. Increasing the amount of buildings subject to minimum 
energy performance requirements when undergoing major renovations, will reinforce this effect. Although this impact cannot easily be qua ntified as it is often perceived as very 
subjective, some studies have shown e.g. that a better insulated buildin g can have a positive 
impact on the learning environment of st udents in terms of better results.  
Based on the available estimates and the positiv e experiences made in countries without a 
1000 m² threshold for existing building undergoi ng a major renovati on, the removal of 
minimum area thresholds to cover all buildings is the most appropriate option in terms of 
cost-effectiveness and impact on final energy demand. 
5.4. Energy performance certificates 
The certificates, which are al ready mandatory under the current EPBD when buildings are 
constructed, sold or rented out , can be a powerful tool to cr eate a demand-driven market for 
energy efficient buildings, as they allow economi c agents to estimate costs in relation to 
energy consumption and efficiency. The aim of the Certificate is to make the complex issue of 
the energy performance of a building transpar ent to non-energy experts (such as average 
building owners and tenants) and therefore tackle s the lack of information market failure. The 
possible impact of the certificates  in some countries is estimate d at annual 2 % energy savings 
                                                
 
44 Thomson et al.:  Thresholds related to renovation of buildings (not published yet) 
 
EN 45   EN in the buildings sector when a proper  certification scheme is implemented45. Although the 
first Member State introduced energy performa nce certificates as ear ly as of 1997 and made 
positive experience, only few other Member States started similar requirements, that is why the Commission initiated action at Community level and made certificates part of the existing EPBD requirements.  
At present, Member States have already implem ented, or transposed, or are currently setting 
up regimes and administrative preconditions for the energy performance certificate for 
buildings, when a building is constructed, newl y rented out or sold, at national level as 
requested by the EPBD. The certificates sh all be issued by accredited experts. The 
qualification needs of these expert s are fixed at national level, not in the EPBD. The majority 
of Member States start in practice not before summer 2008.  
The observations from some of the Member States which have already introduced the 
certificate show that some are not of satisfactor y quality, or that there is insufficient bottom-
up uptake to ensure that they are systematical ly made available during property transactions. 
In addition, higher realization of  recommendations for energy improvements of the buildings 
can stimulate further energy savings. These prompted the need for improvements of the 
provision on the Certificates in the EPBD so that  the market failures of lack, or low quality, of 
information and to tackle the re maining energy savings potential. 
In order to respect the principle of subsid iarity, the objective of the energy performance 
certificates will still rema in limited to the provision of information and any effects of these 
certificates in terms of legal proceedings or otherwise shall be decided in accordance with 
national rules, as is stated in the EPBD , for all the following options B1 to B4. 
5.4.1.  Option B1: Quality and compliance requirements for certificates 
Current situation: There are no provisions in the EPBD re quiring that Member States set up a 
quality check of the certificate. The lack of such a system in some countries has resulted in 
bad quality certificates being i ssued. Also, compliance with th e requirements for issuing of 
the certificates and for meeting of the mini mum energy performance requirements is not 
satisfactory. Although the implementation is still in its early stage numer ous complaints were 
already sent to the Commission in 2007 and 2008 about unsatisfactory quality of energy 
performance certificates.  
The procedure of issuing of certificates, as de veloped in some Member States, often starts 
with an on site check of the building by an e xpert to gather information on its technical 
properties, based on which a ca lculation of the energy rating of the building is performed. 
This proceeding usually leads to high quality ce rtificates, assuming that the training of the 
experts is sufficient. Alternatively, in some Member States the build ing owner is providing 
technical information on the building's properties to an expert, who prep ares a certificate only 
based on this information and using many simplif ied and standardised assumptions depending 
on the building type without visiti ng the site. This doe s not always reflect the actual situation 
and therefore can lead to inco rrect rating results and inappropr iate recommendations in the 
certificate, but leads to low co sts for certification. Furthermore,  it allows for incorrect and 
false input to 'sugar-coat' the rating result, whic h is not always easy to detect afterwards by 
                                                
 
45 Minna Sunikka, Discussion on the potential impact of the energy certificate on existing housing: the 
UK as a case study, 2005 
 
EN 46   EN e.g. a future prospective buyer or tenant of a building. Moreover, the independence, required 
by the existing EPBD, and quality of these experts varies widely within the EU. 
Consequently, the quality of currently issu ed certificates varies widely as well. 
The certification of a building could also be  linked to compliance criteria on building 
regulations to improve the compliance rate  and realize higher energy savings. Several 
stakeholders46, experts and energy agencies47 have asked for effective control regimes to be 
put in place in order to increase compliance with building regulations . Ideally, sufficient 
quality of energy performance certificates co uld also contribute to  better compliance on 
buildings regulations. The check of EPBD building certificates by a compliance control 
scheme could be such an efficient instrument. A similar control regime is i.e. currently developed in the Flemish Region of Belgium.  Denmark already introduced a regime for 
systematic quality control of certificates in 2006. Such a control scheme should be as effective 
and as less administrative as possible. 
Proposal:  Introduction of a requirement that random sampling checks of the quality of energy 
performance certificates and the compliance with  the building energy co des is carried out by 
public authorities or accredited institutions. 
A random control of the real outcomes, validity  and quality of certifi cates, could be required 
for certificates in the EPBD recasting
48. Checks at different levels  of detail and frequency 
could therefore be introduced as a new requirement by the EPBD recasting . These levels of 
random sampling regime could range from valid ity checks of input and/or result data for 
certificates to on-site checks  of buildings certified.  
                                                 
46 In position papers and studies, such as Euro pean Construction Industr y Federation FIEC: FIEC 
Memorandum - The impact of buildings on climate change, 2007 (amended version 2008); European 
Energy Network EnR: Implementation of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - a snapshot report, 2008 
47 As e.g. presented at the 2nd Sustainable Energy Week event 'Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 
- Next Steps' in January 2008. 
48 For similar objectives, Denmark already revised its cer tification procedure in 2006, firstly introduced in 
1997, to 'quality level' 5 and 6 respectively in its 2nd generation certification scheme: 
 In a range from 1 to 6, 1 being lowest quality which only consists of "Meter reading reported by the 
building owner and the utility companies", whilst 5 and 6 mean "Computation by energy consultants 
based on building envelope inspection" and " Computation by energy consultants combined with meter 
reading". 
 The revision of the Danish provisions was based on several years of experience since 1997, which also 
underlined the importance of quality control within the certification scheme (subsequently also named 
as 'label'/'labelling scheme'). The analysis of Jensen et al conclude that "Confidence in the energy label 
is the most important factor in achieving the main aim of the labelling scheme - energy savings. The 
user must at all times have confidence in the registrations made, the calculations, the label itself, and 
especially that the suggested energy saving measures are viable and will result in improved economy. Thus, it is essential to maintain a high level of quality in the energy labelling scheme. If quality is poor, 
the users will lose confidence in the labels. […] Credibility may be lost very fast as a few poor labels 
can do a lot of damage. The quality control of the Danish energy labelling scheme takes place at all 
levels of the scheme.", taken out of: Ole Michael Jensen, Morten Tony Hansen, Kirsten Engelund 
Thomsen, Kim Wittchen: Development of a 2nd generation energy certificate scheme – Danish experience, 2007 
 
EN 47   EN Random sampling checks could take place fo r e.g. 0.5% of certificates annually issued49 with 
3 levels of detail: A certain share of these ch ecks could be requested to be done by a validity 
check of input data and rati ng outcome of energy performan ce certificates only. Another 
(lower) share could requested be checked (stric ter) for input data and be recalculated by a 
controller. And another (very low) share of random sampling checks could consist of the 
aforementioned proposal plus control of the building on site for compliance with building 
regulations and corresponden ce with the certificate.  
Impact:  Detailed analyses of the various impacts of the certificates (stimulation of more 
renovations and improvement of compliance with building codes)  were made with the BEAM 
model calculations (for details on the model: see Annex IV). Accord ing to that it results in 21 
Mtoe/year energy savings and 57 Mt CO 2 emission savings in 2020 for EU-27. This is linked 
to annual capital costs of €8 billion, but cause s annual energy cost savings of €26 billion. 
Consequently, properly carried out energy perf ormance certificates may bring along up to 
20,000 new jobs50 for certifiers and up to 40,000 ne w jobs in the construction and 
refurbishment sector by 2020 (see Annex IV for th e assumptions). This is confirmed by data 
known for the UK51 (and some limited data for Germany which is in the range of that for the 
UK52). For the UK it is estimated that 8 to 12% of  cost effective energy efficiency measures 
are realized53. The UK figures simply extrapolated to EU-27 level would mean an increase of 
10 to 29 Mtoe/year realized energy sa vings and of 24 to 84 Mt/year CO 2 emission savings in 
202054. 
The costs for a thorough quality control system appear manage able. For example, the total 
yearly costs of the Danish administration of  the scheme paid by the consumers amount to 
about €0.8 million for the development of the system55 and about €0.3 million annual 
                                                 
49 Underlying that an accredited ex pert, specialised on issuing ener gy performance certificates for 
buildings, compiles one certificate per working da y, so about 200 certifi cates a year. A random 
sampling check of 0.5 % of certificates would ther efore mean that accredited experts face with one 
control per year on average. 
50 In full time equivalents. Actual jobs may fluctuate because of anticipated certif ication in rental sector 
and EPC saturation. Based on 4.8 to 9.3 hours per EP C, calculated from several country reports of the 
IMPACT project. 
51 Calculated from data originating from Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. 
“Regulatory Impact Assessment Ener gy Performance of Buildings Directive Articles 7-10”. Carbon 
saved claimed for EPCs in first year of implementa tion, electricity use exclud ed in PRIMES reference 
emissions. 
52 For example, for the UK the savings equal 0.9% of the existing residential building stock’s emissions. 
For comparison: in Germany, the certificates are projected to help avoid 0.35% of the existing 
residential building stock’s emission (calculated fr om: Forschungszentrum Jülich, 2005. “Evaluierung 
der CO 2-Minderungsmaßnahmen im Gebäudebereich”, p. 20. Carbon saved claimed for EPCs after 
three years of implementation,  electricity use excluded in  PRIMES reference emissions).  
53 Calculated from data originating from Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. 
“Regulatory Impact Assessment Ener gy Performance of Buildings Directive Articles 7-10”. Savings 
claimed exclusively for EPCs, i.e. additional to  EEC savings. Applies for first year of full 
implementation (2009) to 2020, only when EPC is available. This range may differ from figures 
mentioned below because of non-additionality and diff erent time frames. No information is available on 
the effect of certification on the renovation rate of buildings 
54 Of course, conditions in other Member States differ from the UK in terms of savings potential (size, 
profitability) and complementary policies. 
55 Jens Laustsen (Danish Energy Authority) & Kirstin e Lorenzen (COWI), 2003 . “Danish Experience in 
Energy Labelling in Buildings”, p. 20. For comparison, for the UK one-off administration costs are 
 
EN 48   EN maintenance cost. These amounts include the qual ity assessment control, the registration of 
data and the development of facilities to he lp improve and minimise the work for the 
consultants as well as some tr aining activities for the consulta nts. Based on extrapolations of 
the Danish approach the overall  administrative cost of random sample checks in the EU-27 
are of the magnitude of  5 to 16 M€ per year56. In general, costs of a more elaborate quality 
control scheme could add up to 10 to  32 M€ administrative costs per year57. 
Moreover, this control regime could also guara ntee a sufficient quality of experts issuing the 
certificates as an indirect consequence.  
Proposing such requirements can be justified fro m a proportionality point of view as, from the 
current practice, it has been evident that the low qua lity of certificates is  one of the key factors 
for the questionable credibility and market uptak e of the certificates in a number of Member 
States. 
5.4.2.  Option B2: Requiring the recommended cost -effective measures of the certificate 
are realized within a certain time period 
Current situation : According to the EPBD the energy  performance certificate shall be 
accompanied by a list of recommendations for cost-effective improvement of the energy 
performance. There are no requirements in the EPBD that some of these recommendations, 
such as those with short pay-back time, are to be realized. However, if  there is no uptake of 
these recommendations a significant possibility  for energy reductions is not achieved. This 
possibility prompted criticism by some stakeholde rs who argue that in this way the potential 
may not be tackled and asking that the cost- effective recommendations are implemented. For 
example, the European Energy Network in its report58 suggests that recommendations with 7 
years pay-back time are to be mandatorily implemented. 
It is difficult to evaluate from practice what is the rate of uptake of these recommendations in 
the certificates as there is no sufficient experience  in most of the Member States. The lack of 
such information has been highlighted in a stud y carried out within the Buildings Platform for 
which only one respondent to a qu estionnaire sent to experts from all EU Member States 
provided estimation that an uptak e of up to 20% of low and non- cost measures for the service 
sector59.  
Some Member States have also already includ ed such provisions in their legislation. For 
example, in Portugal for the non-residential build ings the cost- effective opportunities with a 
payback smaller than 8 years must be implemente d within 3 years. There are severe financial 
penalties if these are not realized. In Denm ark all buildings owned by public administration 
                                                                                                                                                         
estimated at app. 2 M€, and yearly enforcement co sts at 14 M€ (all sectors, excluding communication). 
Calculated from data originating from Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. 
56 Extrapolation of the Danish approach: one out of 500 EPCs is fully re-issued. In addition, one out of 
100 data forms is reviewed. Costs of random checks are thus approximately 0.25% (1/400) of the total 
costs of issuing the EPCs.  
57 Quality checks costs equal to 0.5% of EPC issuing costs (information given orally by the IA consultant 
on, 23 June 2008).  
58 EnR. Implementation of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - a snapshot report, 2008 
59 BRE. Impact of the Energy Certificates on the en ergy savings in the existing buildings in the MS 
(EPBD article 7). Draft June 2008 
 
EN 49   EN (government, regions, municipalities) sha ll be certified and the cost- effective 
recommendations with a pay-back time of  5 years or less shall be implemented. 
Proposal:  A requirement can be introduced that the cost-effective recommendations of the 
certificate are to be implemented within a certai n period of time. Such requirement can be for 
the owners of all buildings or for some part s of them based on the division: residential, 
commercial and public buildings. In case of purch ase the investment requirement may be on 
the new owner. The setting up of a definition for 'c ost-effective' and the period of time are to 
be decided at nationa l or regional level. 
Impact:  Unfortunately, the evaluation of the imp act of requiring that the cost-efficient 
recommendations of the Certificate are realized  within a certain time cannot be based on the 
countries that have adopted cert ain requirements in this aspect, i.e. Denmark and Portugal, as 
there are no impact assessments available. Still,  it has been evaluated that if requirements are 
included solely for the buildings of the tertiary sector , this may already lead to final energy 
demand saving of approximately 12 Mtoe, i.e. 3% reduction in 2020 in the EU-27 buildings sector; to a CO
2 emission reduction of about 33 Mt, i.e.  1% reduction in 2020 in overall EU-
27 CO 2 emissions.  
However, although from the data available it is not possible to make estimations on the 
investment requirements for the whole buildings s ector (tertiary only), it can be expected that 
meeting the costs can be a significant challenge  for some property-owners, especially those 
with restricted budgets, or housing associations  that own a large number of properties. To 
ease the burden on this segment, targeted fina ncial support mechanisms  could be established 
by Member States (see option B4). 
For the purpose of requesting th e realization of the recommenda tions of the certificates, their 
quality would have to be sufficiently good su ch that no economically wrong investments are 
required. Currently, the experience of some countries shows that as there is a drive towards 
very low cost of certificates, they do not provi de reliable and sufficient information for these 
principle investment decisions. 
In addition, the re sults of the STABLE60 project do not show a clear need for adopting a 
mandatory approach. In its activities th e perceptions of professional parties61 of whether they 
will act upon the recommendations if they are mandatory or voluntary was evaluated. The results show that 58% of respondents said th ey would increase their investment in energy 
efficiency measures if the recommendations  on the certificate were voluntary, whilst 64% 
believe they would do so if the recommendations were made mandatory.  
From a subsidiarity point of view, introducing such a require ment would be a significant 
financial burden for EU citizens and busines ses and therefore such action would not be 
justified at EU level. To varying degrees Memb er States also use market-based instruments 
such as taxes on energy products used for heati ng to incentivize efficiency measures in the 
housing sector. For subsidiarity reasons Member St ates should continue to be able to choose a 
                                                
 
60 Motiva Oy et al . 2007, Securing The Take-off of Building Energy Certification: Improving Market 
Attractiveness through Building Owner Involvement , STABLE final report, cited at 
http://stable.motiva.fi/about/  STABLE, stands for Securing the take-off of Building Energy 
Certification. The project has been co-funded under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme 
61 Professional parties include large owners, suppliers  to owners, associations of users, the sample 
includes 466 respondents from Austria, Belgium, Bu lgaria, Finland, Greece, Sweden, and Netherlands 
 
EN 50   EN combination of market-based and command and control measures, which would no longer be 
the case if every price increase would automa tically trigger higher minimum standards.  
Nevertheless, the public authorities should lead the way in demonstrating best practices in 
energy efficiency improvements. Therefore, set ting up of a requirement that for the buildings 
occupied by the public sector  the cost-efficient recommendati ons should be implemented can 
be a good step for showing such an exemplary ro le. This has also been  proposed by several 
organizations that have responde d to the public consultation. 
5.4.3.  Option B3: Making certificates a mandator y part of property advertisement and/or 
property transaction documents 
Current situation:  The EPBD only specifies th at the certificate "has to be made available" to 
the potential owner (for newly built constructions), the prosp ective buyer or tenant. When and 
how this information has to be  communicated, is not specified. In certain situations this 
information is only disclosed as one of the many annexes to a contract ready to be signed. At 
such a moment the information on energy perf ormance can no longer influence the decision 
of the prospective buyer or tenant and it consequently loses its added value. 
In order to use the full potential of the energy  performance certificate, the information related 
to the energy performance of a building has to be disclosed as early as possible. In this way 
information on the energy performance can dete rmine the choice for a particular building. 
Such information is already provided by some r eal estate agencies, for example in the UK, 
which include the 'rainbow' rating from the Certifi cate in the ads that are at displayed in their 
offices and in the websites. 
Proposal : To require that the energy performance ce rtificate is displayed in the publicity for 
property transactions when a propert y is on sale or for rent and to  require that it is included as 
part of the property tr ansaction documentation. 
The information on energy perfor mance of a building should be in tegrated in all publicity for 
property transactions. A simila r requirement at EU level ha s already been made for the 
disclosure of fuel economy and CO 2 emissions for the marketing of new passenger cars. In 
order to have an effect, this information shoul d be explicitly mentioned on any contract for a 
property transaction. In this it can be consid ered as any objective information regarding a 
building such as the surface or the material description.  
Impact: Making energy performance part of the mark eting process can, over time, add market 
value to good performing buildings, which will have a competitive advantage over similar buildings with the same price but performing le ss efficiently. Integrat ing energy performance 
information in publicity and marketing tools c ould also raise the awareness of the general 
public. Not only will potential buye rs or tenants be able to co mpare the efficiency of their 
possible choices, the general public will fam iliarise itself with the concept of energy 
efficiency of buildings. Home owners could perc eive this as an incentive to establish the 
energy performance of their own property and act accordingly.  
As the preparation and presentation of the cer tificates are already required in the current 
EPBD the costs for the consumers will be mainly  for displaying the information (printing and 
including it in websites) while the costs for Member States will be for monitoring the compliance. However, the added value of the in formation for the real estate market could 
compensate possible additional cost. No quantification on the impacts on energy savings and 
 
EN 51   EN CO 2 emission reductions are available but they  can be considered relatively high and 
increasing in time as the role of the cert ificate will be considerably strengthened. 
Taking into account the important contribution of a requirement that would make certificates 
a mandatory part of property advertisement and th e fact that similar approach at EU level has 
already been adopted in other sectors (i.e. CO 2 emissions for the marketing of new passenger 
cars), the proposal would be inlin e with both the subsidiarity a nd proportionality principles. 
Making the certificate a mandatory part of prope rty advertisement and/or  property transaction 
documents would limit the interpretations of th e current text of th e EPBD which already 
states that a certificate should be 'made available' but nevertheless there are some 
interpretations that it does not mean that the certificates are de facto  presented or handed over. 
5.4.4.  Option B4. Requiring the linking of th e certificates with other support or 
discouragement mechanisms 
Current situation:  There are no requirements in the EPBD that stipulates that support 
mechanism should be linked with th e certificate. Some of the possi bilities that are available at 
EU level for general support schemes which coul d be linked to the certificate were listed in 
Section 2.2.4 and there are a number of examples  from around the Europe of well functioning 
support schemes, although at presen t these do not necessarily in clude all of those which are 
needed. 
In the residential and commercial buildings ch apter of the fourth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change62, it is stated that there is no single policy 
instrument that can capture the entire poten tial for GHG mitigation. Du e to the especially 
strong and diverse barriers in th e residential and commercial s ectors, overcoming these is only 
possible through a diverse portfolio of policy instruments for effective and far-reaching GHG 
abatement and for taking advantage of synergis tic effects. Since climate change literacy, 
awareness of technological, cultural and behavi oural choices and thei r impacts on emissions 
are important preconditions to fully operating policies, these policy approaches need to go 
hand in hand with programmes that increase consumer access to information, awareness and knowledge ( high agreement, medium evidence ). This is confirmed by the summary report of 
the "Active Implementation of  the European Directive on Energy Efficiency" (AID-EE). 
Nevertheless, such approach has already been  adopted in several EU Member States. For 
example, in the Netherlands there is a gr een mortgage which house owners can use to 
implement energy saving measures during renova tion. The size of the loan is coupled to the 
improvement of the energy performance label. This means that in cases where more energy saving measures are implemented the energy performance of the house is further approved 
and more money can be borrowed against favourab le conditions (see Table 3). In general the 
interest is 1% lower than the market interest. The scheme is in force since May 2008, so there 
is no assessment available yet of its possible impacts
63. 
                                                 
62 IPCC, Levine, M., D. Ürge-Vorsatz, K. Blok, L. Geng, D. Harvey, S. Lang, G. Levermore, A. 
Mongameli Mehlwana, S. Mirasgedis, A. Novikova, J. Rilling, H. Yoshino, 2007: Residential and 
commercial buildings. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the 
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  [B. Metz, O.R. 
Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
63 VROM. Adjustment regulation Green investments, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Housing, 
Spatial Planning and Environment, 22 April 2008 
 
EN 52   EN Table 3. Improvements to the energy performa nce (in terms of energy rating) and amount 
provided for green mortgage in the Netherlands 
From label To label Number of steps Maximal green mortgage (EUR)
F D 2 25 000 
F B 4 50 000 
F A 5 100 000 
In Portugal energy conservation m easures will be financially supported by tax benefits, this 
scheme will in the near future be coupled to energy performance certificates64.  
Interesting examples of linking energy certificates to comple mentary financial or fiscal 
mechanisms are to be found outside the built environment. For example, in 2006, a bonus-malus (or ‘feebate’) mechanism was introduced for new automobiles in the Netherlands. The 
objective of the scheme is to shift market sh ares from inefficient vehicles towards more 
efficient ones. The scheme entails a fiscal bon us (re-ward) or malus (penalty) for buyers of 
vehicles. The size of the bonuses or penalties is proportionate to  the energy label of the car, 
which is considered an indicator of its CO
2-emissions.  
An evaluation of the scheme showed that a cons iderable shift in market shares had in fact 
taken place. Meanwhile, the costs of execution of the scheme are characterized as ‘relatively modest’. After all, an existing tax scheme for motorized vehicles was used as a platform for 
additional incentives for efficiency. Early 2008 , the bonuses and maluses were increased to 
higher amounts, in order to shift market shar es further against virt ually no additional cost
65. 
The case of energy labelling of a ppliances in the Netherlands constitutes another interesting 
example. It can be questioned whether labellin g as a single instrument would have had a 
substantial impact in the Netherlands. High effi cient appliances are more expensive and are 
probably not attractive for consumers without ad ditional policies (subsidies and/or eco-tax). 
What happened after the introduc tion of the energy label -and a subsidy scheme linked to it- 
was that the market share of energy efficient appliances increased ra pidly and inefficient 
appliances were removed from the market. This  happened at higher pa ce in the Netherlands 
than elsewhere in Europe. In this case the poli cy package counts up to success. In Sweden no 
subsidy scheme was linked to the labelling. Current  penetration of high ef ficient appliances is 
comparable with penetration in the Netherlands . Market transformation, however, came at a 
later stage and might have benefited from policies introduced in other countries66. 
Proposal : It can be required (or recommended) th at a link with the energy performance 
improvements is made when financial or fisc al support by Member States is provided to 
property owners (or tenants). 
                                                 
64 Information provided by Eduardo Maldonado, Universtiy of Porto, Portugal, email and telephone call 
13 and 17 June 2008 
65 VROM. Cijfers over wonen 2006 (Statistics on housing 2006), a report issued by the Dutch Ministry of 
Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment. The Hague, April 2007 
66 Kahn et al.  From Theory Based Policy Evaluation to SMART Policy Design. Summary report of 
the Active Implementation of the European Directiv e on Energy Efficiency”( AID-EE) project, within 
the framework of the EU Intelligen t Energy by Jamil Khan (Lund University), Mirjam Harmelink, 
Robert Harmsen (both Ecofys Neth erlands), Wolfgang Irre k (Wuppertal Institute) and Nicola Labanca 
(Politecnico), April 2007 
 
EN 53   EN There are various tools Member States can use to provide economic incentives for promoting 
energy efficiency measures in buildings and to  respect subsidiarity the exact support should 
be decided on national or regional level. One option could be to link financial instruments 
such as subsidies, preferential loans or fiscal  deductions with the use of energy performance 
certificates. For this option, energy auditors would determine the energy performance of a 
building and identify cost-effective energy sa vings measures accordingly. If the owner 
decides to carry out the suggest ed energy efficiency measures , he/she could get financial 
support when decisively upgrading the energy perf ormance of his building from e.g. a D to a 
B grade. A new certificate would then be issu ed to document the savings reached after the 
implementation of the savings measures. 
Impact:  The impacts of linking of the certificat es with other support or discouragement 
mechanisms are difficult to quan tify as they are very dependan t on the specifics of the support 
system that is to be devised by individua l Member States. However, it would require 
significant state funds (some also coming from the Structural and Cohesion funds). 
Provision of financial stimuli will inevitably le ad to energy efficiency improvements. For 
example, the above-mentioned STABLE project concluded, among others, that the most important factor which would influence the uptake of energy saving measures was the 
availability of investment gran ts and subsidies. Nearly all re spondents (93%) cons ider that if 
implementation were to be supported by financia l mechanisms, this would stimulate them to 
realize the cost-effective recommendations  of the energy performance certificate. 
However, such a requirement would not be in li ne with the subsidiarity principle as it would 
touch issues of national budget sp ending. Furthermore, the introducti on  of such a text into a 
Directive based on Art. 6 (envir onmental protection) of the Treat y may not be possible from a 
legal point of view. 
5.5. Inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems 
The EPBD requires organising regular inspectio ns of heating and air-conditioning systems. 
These systems have a very high energy saving pot ential, up to 40-60% of their total energy 
use. In this context, the current EPBD's inspect ion requirement is estimated to result in just 
10% energy savings
67. So there is significant room for fu rther savings. The need for further 
action is even more important because of the significant increase of air-conditioning systems 
throughout Europe. As the components of hea ting and air-conditioning systems are tradable 
goods, an initiative which is as much harmonized as possible within the EU is desirable (i.a. 
to ease internal market activity), that is w hy action at Community level is deemed to be 
appropriate. 
5.5.1.  Option C1: Requiring an 'inspection report' for heating and air-conditioning 
systems 
Current situation:  The existing EPBD inspection require ments generally aim at energy and 
CO 2 savings, but they do not specify the inspec tions' content and deliverables. Therefore, 
some of the Member States' inspection sche mes are imprecise and give limited energy 
                                                 
67 Estimations made corresponding to current Danish action plans, for new buildings. According to 
Scholten et al. about 10% of energy savings are exp ected as result of an average increase of heating 
system efficiency from  76% to 86%. Source: Toothless tiger? Is the EU action plan on energy 
efficiency sufficient to reach its target?, A. Scholten, S. Lechtenböhmer, D. Mitze and S. Thomas, 2007 
 
EN 54   EN savings. In many Member States inspections are not sufficiently prescribed or are only based 
on safety checks (i.e. in France, The Netherlands ), so they do not directly lead to energy 
savings. Besides, few Member States have or ganised systematic information, promotion, and 
advice campaigns to date, as request ed by article 8(b) of the EPBD.  
Consumers and building owners need more information. Better operation and control of 
systems and retrofit of old systems and com ponents by more effici ent ones, brings big 
savings. Proper and regular inspection and maintenance of the heating and air-conditioning systems accompanied by  adequate information/advice to bu ilding owners for retrofitting can 
significantly stimulate and accelerate these savings
68. 
Proposal:  An inspection report should be given to  building owner after the inspection. This 
should include an energy efficiency rating of the heating/cooling systems, e.g. compared to 
up-to-date and/or best technology availa ble, and recommendations for cost-effective 
improvement measures.  
Furthermore, it could be requested that thes e recommendations contain an estimate of the 
costs for replacing the existing boiler, water heater, or cooli ng system with a new one that 
complies with the Eco-design69 minimum requirements, or 'A ' class under Energy Labelling70. 
An inspection report including recommendations fo r system improvement would not need to 
be made with the same frequency as the inspecti on of the systems themselves, as its rating and 
recommendation results remain va lid for a longer period of time. 
The relevant CEN standards for inspections could be further de veloped. These would allow an 
efficiency rating of the installations. They could represent an overarching guideline which 
supports Member States' implementation of an inspection report71. The EPBD recasting could 
therefore directly refer to these CEN standard s and minimum energy effi ciency installation 
requirements could be set by Member States based on these standards. 
As a further step, the recommended saving measures in the inspection report could be 
requested to be realized. Meas ures with short payback periods  could be required to be 
implemented faster than the ones with a long er payback period. Therefore, the inspection 
report should have clear information on ec onomic information to building owners. 
                                                 
68 Due to boiler replacement combustio n efficiency increased on averag e by 7 % in Italy (mainly gas 
boilers) and 5 % in Finland (mainly oil boilers); Fuel saving due to a more frequent regular maintenance 
(yearly instead of customary average) was calculated  between 1.3 % and 2.5 % (Ireland); Statements by 
Marcello Antonucci, Krzysztof Klobut in presentation 'How to evaluate the impact of inspections and 
advice programmes for boilers' at 9th World Congress Clima2007, Helsinki, June 2007 
 (http://www.rehva.com/projects/clim a2007/WSs/WS7/WS7_pSUMMARY.pdf) 
69 Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a 
framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council 
Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council, OJ L 191, 22/07/2005 p. 29 -58  
70 Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product 
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances, OJ L 297, 
13/10/1992, p. 16–19  
71 The outcomes of relevant projects under the EU IEE programme, such as AUDITAC and 
HARMONAC, can be of further support. 
 
EN 55   EN Impact:  In average, the inspection report could br ing about 30% of building owners inspected 
to follow the advice, e.g. in France, the impact of individual energy advice has been estimated at 30%, and in Sweden incentives on individual  oil boilers substitution resulted in 30% 
renovation
72. Assuming an average inspection frequenc y of 3.3 years, the requirement for an 
inspection report would therefore lead to an annual renovation rate of 9.1% pe r year (30% / 
3.3). The current renovation rate is about 6.7% per year (assum ing an average boiler lifetime 
of about 15 years). Thus the inspection re port could lead to about 2.4 % additional 
replacements/retrofits of the stock of boile rs and combi-water heaters per year. As a 
consequence, not only 80% of the stock of boi lers and combi-water h eaters would be replaced 
by 2020 (as is the case with current replacemen t rate), but 100 % of the stock would be 
replaced by more efficient produc ts. Realistically, this figure mi ght be lower at 95 % due to 
market imperfections, to calculate conserva tively. The additional annual savings in 2020 
caused by the inspection report requirement woul d therefore be around 5 Mtoe final energy, 
15 to 20 Mt CO 2, or €2 billion (net of extra cost of replacement)73. 
Inspections of heating and cooling systems can furthermore - apar t from energy savings - 
achieve co-benefits, such as decrease of disc omfort hours caused by non-properly operating 
heating/cooling systems, as examined by Bory et al74. 
In addition, the new system could help manufact urers to produce heating and air-conditioning 
systems for the entire EU market which are eas ier to inspect, which could therefore improve 
the companies' competitiveness. Furthermore, inspection of heating systems is linked to creation of jobs, which can be estimated at 19 5,000 jobs (inspectors and energy consultants) 
in EU-27
75 in 2020 if made properly and if including the inspection report requirement. This 
means about 25% or 40,000 more inspectors than  currently needed for the existing EPBD 
heating system inspection requirement. For air-c onditioning systems, it can be estimated at 
around 30,000 (inspectors and ener gy consultants) in EU-2776 in 2020, which means about 
6,000 more inspectors than currently needed for the existing EPBD air-conditioning system 
inspection requirements (see Annex IV for the assumptions).  
Additional cost to the Member States and thei r consumers of the inspection report should be 
low, as the information on the existing boiler, and system etc. should already be available 
from the building certificate a nd boiler/cooling inspection. The ex tra cost will be selecting the 
right size and technical specification of a replace ment and cost of installation system. Given a 
well designed system, the add-on cost to the inspector should be lo w (less than 10% of 
inspection cost e.g. every 4 to 6 years).  
Finally, as is the case for recommendations from the buildings certificate, national subsidy 
schemes could and should support the investments that originate from the inspection report. 
                                                 
72 'Summary of WS : How to evaluate the impact of inspections and advice programmes for boilers' at 9th 
World Congress Clima07, Helsinki, 2007, www.rehva.com/projects/clima2007/WSs/WS7/  
WS7_pSUMMARY.pdf  
73 VHK EcoDesign of boilers and combi-boilers study, 2007 and DG TREN model based calculations 
built on the VHK study. 
74 Daniela Bory, Jerome Adnot, Carmelo Greco, Dominique Marchio: Auditing the European room air-
conditioning systems and potential energy savings, 2007 
75 VHK EcoDesign of boilers and combi-boilers study, 2007, task 2 and extrapolated from EU-25 to EU-
27 by BIO Intelligence Service S.A.S. (using calcu lation methodology according to Jerome Adnot) 
76 In 2017, based on extrapolation out of Roger Hitchin, Jerome Adnot, Maxime Dupont: 'Issues of the 
implementation of the EPBD article 9', 2005 
 
EN 56   EN The inspection report would be an important  upgrading to the existing requirements for 
inspection and would help consumers in identify ing important possibilities for cost-effective 
energy savings and therefore it is justif ied from proportionality point of view. 
5.5.2.  Option C2: Introducing quality check  and compliance requirements for 
inspections 
Current situation:  Member States have introduced very different requirements with regard to 
educational preconditions and training of the independent experts which are allowed to 
execute inspections. The actual independence, required by the existing EPBD, and quality of 
inspectors therefore varies widely within the EU. 
Where there is currently little or no comp liance control of inspections and inspection 
outcomes of heating and air-conditioning syst ems, the implemented national inspection 
schemes are unlikely to contribute a lot to th e realization of the en ergy saving potential of 
installations: The technical savi ng potential for heating systems is estimated to be very high, 
at 30%77, which correspond to around 66 Mtoe final energy savings, reduc tion of €55 billion 
of costs and 252 Mt CO 2 emission savings per year in 2020. Similarly regarding the air-
conditioning systems, technica l energy savings poten tial can reach a maximum of 50% of 
their final energy use74. 
Without control of the inspection outcomes of  heating and air-conditioning systems, the 
national inspection sc hemes are unlikely to achieve sufficient energy efficiency 
improvements. Analysis of stakehol ders and experienced Member States78 (e.g. Sweden, 
Germany, France, Italy) recommend ensuring that effective enforcement systems are in place 
for compliance and to regularly and independe ntly assess whether the control regimes are 
effective . The importance of compliance contro ls is also underlined by numerous 
contributions to the public consultation on the EPBD recasting: About one third of all 
contributors asked explicitly for compliance co ntrol requirements for inspection in an EPBD 
revision, whereof about 90 % of them are re presenting big European associations.  
For example, for air-conditioning systems the energy savings of the compliance requirements 
can be estimated at up to 20 % of their total energy saving  potential, which correspond to 
around 0.5 Mtoe final (elect ricity) energy savings79, reduction of €1.1 billion of costs and 5.7 
Mt CO 2e emissions savings per year in 2020. 
Member States have introduced very different  requirements with regard to educational 
preconditions and training of the independent ex perts who are allowed to execute inspections. 
Their actual independence, requir ed by the existing EP BD, and quality theref ore varies widely 
within the EU. 
                                                 
77 VHK EcoDesign of boilers and combi-boilers study, 2007, task 6, p. 36 (data correspond to scenario for 
design option 3 for XL boilers). 
78 As e.g. presented at the 2nd Sustainable Ener gy Week event 'Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive - Next Steps' in January 2008 and as demonstrated in a Swedish case study of 2007 (see 
European Energy Network EnR: Implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - a 
snapshot report, 2008), In Sweden, energy monitoring must be undertaken for a period of two years 
after the building has been completed, to demonstrate compliance on the ground. The policy was 
introduced in mid-2006 and results will begin to emerge soon. Large property developers have expressed their support for the initiative 
79 Based on extrapolation out of data originating from ‘Energy Efficiency and Certification of Central Air 
Conditioners’ (EECCAC), 2003. 
 
EN 57   EN The importance of compliance controls is also  underlined by numerous contributions to the 
public consultation on the EPBD recasting: A bout one third of all contributors asked 
explicitly for compliance control requirements for inspection in an EPBD revision, whereof 
about 90 % of them are representi ng big European associations. 
Any compliance control scheme for inspections  should be well balan ced with regard to 
control costs and achievable benefits in terms of energy and emission savings and their gross 
economic costs. Such a control scheme has to be as effective as possible at low administrative 
efforts. In doing so, a positive balance between benefits and control costs (in terms of improved quality and saved energy and emissions) can be achieved 
Proposal:  Similar to what has been presented under option B1 on energy performance 
certificates for buildings, random sampling checks  of inspection reports (presented in option 
C1) of different levels of detail and frequency could ther efore be introduced as a new 
requirement. The levels of the random sampling regime could range from validity checks of 
input and/or result data for inspection reports  to on-site checks of heating and air-conditioning 
systems inspected. 
The compliance control regime could also guara ntee a sufficient quality of experts carrying 
out the inspections
80, leaving it to the Member States to lay down training requirements and 
educational preconditions for inspectors. However, as an indirect consequence, by a control of 
the inspection report a sufficient quality of insp ectors would be checked automatically at the 
same time.  
Member States could be requested to esta blish random sampling checks, for e.g. 0.1 % of 
annually carried out inspections81, at 3 levels of detail: A certa in share of these checks could 
requested to be done by a validity check of input data and given recommendations of 
inspection reports only. Another (lower) share c ould be requested to be checked (stricter) for 
input data and the recommendations could be r ecalculated by a controller. And another (very 
low) share of random sampling checks could c onsist of the aforementioned proposal plus 
control of the heating/air-conditioning system on site for correspondence w ith the certificate.  
Impact:  Similar to what has been describe d under option B1 on certificates, a random 
sampling control of inspection results/reports  is an option to improve the quality of 
inspections; guarantee a sufficient quality of information on energy efficiency improvement 
measures provided to the owner of a building by  the inspection report and therefore increase 
the retrofitting rate of heating and air-conditioning systems; and ensure a sufficient quality of 
inspectors at the same time for reasonably low administrative efforts and costs. 
A random sampling check of the inspection outcomes for heating and air-conditioning 
systems does have positive effect on creation of jobs: i.e. in Portugal, the quality of the certificates is checked every fi ve years on 10% of the total. For inspec tions, random sampling 
                                                
 
80 i bid 48 
81 Underlying that an accredited ex pert, specialised on issuing ener gy performance certificates for 
buildings, compiles one certificate per working da y, so about 200 certifi cates a year. A random 
sampling check of 0.5 % of certificates would ther efore mean that accredited experts face with one 
control per year on average. 
 
EN 58   EN rate can be assumed as similar,  which could result in 23,000 jobs82 (inspectors and energy 
consultants) for EU-27 by the year 2020. 
Similar to option B1 proposing such requirement s can be justified from a proportionality point 
of view as, from the current practice, it has been evident that wit hout compliance checks the 
usefulness and credibility of inspections is in question. 
5.6. Minimum energy performance requirements 
The present energy performance requirements83 and their levels of ambition vary widely 
across the Member States, even within similar climatic zones. Cross-border comparisons of 
fixed requirements are difficult due  to very different basic appr oaches regarding how energy 
performance requirements are calculated and ex pressed. In addition, a multitude of different 
parameters are used for calculation purposes. Fu rthermore, with regard these parameters, very 
different definitions exist in Member States84. Moreover, some Member States focus on fixing 
the transmission losses of a building by se tting minimum requirements for individual 
components, such as windows, others have established holistic energy performance rating methodologies, fixing e.g. the maximum allowed primary energy demand and/or CO
2 
emission for a building, fully or partly based on relevant CEN standards. These incorporate, 
inter alia, energy consumption for lighti ng, ventilation and do mestic hot water. 
This fragmented situation is the result of ma ny years of development of building regulations 
in the Member States, each ha ving different starting points, dates (some started decades ago, 
some recently) and executive bodies. The existing performance requirements and methodologies also regularly undergo revision. Furthermore, the performance requirements 
have to be in line with other, non-energy nati onal building regulations , which are outside the 
scope of the EPBD. An all-embracing project
85 was launched in autumn 2007 in order to 
assess these differences and to analyse how cross-border comparisons can be made in 
principle. The project consists of 16 intern ational partners from across the EU and is 
scheduled to run for 2.5 years. 
The overarching aim of an EU legal activity on energy performance requirements in the 
buildings sector is to achieve optimum perfor mance requirements, which are feasible, cost-
effective and in balance w ith provoked energy savings, technical and environmental 
feasibility and subsidiarity86. Cost-optimal levels are no t yet achieved European-wide by 
                                                 
82 Based on Roger Hitchin, Jerome Adnot, Maxime Dupont: 'Issues of the implementation of the EPBD 
article 9', 2005; see Annex IV for further information. 
83 Energy performance requirements: meaning regulations which limit the energy use of buildings under 
standardised conditions, expressed as a fixed limit of  e.g. the annual final or primary energy use in 
kilowatt hours per square meter useful floor area of a building [kWh/m2.a] 
84 Such as e.g. "useful floor area", a common value on which the energy performance of a building is 
based on: Energy consumption in kWh per m2 useful floor area, varying up to +/-10 - 15 % across 
Member States, see e.g. information paper P65 "Comparing Energy Performance Requirements over Europe" at the Commission's Buildings Platform (www.buildingsplatform.eu). 
85 ASIEPI project - Assessment and Improvement of the EPBD Impact, project under the Intelligent 
Energy Europe Programme, 10/2007 to 3/2010 
86 Ambitious energy performance requirements for buildings (insulation and reduction of uncontrolled 
ventilation by improved air-tightness) sometimes have been blamed for a degradation of the indoor environment and increase in problems in connection with moisture and dampness in buildings. Several 
studies, such as the comprehensive Swedish survey  about health, well bein g and energy efficient 
buildings (Energy efficient and healthy buildings, M. Gullberg, ÅF Process Sweden, E. Öfverholm, 
 
EN 59   EN nationally fixed energy  performance requirements, which is why further stimulation at 
Community level  could realize additional en ergy savings. It is also  important for regulation 
to encourage and not hamper innovation in the buildings sector. The existing EPBD respects 
this by requesting the Member States to set a holistic methodology (instead of fixing very 
specific details of each component of a building) and any change in legislation must recognise 
the importance of this approach87. 
The options for energy performance require ments below reflect these fundamentals. 
5.6.1.  Option D1: Establish EU energy performance requirements 
Current situation: Member States individually fix en ergy performance requirements for 
buildings at different levels, based on different methodologies and covering different scale of 
influencing factors88, as stated above in the introduction to opti ons D. European CEN 
standards for energy aspects in the buildings  sector, initiated by the Commission in 2004 to 
support Member States implementing the exis ting EPBD, only reduced this variety to a 
certain extent. Furthermore, not all Member St ates make broad use of them. One option to 
achieve ambitious requirements EU wide and to  harmonize them could therefore be to fully 
lay down binding methodologies and levels  of requirements at EU level. 
The principle structure of Member States' le gislation on buildings differs widely. Energy 
performance requirements are often embedded in  complex national buil ding regulations and 
rarely laid down separately without interconn ections to other legislation. These building 
regulations often also go beyond energy aspects,  such as health requirements on indoor air 
quality, static requirements, structural fire pr otection or noise control etc. Member States' 
notifications on the implementation of the ex isting EPBD confirm these common legal cross 
correlations. Furthermore, Member States insist on the subsidiarity principle when it comes to 
specifying individual building requirements. 
To set minimum energy performance requirements  for buildings at EU level would therefore 
require (i) either to unbundle nati onal building regulations  in order to separa te and fix energy 
aspects with one harmonized approach (ii) or to develop an approach at EU level which is 
                                                                                                                                                         
Swedish Energy Agency, M. Bengtsson and N. Tolstoy, National Board of Housing, Building and 
Planning, 2005) disproved this claim. Health aspects in buildings are rather a question of proper 
construction work and pattern of use, independent of the level of energy performance requirements on the construction, notably that adding envelope insulation and improving air-tightness need to be made 
together with correct natural or adjusted mechanical ventilation. 
87 In this regard, e.g. an overall limitation of the building's primary energy demand calculated according to 
the aforementioned holistic methodology by a building regulation leaves full room for best technical 
solutions how to comply with these requirements, so  which combination of e.g. insulation levels, boiler 
efficiency level and use of renewa ble energy sources ensures to keep the overall primary energy limit of 
a building. A counter-example would be to define exactly in the building regulation what type/level of 
insulation has to be used for the building envelope or which type of boiler is allowed to be installed etc 
in order to limit the energy consumption of the building. 
88 See several comparison studies, such as: Sc ottish Building Standards Agency, "International 
comparison of energy standards in building regu lations: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and 
Sweden", Scotland, 2007; Belgium Building Research Institute, "Energy performance regulations: small 
scale comparison between Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany and France", Belgium, announced to be 
published in summer 2008; Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘Consultancy study of energy efficiency regulations for new dwellings and options for improvement’, 
Ireland, 2007; ASIEPI project - Assessment and Improvement of the EPBD Impact, project under the 
Intelligent Energy Europe Programme, 10/2007 to 3/2010. 
 
EN 60   EN able to take implicitly into consideration all existing national interconnections to other 
building legislations for consistency reasons.  
Proposal: Specifying EU-wide energy performa nce requirements for buildings in the EPBD, 
taking into consideration vari ous factors, for example, different climate zones and building 
types (residential and non-residential buildings) 
Setting harmonised energy performance requirement s at EU level, e.g. expressed as maximum 
annual primary energy use per useful  floor area of a building [kWh/m2.a] in dependence of 
the outdoor climate, could ensure more ambiti ous, cost-optimal energy efficiency levels 
throughout the EU. As the design and use of bu ildings is widely varying and does have 
significant influence on the energy needs, a diffe rentiation of building types would also be 
necessary when fixing these requirements, as is practice today in almost all Member States. 
Impact:  The energy savings potential of this option D1 in 2020 can be estimated at 9.5 Mtoe 
per year for EU-27 (see Annex IV for assumptions  made for the potential calculations). This 
means a potential of 24 Mt CO 2 emission savings per year. It incu rs annual capital costs of €6 
billion per year for investments and results in  annual energy cost savi ngs of €12 billion in 
2020. The number of newly created jobs within the buildings sector can be estimated at 
82,000. These figures are based on currently la id down levels of energy performance 
requirements in the Member States compared to  newly fixed cost-optimal requirements at EU 
level, which would be more ambitious on average. 
Furthermore, it would ease cross border comparis ons and the achievement of equal levels of 
ambition in all Member States. It could help  construction companies,  construction products 
manufacturers and energy services companies to understand and to comply with building 
regulations all over the EU and therefore stimulate the internal market for this sector. 
Setting harmonized minimum energy performance re quirements at EU level could be difficult 
with regard to concerns of Member States, which claimed that it is in Member States 
competence to specify detailed building regulat ions. Furthermore, it could hamper Member 
States from laying down even stricter ener gy performance requirements which were already 
announced to come. Moreover, an EU-wide regulation would become very complex in order to reflect all national particularities in a fair  way and therefore could become indefinite in 
practice and take a very long time to be fixed. 
5.6.2.  Option D2: Introducing methodology for benchmarking  
Current situation:  As analysed in the previous option, a uniform EU wide energy 
performance setting is very challenging, that is  why other possibilities also need to be 
verified. Benchmarking is one common instrume nt whenever complex issues need to be 
tackled or assessed without spec ifying all the underlying (techni cal) details and requirements. 
It is a results-oriented methodology in order to ra te the achieved or aspi red level of a matter. 
Benchmarking of energy performance requireme nts can e.g. be the comparison of existing 
national requirements with a set of similar regu lations laid down in ot her countries or with 
e.g. cost-optimal energy performance require ments. Hence, it can steer Member States 
towards best practice or cost-optimal so lutions and create competition amongst Member 
States towards the best or most ambitious energy performance requirements. Real estate 
companies, chain store companies and instit utions/authorities often use benchmarking 
methods when managing a large number of  buildings. So an objective benchmarking 
mechanism could guide and support Member Stat es towards setting cost-optimal holistic 
 
EN 61   EN energy performance requirements. Currently, only a few Member States fix their levels of 
requirements based on national economic impact a ssessments, as stated in answers to the 
questionnaire which has been sent to Me mber States in spring 2008 (see Annex II). 
Proposal : Include in the EPBD (i.e. as an annex) a methodology s howing how to calculate the 
cost-optimal level of energy pe rformance requirements for build ings of which Member States 
shall make use of as a benchmarking instrument and present the calculation and results of the 
benchmarking to the Commission by reports an d/or in the EPBD Comitology Committee.  
National energy performance requirements for bu ildings could be geared to cost-optimal 
requirements by providing Member States with a methodology for benchmarking . The 
cost-optimal requirements (= best economic balance of inve stment costs versus energy 
savings) could therefore be specified by an objective methodology allowing implicit 
consideration of all boundary c onditions by parameters. This methodology should be based on 
EPBD CEN standards, which already fulfil these requirements. The parameters used inter alia 
consist of outdoor climate, ener gy prices, labour costs, materi al (e.g insulation), product (e.g. 
windows, heating systems) and se rvice costs, as these vary w ithin the EU and influence the 
cost-optimal level of energy perfor mance requirements for buildings. 
Such a benchmarking mechanism, consisting of a CEN based calculation methodology for 
cost-optimal energy performance requirements, could be introduced to the EPBD. It would 
contain all relevant parameters (e.g. underlying construction product costs,  energy costs, taxes 
etc.). The specific parameters w ould have to be fixed at nationa l level (only for benchmarking 
purposes), not in the EPBD and therefore with respect to the subsidiarity principle. In 
practice, Member States could then be reque sted by the EPBD to recalculate (i) their 
nationally fixed energy performance requirem ents and (ii) the cost-optimal level of 
requirements with the aforementioned new EP BD methodology in orde r to benchmark. The 
calculation results and the specific parameters us ed could then be required by the Commission 
to be published in reports and/or EPBD Comitology committee meetings. 
In doing so, Member States would not be asked to change their (complex and widely 
varying)  national methodologies  to set their requirements, but would be asked to carry out a 
comparison calculation  with the aforementioned new EPBD benchmarking methodology, in 
order to check whether their leve l of fixed requirements is at the cost-optimal level or not. 
Therefore, the ambition of energy performance re quirements that Member States actually set 
would be made transparent, which is very difficu lt to rate at present. Furthermore, this could 
also help to make cross-country comparisons  for levels of ambition of fixed energy 
performance requirements, as the calculation methodology and all parameters used would be 
made public. So the benchmarking instrument is  just a "translator" of complex, widely 
varying energy performance requirements fixed at  national levels to an EU-wide identical 
methodology for comparison purposes, not for regul ating the levels of requirements at EU-
level. This would clearly indicate whether Memb er States are below the optimal levels which 
would mean that money from potential energy savings are lost every time regulations are 
applied or whether Member States are too ambitious in their re quirements and pose an 
unjustified burden on their citizens.  
Impact:  Based on current energy performance requi rements in the Member States, the long-
term impact of the described new benchmarking system in terms of energy savings (current 
level versus theoretically cost-optimum level) can be identical to option D1, being estimated 
at 5 Mtoe for EU-27 in 2020 and 9.5 Mtoe in 2030 on a yearly basis in  residential and non 
residential buildings. This also mean s a potential ranging from 13 Mt CO 2 emission savings 
 
EN 62   EN on a yearly basis in 2020 to 24 Mt CO 2 emission savings per year in 203089. The figures 
represent the maximum possible impact, i.e. m eaning that Member States would gradually 
correct their national levels and half of them wo uld adjust their national levels to cost-optimal 
ones by 2020 and all Member States would do so by 2030. 
Furthermore, the potential number of new jobs (all tackled sectors toge ther, so construction 
and installation sector, manu facturers and energy services) can be estimated at 82,00090 in the 
long run if minimum energy performance require ments for new and refurbishment of existing 
buildings were individually lifted to cost- optimal levels in all Member States. The 
administrative costs of this benchmarking mechanism would be very low, as only a 
recalculation of nationally fixed requirements would be requested (plus publication of fixed 
parameters used). 
Furthermore, administrative costs within the EU could be kept to a minimum by providing 
Member States with a uniform, objective benchmarking methodology within the EPBD. At 
present, Member States develop national ap proaches on how to fix the requirements. 
Frequently new economic analysis is undertaken  for each revision of energy performance 
requirements. 
Introducing a benchmarking methodology for fixi ng energy performance requirements for 
buildings in the EPBD could simultaneously: 
• support Member States in laying down cost-op timal levels of holistic energy performance 
requirements in an objective manner, 
• lead to more transparency for all par ties involved whenever energy performance 
requirements are fixed by Member States, as a fully transparent and public methodology 
would be introduced which allows for valida ting the fixed levels of energy performance 
requirements, 
• provide Member States with a method which does not have to be revised as frequently as 
the requirements themselves and therefore offe rs planning certainty to  Member States and 
all parties involved, and 
• keep the integral administrativ e costs for the EU and for Member States to a minimum for 
this complex issue. 
The disadvantage of this option is its soft, rath er voluntary nature, as  Member States would 
not be forced to fix their energy performance requi rements at the cost-optimal level, but just 
to benchmark them. So the success of this option cannot be guaranteed. However, it is believed that it would create significant peer-pressure from the front runner countries, as well as from the construction industry and other stakeholders, and would ultimately move all 
Member States towards cost-optimal  energy efficiency requirements. 
This is a "soft law" instrume nt and would not impose any requi rement for the Member States 
to correct their levels and this will be in line with the proportionality and subsidiarity 
principles. 
                                                
 
89 Provided by consultant, based on PRIMES model calculation. 
90 Provided by consultant, based on EURIMA estimates, corrected for current variables. 
 
EN 63   EN 5.6.3.  Option D3: Develop an evolving improveme nt scheme for the buildings stock 
focussing on the worst performing build ings (a kind of top-runner approach) 
Current situation:  Buildings' life cycle ranges from seve ral years to several centuries. The 
energy performance standard sign ificantly varies by the age of the building. This is caused by 
the evolution of construction methods and the coming into force of building regulations: 
 
©2006 Dipl.-Ing. Horst-P. Schettler-Köhler
Strengthening of requirements: New buildingsStrengthening of requirements: New buildings
050100150200250300350
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Passive HouseThermal Insulation Ord. 1977
Thermal Insulation Ord. 1984
Thermal Insulation Ord. 1984
Energy Saving Ord. 
2002 / 2004 / 2007
2009
2012Heat Demand [kWh/(m²·a)]
  
 
Figure 3.  Development of strengthene d building codes, German (l eft) and Danish (right) 
example 
Furthermore, the energy performance differs  by building type and the location, due to 
traditionally different methods of constr uction in individual Member States. 
Proposal: Requirement for Member States to m onitor the buildings stock and lay down 
Action Plans how to increase the refurbishment rate and the energy perf ormance of the worst 
performing buildings  
A countrywise monitoring of the building stoc k looking at the dist ribution of energy 
performance levels is proposed to help identi fy the worst performing buildings. Initiatives and 
measures to improve the energy efficiency coul d then be focussed on sp ecific buildings, i.e. 
those with a performance below a sp ecified threshold (see Figure 4). 
Energy Performance Frequency within the Buildings Stock
0.00E+002.00E-014.00E-016.00E-018.00E-011.00E+001.20E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Energy Need [in kWh(m2.a)]Frequency
Worst 10 %Worst 20 %Worst 30 %
 Energy Performance Frequency within the Buildings Stock
0.00E+002.00E-014.00E-016.00E-018.00E-011.00E+001.20E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Energy Need [in kWh(m2.a)]FrequencyIncrease renovation 
rate of this category 
from e.g. current
3 % p.a. to 8 % p.a.Increase 
renovation rate of 
this category 
from e.g. current 
2 % p.a. to 6 % 
 
Figure 4.  Illustration of the revolving stock concept 
 
EN 64   EN Sufficient statistical data on the national buildi ng stocks is a precondition for this approach, 
which aims at shifting poorly performing buildings towards bett er performance. According to 
analysis of the European ODYSSEE project91, the level of available statistics on the building 
stock today varies widely w ithin the EU. The distribution frequency of energy performance 
levels for building types is not known in numerous Member States92. This situation hampers a 
systematic regulatory action to focus on worst performing buildi ngs. Member States could be 
asked to improve the situation by developing deta iled statistics on their buildings stock. Based 
on experience with most advanced countries, this is like ly to take several years. On the other 
hand, Member States are asked to  create detailed sectorial energy statistics for other purposes 
anyway, such as for the National Energy Effici ency Action Plans, which are required by the 
Energy End Use and Services Directive (2006/32/EC ). This could help Member State to focus 
their financial support in itiatives especially on the worst performing buildings where the ratio 
of saved energy or saved ton CO 2 per € spent is best and th erefore could create highest 
economic, social and environmental benefits. 
Impact: This 'evolving buildings stock' approach is a qualitative one which focuses on worst 
performing buildings. Measures te nd to be of high cost-effectiven ess in particular for these 
buildings. Nonetheless, a quantific ation of such an a pproach in terms of energy and emission 
savings, job creation and social and administrati ve impacts is very difficult as its detailed 
implementation and scope still need to be further specified and no EU-wide harmonized 
statistical data is available. Tentative estimations could be gi ven only. Administrative costs 
can be estimated to be high as the statistical  monitoring of the complex and fragmented 
buildings stock would have to be do ne in many Member States first. 
Such a requirement would have substantial budget ary implication for Member States if they 
have to provide funding for the poor performing buildings (which would especially be needed 
if they are occupied by low income people). Th erefore, such an intervention would not fully 
respect the subsidiarity principle. 
5.6.4.  Option D4: Setting up EU–wide low or zero energy/carbon buildings/passive house 
requirements.   
Current situation:  The buildings that are designed in a way that significan tly decreases their 
energy needs, but providing adequate level of comfort are known under different names; low 
energy house, zero energy house, high- performance house, passive house93, etc.  
                                                 
91 ODYSSEE - Energy Efficiency Indicators in Euro pe: Project under the Intelligent Energy Europe 
Programme of the Commission, started in 1993, still ongoing (http://www.odyssee-indicators.org/) 
92 11 Member States of EU-25 do not dispose of sufficient energy efficiency indicators and data for the 
household and services sectors according to a presentation of Di dier Bosseboeuf, ADEME (ODYSSEE 
project partner) at workshop 'New energy indicators for buildings and appliances: the way forward' of 
the International Energy Agency, Paris, 25-26 October 2007. 
93 The passive house concept was developed in Germany and refers to buildings that assure a comfortable 
indoor climate in winter without the need for a conventional heating system (with annual demand for 
space heating of 15 kWh/(m²a)) which means that they roughly use 85% less energy  to heat that a house 
built to existing German building regulations. The extra costs of construction are repaid over a 
reasonable time period through the reduced heating bills in a typical Northern European climate. The application of this definition has some limitations  for Southern climates where the air-conditioning 
demand is high and cannot be applied. (http://www.passive-on.org/en/details.php) 
For convenience in the document hereinafter the term low energy buildings is used. 
 
EN 65   EN The definitions and calculations methodologies di ffer a lot between EU Member States (i.e. 
seven Member States have offi cial definitions and further seven are currently developing 
them).  
Figure 5. illustrates well the different approaches used in Denmark (DK low energy class 1), 
Switzerland (Minergie), France (effine rgie) and Germany (passive house)94.  
 
Several Member States95 have made ambitious policy statements and have set up long-term 
targets for achieving the low energy standa rds for new houses. For example, in the 
Netherlands there is a voluntary agreement with industry to reduce energy consumption 
compared to the present building codes by 25% in 2011 and 50% in 2015 (which is close to 
passive house) and to have energy neutral buildings in 2020. In the UK the ambition is to have zero carbon homes by 2016. In France by  2012 all new buildings should comply with 
"low-consumption" standard, an d by 2020 be energy positive, i. e. produce energy. However, 
the concrete details for the re alization of some of these pl ans are still under development. 
The European Parliament
96, stakeholder organizations and some respondents to the public 
consultation have called for the introduction of  very low energy requirements (passive house 
standard) for new buildings  in the revised EPBD.  
However, so far the uptake of these houses has been limited, i.e. in the whole EU there are 
only 12-13,000 passive houses of which approximately 9-10,000 ar e located in Germany and 
2,000 in Austria97. 
Proposal: A requirement can be introduced in the re vised EPBD that all newly constructed 
buildings must meet the low energy build ing requirements from a certain date. 
                                                 
94 Effinergie presentation, March 2007. Adapted from EUROACE SBI Survey, March 2008: European 
national strategies to move towards very low energy buildings 
95 Engelund Thomsen, SBi and Wittchen, SBi, for EuroACE European national strategies to move 
towards very low energy buildings, 2008 
96 P6_TA(2008)0033 
97 Mission report VB EACI 
 
EN 66   EN Alternatively, Member States can be encouraged to set a definition and strategy for achieving 
the low energy building standard where the fina l and intermediary target years are clearly 
mentioned.  
Impact:  The benefits to the decrease of energy consumption, CO 2 emission reductions can be 
considerably high, roughly estimated at 15 Mtoe energy savings and 41 Mt CO 2 savings per 
year by 2020 (if a full uptake is considered to start in 2012 for all new buildings). However, 
the investment needs for such change are also s ubstantial. In general, studies suggest that the 
price increase of houses would be in the range of 7 to 15%98. 
In addition, to achieve a full market transformation, so that  each year about 210 million m2 of 
new residential and commercial bu ildings in the EU-27 meet th is standard would be a huge 
challenge and would require a s ubstantial change in the cons truction and buildings market. 
The full accumulation of necessary knowledge, traini ng of relevant experts, such as architects, 
constructors, auditors, and availability of c onstruction products and technologies will take 
about 10 to 15 years. 
Investment costs for passive hous ing are also substantial. To construct all new build up to 
passive house requirements every year in th e EU would cost betw een €50 billion to €120 
billion a year99 on top of regular construction costs for new buildings. This would lead to very 
high employment creation with the potential of  creating from 240,000 to 580,000 jobs for the 
passive housing construction sector  (i.e. architects, consultants,  specialized c onstruction firms 
and workers). It is important to note that these numbers are purely  indicative as the realization 
of 210 million m2 of passive housing a year  is currently not feasible . Thus job creation must 
be understood to be proportional to the extent  to which passive housing expansion occurs.  
Therefore, although the environmental and securi ty of supply benefits of having all new 
buildings consuming minimal quantities of energy are self evident, it may not be practical to 
introduce low energy buildings requirements in a short-term in all member States. This is due to the low penetration rates in Europe, higher costs, lack of trained professionals and low 
readiness of the construction indus try to deliver large quantities of low energy buildings in all 
EU Member States. Furthermore, such requireme nts would also not respect the subsidiarity 
and proportionality principle as th ey would require investments th at are not in all cases cost-
efficient and would create a bur den for the national budgets sin ce they would have to support 
households that would not be able to afford to build such low energy homes, which are more 
expensive than cost-optimal ones. 
If Member States are encouraged to set a vision for achieving the low energy building 
standard, this will send a strong signal to the construction industry that a market transformation is sought. In response they shall plan and act accordingly but would also allow 
for the national differences to be taken into account by each Member State. In addition, the 
public sector can play exemplary role in prom oting low energy buildings concepts. This can 
possibly be achieved by including more rigorous provisions for th e sector in these strategies, 
                                                
 
98 For example, http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/pla nningandbuilding/pdf/ 153125.pdfAudenart  (energy policy), 
http://www.passive-on.org/en/details.php   
99 Calculation assumptions: 100 kWh/m² lower total final energy need of these type of buildings than the 
ones required in a business as usual. Average prices of newly constructed square meter taken are based on ADEME figures (http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/K BaseShow?sort=-1&cid=96&m=3&catid=15019), 
and calculated extra costs (7% -15%) associated with  passive housing and the benchmarking goals of 
210 million m
2 per year. 
 
EN 67   EN i.e. by introducing earlier dates at which ne w public buildings will meet the low energy 
requirements. This suggestion is in line with the thinking of some of the major stakeholders and responses from the public consultation. 
 
EN 68   EN 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Energy efficiency in the buildings  sector is an effective means to fight climate change and to 
achieve EU energy policy objectives. Even though many measures have been taken, a very 
important savings potential still remains to be  harnessed. In looki ng for ways to achieve 
additional savings, three alternativ e policy approaches have been studied. The first one was to 
repeal the existing legal framework, in particul ar the EPBD, and use only 'soft' instruments. 
The second approach was to 'do nothing more' than the existing measures, but to strengthen their uptake. Thirdly, the po ssibility of adding EU action by complemented and improved 
instruments of the current EPBD  was discussed (Section 4).  
The impact analyses showed that completion of  the regulatory framewor k including, notably 
the Energy Performance of Bu ildings Directive EPBD, the main EU legal tool, is the 
appropriate action to address the existing problems. In order to improve the effectiveness of the Directive, the first step taken was to obt ain certain clarificati ons and analyse possible 
simplifications. In addition, a set of possibili ties for the improvement of each of the main 
pillars of the EPBD were discussed in Section 5.  
For each option an evaluation of its economic, so cial and environment implications was made, 
based on the availability of da ta and the inputs provi ded by Member States  and a number of 
stakeholders. As energy efficiency is a key driver, the impacts on energy savings have been 
quantified for most of the options. However, this has not always been the case of the 
investment needs or administrative costs and j ob creation. Wherever possible, quantitative 
data has been provided. However, due to limita tions of data availability in some cases 
qualitative indications of the impact have been made.  
The impacts of each option are presented in the tabl es in relation to the ba seline (i.e. based on 
following the construction, demolition and renova tion rates, and energy-efficiency measures 
in retrofits). However, if there was no possib ility for quantification their relative impact 
compared to the other options was included.  The summing up of the individual impacts has 
been done on the basis of the BEAM model a nd studies. The BEAM model is a holistic, 
closed calculation instrument th at reproduces the building stock by reference buildings. In this 
context and with regard to quantified energy and CO
2 saving impacts, overlapping effects of 
the individual options analysed were taken into  consideration and overlaps in the results were 
eliminated. The individual options analysed were not calculated independently by the model 
but within connected loop model runs. Additionally, where modelling of the impacts was not possible by the BEAM model, the results of the studies available were used and extrapolated 
to EU-27. 
For some of the following tables, not all options were fully quantifiable and therefore contain 
symbols which mean: 
+++: very high energy/CO
2 saving potential, very low capital costs or very high job
 potential, comparable to the highest figur es which were quantified for other options. 
++: high energy/CO 2 saving potential, low capital costs or high job potentia l, at about 25 –
 50% lower than the highest figures which were quantified for other options. 
+: energy/CO 2 saving potential, moderate capital costs or job potential, about 75% lower
 than the highest figures which were quantified for other options. 
 
EN 69   EN A: 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings  when they undergo major renovation 
(regarding minimum energy performance requirements) 
Three options were stud ied under this pillar: 
Option A1: Lowering the threshold to 500 m², to include all medium sized buildings. 
Option A2: Lowering the threshold to 200 m², to include all buildings apart from small ones 
(mainly single family houses). 
Option A3: Abolishing the 1000 m² thre shold to include all buildings. 
The table below includes a summary of their EU-27 impacts compared to the business as 
usual scenario (full implementation of existing EPBD). 
 Option A1 Option A2 Option A3 
Final energy 
savings in 2020 
(Mtoe/a) 3 5 20 
CO 2 emission 
reductions in 2020 
(Mt/a)  8 14 51 
Capital costs in 
2020 (billion €/a)  1 / 3 2 / 7 8 / 25 
Job creation in 
2020 10,000 21,000 75,000 
Comment CO 2 abatement costs of 
about -250 €/ton.  Low 
administrative costs as the 
threshold (regardless 
whether A1, A2 or A3) can easily be embedded in 
existing national 
legislation. Executive bodies have to deal with a 
slightly higher number of 
cases (e.g. refurbishment permits). CO
2 abatement costs of 
about -357 €/ton.  See 
remark on A1. Executive 
bodies have to deal with a 
higher number of cases (e.g. refurbishment 
permits). CO
2 abatement costs of 
about -333 €/ton. See 
remark on A1. Executive 
bodies have to deal with a 
considerably higher number of cases (e.g. 
refurbishment permits). 
 
The analysis indicates that option A3 could most  significantly contribute to the realization of 
the EU policy objectives in  question, followed by A2. 
 
EN 70   EN B: Energy performance certificates 
Four options were studi ed under this pillar: 
Option B1: Quality and compliance requirements for certificates Option B2: Requiring the recommende d cost-effective measures of the certificate are realized 
within a certain time period 
Option B3: Making certificates a mandatory part of property advertisement and/or property 
transaction documents  
Option B4: Requiring a linking of ce rtificates with other support/discouragement mechanisms  
The table below includes a summary of their EU-27 impacts compared to the business as 
usual scenario (full implementation of existing EPBD). 
  Option B1 Option B2100 Option B3 Option B4 
Final energy savings 
in 2020 (Mtoe/a) 21 12 +++101 ++102 
CO 2 emission 
reductions in 2020 
(Mt/a)  57 33 +++101 ++102 
Capital costs in 2020 
(billion €/a)  8 (but about 26 
saved energy costs) About 5.3 (but about 
9.3 saved energy 
costs)103 Very low104 Depends very much 
on type and scope of 
measures105 
Job creation in 2020 60,000 
(by 2020) About 100,000 (by 
2020; see footnote on 
capital costs) +++106 ++102 
Comment CO 2 abatement 
costs of about -315 
€/ton. Highly 
beneficial proportion of 
administrative costs 
(10 – 32M€) and saved energy costs. 
High and reliable 
quality is a key 
element for the 
functioning of the certification 
instrument. Compliance control 
could lead to 
considerable 
administrative costs. This requirement 
could lead to 
challenges for those who cannot afford 
the one-off 
investment, although 
the economic 
benefits would outbalance in the 
long run. Similar low 
administrative costs 
and similar positive 
effect to end consumers as the 
broadly known 
requirement to display the fuel 
consumption and 
CO
2 emissions in 
advertisements and 
transaction articles for cars. Low administrative 
costs (Member States 
only need to link the 
EPBD to support measures). 
Impact depends on 
applied support measures, e.g. the 
scope of financing 
instruments. 
Specification of 
measures is outside the scope of this 
Directive. 
                                                 
100 Impact quantified for the tertiary buildings sector only, so figures do not contain potential of residential 
sector. 
101 Expected to be very high due to creating more  awareness and a demand driven market for energy 
efficient buildings throughout the so ciety by giving transparent information on the energy performance 
of a building. 
102 Expected to be high, based on experience of Memb er States which use already similar instruments. 
103 Proposed option stimulates refurbishments. Capital costs and job creation (not specified in Section 5) 
can therefore approximately be quantified by same factor of costs and jobs per energy savings as in 
option A1 to A3 and are extrapolated in this way. 
104 For citizens and administration, as information needed for this action can be taken out of existing 
certificates. 
105 Experienced Member States such as Germany e.g. show that the amount of given subsidies is 
outbalanced by stimulated investments and additional tax incomes related. 
106 Expected to be very high due to indirect stimulation of constructions/refurbishments of higher quality in 
order to improve the energy rating of a building in the certificate. 
 
EN 71   EN The analysis indicates that options B1 and B3  could significantly contribute to the realization 
of the EU policy objectives in question. Option B4  could also be further developed outside the 
scope of the EPBD. 
C: Inspection of boilers and air-conditioning systems  
Two options were studied under this pillar: 
Option C1: Requiring an 'inspection report'  for heating and air-conditioning systems 
Option C2: Quality and compliance requirements for inspections The table below includes a summary of their EU-27 impacts compared to the business as 
usual scenario (full implementation of existing EPBD). 
  Option C1 Option C2 
Final energy 
savings in 2020 
(Mtoe/a) 5 ++ - +++107 
(estimated to be even higher than option 
C1) 
CO 2 emission 
reductions in 
2020 (Mt/a)  15 - 20 ++ - +++107 
(estimated to be even higher than option 
C1) 
Capital costs in 
2020 (billion €/a)  Net benefits (investment minus ener gy 
savings) estimated at €2 billion per year. 
Admin. costs expected to be low, as 
information needed should mainl y be 
available from existin g obli gations 
(certificates and inspections). Expected to be of the same ma gnitude as 
the similar option B1 on certificates. 
Job creation in 
2020 46,000 23,000 
Comment CO 2 abatement costs of about -133 €/ton. 
Administrative costs can be kept low when 
Member States embed the inspection report regime into the existing regime for 
energy performance certificates for 
buildings. CO
2 abatement costs estimated to be of the 
same magnitude as option C1. Highly 
beneficial proportion of administrative costs and savings. 
High and reliable quality is a key element 
for the functioning of the inspection instrument. 
 
The analysis indicates that options C1 and C2  together (option C2 re quires option C1) could 
significantly contribute to the realization of the EU policy objectives in question without 
leading to negative social or  administrative implications. 
                                                 
107 Contributes to realize the high total technical  savings potential for heating and air-conditioning systems 
of about 70 Mtoe energy and more than 250 Mt CO 2 per year. 
 
EN 72   EN D: Energy performance requirements 
Option D1: Specifying EU – wide energy performance requirements 
Option D2: Introducing a benchmarking mechanism Option D3: Requiring an evolvi ng improvement scheme for the buildings stock focussing on 
the worst performing buildings (a kind of top-runner approach) 
Option D4: Setting up EU–wide low or zer o energy/carbon buildings/passive house 
requirements.  
The table below includes a summary of their EU-27 impacts compared to the business as 
usual scenario (full implementation of existing EPBD).  
  Option D1 Option D2 Option D3 Option D4 
Final energy 
savings in 2020 
(Mtoe/a) 9.5 5 
(up to 9.5 in 2030)+108 Up to 15 
(cutting the energy 
needs of newly constructed buildings 
to 0 – 20 % of today's
average energy requirements) 
CO 2 emission 
reductions in 
2020 (Mt/a)  24 13 
(up to 24 in 2030) +108 Up to 41 
(cutting the CO 2 
emissions of newly 
constructed buildings to 0 – 20 % of today's
requirements) 
Capital costs in 
2020 (billion 
€/a)  6 / 12 3 / 6 
(up to 6 / 12 in 2030 )Highly beneficial LLCC capital costs to savings ratio 50 - 120 
Job creation in 
2020 82,000 up to 82,000 +109 +++ 
Comment CO 2 abatement 
costs of about -250 
€/ton. Very high 
administrative costs expected due to 
dramatic changes to 
complex national 
building 
regulations. Complex, long-
lasting task; strong 
concerns of Member States 
expected with 
regard to subsidiarity. CO
2 abatement 
costs of about -250 
€/ton. Very low 
administrative costs as the instrument is 
a guide/ support 
tool for public 
authorities. 
Presupposed that the 'guiding' bench-
marking actually 
leads Member States to strengthen 
their requirements 
to cost-optimal (LLCC) levels. High administrative 
costs. Soft 
instrument, leaving 
lot of freedom to Member States. 
Should be embedded 
in activities on 
National Energy 
Efficiency Action Plans, requested by 
Directive 
2006/32/EC. Low administrative 
costs expected (can 
be embedded in 
existing national 
building regulations). 
The analysis indicates that option D2 coul d significantly and quick ly contribute to the 
realization of the EU policy objectives in que stion. Option D3 could be taken on board by 
Member States when starting national activities, in particular related to the National Energy 
                                                 
108 Contributes to realize the high cost-effective savings potential of the sector of about 143 Mtoe/a (final) 
or 382 Mt/a CO 2. 
109 Can contribute to the potential number of 82,000 new jobs presented under D1 and D2. 
 
EN 73   EN Efficiency Action Plans. Op tion D4 could be considered, due to economic and legal 
constraints, in a less prescribed form , i.e. by national visions/roadmaps. 
The Impact Assessment identified the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive as the most appropriate way to enha nce energy efficiency in buildings in a cost-
effective way and to achieve the EU energy and climate change policy objectives, as outlined 
in sections 4.3 and 5. The recast could introduce  clarifications and simplifications to facilitate 
the implementation of the Directive and  furthermore (i) abolish the 1000 m2 threshold for 
existing buildings when they undergo major ren ovation (option A3) (ii) require quality and 
compliance control schemes for energy perfor mance certificates (option B1) and make 
certificates a mandatory part of property adve rtisement and/or property transaction documents 
(option B3); (iii) for the inspections of hea ting and air-conditioning systems, to require an 
inspection report being handed over to building owners (option C1) and requiring quality and 
compliance control schemes (option C2); and (iv) to introduce a benchmarking mechanism 
for energy performance requirements (option D2).  In line with the holistic approach of the 
Directive, these proposed completions should be accompanied by other policy tools on financing (e.g. as presented under option B4), by public buildings acting as a leading example 
(see Section 5.2.2) and roadmaps on low/zer o energy/carbon buildings (presented under 
option D4).  
The results for the most cost-effective and benefi cial options (indicated in bold in the tables 
above) with quantific ations available 
show significant positive impacts which are possible 
if the Directive is revised, that would make us e of a large part of the remaining potential 
in the buildings sector and woul d also contribute to the realization of the full potential of 
the current EPBD.  Furthermore, such a revision w ould create a simplified and improved 
framework for energy savings. The minimum total impact of the options identified as being 
most beneficial and for which quantification was possible, is: 
– 60 – 80 Mtoe/year energy savings in 2020, i.e. reduction of 5-6%  of the EU final energy in 
2020; 
– 160 to 210 Mt/year CO 2 savings in 2020, i.e. 4-5% from EU total CO 2 emissions in 2020; 
The impact on the labour market would also be  important. It is expected that 280,000 (to 
450,000) potential new jobs will  be created by 2020 by the revi sed EPBD. This would mainly 
be in the construction sector and for the services of energy certifiers and auditors and 
inspectors of heating and air-conditioning systems.  
The investment requirements and the administra tive costs of the measures were analysed and 
are relatively low compared to the benefits a nd the returns. For example, abolishing the 1000 
m2 threshold would lead to €8 billion/year a dditional capital investme nts but would trigger 
€25 billion/year energy cost savings by 2020, wh ich in return means considerably negative 
CO 2 abatement costs. These calculations have been made on the basis of conservative 
estimates about the oil price (e.g. 55$ per barrel oil in 2005, 100$ in 2020 and 119 $ in 2030 
in year 2005 prices).  
The investment needs differ substantially across Europe depending  on the social and 
economic conditions, on the initial state of the property and on the type of renovations people undertake. They are not equally distributed to EU  citizens, i.e. there will be additional costs 
for those who make major renovation of thei r buildings or are engaged in property 
transaction. However, with increasing oil prices  these initial investments will have attractive 
returns. 
 
EN 74   EN The overall benefits for society in terms of  reduced energy consumption and hence reduced 
CO 2 emissions and energy import dependency, job creation, especially at local and regional 
level, positive health and labour productivity exceed the costs of the measures proposed. 
Finally, it needs to be underlined that the impl ementation of the current legislation remains a 
priority. Any legal framework also needs the support from other non-regulatory policy measures. Financing, fiscal, information and communication tools are indispensable. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Directorate-General for Energy and Transpor t will continue its assessment on the legal 
transposition of the EPBD. However, there is a general lack of comprehensive data on the EU 
buildings and their energy use, which is a serious limitation when it comes to monitoring the 
implementation of the EPBD and evaluating th e progress made in terms of energy savings. 
Such data should be provided in the framewor k of the existing Community structures, i.e. 
Eurostat. These, for example, can include data on energy savings and CO 2 emissions, the 
number of certificates, energy related re novation, number of trained experts. 
A link with the reporting require ments of the Energy Services Di rective (ESD) shall be better 
established. For this purpose, it will be necessa ry to further explore how and what information 
on energy efficiency in the buildings sector could be provided in the next National Energy 
Efficiency Action Plans. Some specific da ta, for example on uptake of cost-efficient 
recommendations of certificate and inspectio n reports and of low energy houses, can be 
carried out within projects supported within the EU Intelligent Energy Europe programme.