COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the PROPOSAL FOR A RECAST OF THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS DIRECTIVE (2002/91/EC) SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2009-01-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, air conditioning, building, codification of EU law, energy policy, energy saving, heating, thermal insulation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.1.2009 
SEC(2008) 2865/2 

CORRIGENDUM: 
Replaces SEC 2865 of 13.11.2008 
Concerns only EN version  

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

PROPOSAL FOR A RECAST OF THE 
ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS DIRECTIVE (2002/91/EC) 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 780 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2864} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

EU buildings sector and EU policy objectives 

Energy use in residential and commercial buildings represents a lions share, about 40%, of the 
EU's total final energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Activities related to buildings are a 
considerable  part  of  the  EU  economy,  respectively  about  9%  of  EU  GDP  and  7-8%  of  EU 
employment. The potential for cost-effective energy savings is substantial, which would lead 
to significant economic, social and environmental benefits. Therefore, the EU buildings sector 
can  play  a  key  role  in  achieving  EU  growth,  energy  and  climate  policy  objectives,  while 
contributing  to  an  improved  level  of  comfort  and  lower  energy  bills  for  citizens.  Energy 
efficiency of buildings is also an important part of broader initiatives on achieving EU energy 
and climate change objectives, as outlined in the Commission Communication Energy policy 
for Europe1.  

EU legislative action 

From  the  existing  EU  core  instruments  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive 
(EPBD) is the main tool that provides for a holistic approach towards efficient energy use in 
the  buildings  sector.  It  covers  the  energy  needs  for  space  and  water  heating,  cooling, 
ventilation and lighting. 

The  Directive  combines  in  a  legal  text  different  regulatory  (i.e.  energy  performance 
requirements) and information-based instruments (i.e. certificates and inspections): 

–  Member  States  have  to  set  up  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  for  new 

buildings and for large existing ones that undergo major renovation.  

–  Member  States  have  to  introduce  a  scheme  for  energy  performance  certificates  that 
provides  information  on  the  energy  quality  of  a  building  and  on  what  can  be  improved. 
They are valid for 10 years and should be presented to potential buyers/tenants. 

–  Member  States  shall  establish  a  system  for  regular  inspection  of  medium-  and  large-size 
heating  and  air-conditioning  systems  so  that  their  energy  performance  is  monitored  and 
optimized. As an alternative, promotion campaigns can be undertaken by Member States if 
they prove that they are equal in effect to inspections of heating systems. 

The Directive does not fix concrete EU-wide levels but requires Member States to lay down 
the  mechanisms  for  implementing  its  provisions.  They  also  have  to  develop  their  own 
methodology  or  use  existing  European  standards  for  calculating  the  energy  performance  of 
buildings and ensure that there are enough qualified experts to carry out the certifications and 
inspections. 

The  main  contribution  of  the  EPBD,  so  far,  has  been  in  bringing  the  subject  of  the  energy 
efficiency of buildings onto political agendas, building codes and to the attention of citizens. 
The implementation has been a challenge for many Member States but at present 22 of them 
declare  full  transposition  (under  evaluation).  In  terms  of  implementation  costs,  several 

1 

COM(2007) 1 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member  States  reported  moderate  costs  but  significant  improvements  in  terms  of  energy 
savings in the buildings sector which have been stimulated by the Directive.  

Need for further activities? 

Despite  the  actions  already  undertaken  within  the  buildings  sector  a  large  cost-efficient 
energy saving potential is still unutilized. This is due to the complexity of the sector and the 
existence of market failures (e.g. incomplete internalization of externalities in energy prices, 
tenant-landlord  problems,  imperfect  information,  and  low  uptake  of  new  and  innovative 
technologies)  but  also  to  limitations  of  the  wording  of  the  current  EPBD  and  low  level  of 
ambition in its implementation.  

The possible alternative ways of tackling the challenges are:  

–  repealing  the  EPBD  and  replacing  it  by  ‘soft’  policy  instruments.  This  would  entail  pro-

active and ambitious actions and very high costs to all Member States.  

–  business as usual or ‘do nothing more’ than the existing measures, including continued and 
improved implementation. In this case the potential that is outside of the EPBD but also its 
full potential would not be used. 

–  EU action by complementary and improved instruments of the current EPBD.  

From  the  three  policy  alternatives  the  largest  contribution  towards  meeting  the  EU  policy 
goals can be achieved through revision of the EPBD. This can be done with modifications of 
the current provisions that would keep the principles and their essence but would significantly 
improve  their  efficiency.  This  would  ease  the  transposition  and  understanding  of  the 
modifications  proposed.  At  the  same  time  a  larger  share  of  potential  and  related  benefits 
would be tapped. The EPBD's continued implementation is of crucial importance.  

However,  the  solution  is  an  integrated  mix  of  policy  instruments  and  thus  other  non-
regulatory  measures,  although  not  sufficient  on  their  own,  are  necessary  to  complement  the 
EPBD's  implementation.  The  efforts  in  providing  more  financial  and  fiscal  incentives, 
information,  training  of  experts,  and  agreeing  on  voluntary  actions  should  be  strengthened. 
The 'soft law' instruments already contained in the current EPBD should be further developed. 

EU's right to undertake these activities  

Climate  change,  security  of  energy  supply  and  environmental  protection  are  challenges  that 
require coordinated EU-level action. Energy efficiency provides part of the solution to these 
problems and the instruments in this area that have already been adopted at EU level reflect 
this need for Community action. 

The  buildings  sector  is  responsible  for  about  half  of  the  CO2  emissions  not  covered  by  the 
Emission  Trading  Scheme  and  has  significant  CO2  reduction  potential  at  negative  or  low 
abatement costs. The specifics of the buildings sector limit the rate of energy efficiency gains 
and  the  construction  products,  appliances  and  services  related  to  buildings  are  an  important 
part of the EU internal market. In addition, with the increasing mobility of people and number 
of  businesses  with  operations  across  the  EU,  similar  measures  would  decrease  the 
administrative burden for them.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Therefore,  the  energy  efficiency  objectives  could  not  be  achieved  to  a  sufficient  degree  by 
Member  States  alone  and  action  at  Community  level  is  needed  to  facilitate  and  support  the 
uptake  of  activities  at  national  level.  The  main  elements  of  the  current  EPBD  have  already 
been  discussed  from  the  point  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  principles  when  the 
Directive was adopted in 2002 and also tested in practice demonstrating the appropriateness 
of the approach.  

What options for a better EPBD? 

The  Impact  Assessment  concluded  that  several  aspects  of  the  current  EPBD  could  be 
improved.  These  in  general  refer,  firstly,  to  the  revision  of  some  ambiguous  wording  and, 
secondly,  to  each  of  the  main  pillars  of  the  current  Directive.  Within  each  pillar  several 
options  were  analysed  in  view  of  their  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  and  for 
their implications on subsidiarity and proportionality.  

A large source of data and information sources was used for the analysis: i.e. PRIMES model 
baseline data and projections of DG TREN, BEAM model of Ecofys, more than 35 studies, 
the knowledge from the current EPBD's implementation, and inputs from Member States and 
stakeholders.  

The  options  discussed  include  a  mix  of  policy  instruments  and  also  include  non-regulatory 
alternatives,  like  information  and  other  soft  measures.  Five  main  areas  of  action  were 
identified:  

Clarification and simplification 

This  is  essential  for  proper  implementation  of  the  EPBD.  There  are  two  key  actions  in  this 
area: (i) to clarify and simplify the text itself, and (ii) to choose the proper legal format (recast 
vs. amendment).  

A: 1000 m2 threshold for existing buildings when they undergo major renovation 

The current EPBD provisions, that only existing buildings above 1000m2 should meet certain 
energy performance requirements when undergoing major renovation (either the investment is 
above 25% of the whole building value, excluding the land, or the renovation concerns more 
25% of the building shell), means that only about 29% of the EU buildings sector falls within 
the scope of this provision. Clearly, the best moment for the introduction of energy efficiency 
measures  is  when  the  building  undergoes  major  renovation  (approx.  every  25-40  years).  In 
this  way  the  additional  investment  needs  are  not  high  and  due  to  energy  savings  they  are 
repaid within the lifetime of the measures.  

Three options on possible EPBD's extension were analysed:  

Option A1: Lowering the threshold to 500 m²  

Option A2: Lowering the threshold to 200 m²  

Option A3: Abolishing the 1000 m²  

For each option Member States would still be responsible for setting up the individual energy 
efficiency requirements and the "major renovation" definition is to be kept. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The analysis indicated that option A3 is the most beneficial one. 

B: Energy performance certificates 

The certificates, which are already mandatory under the current EPBD, can be a powerful tool 
to  create  a  demand-driven  market  for  energy  efficient  buildings,  as  they  allow  economic 
agents  to  estimate  costs  in  relation  to  energy  consumption  and  efficiency.  However,  in 
practice some certificates issued are not of satisfactory quality, or they are not systematically 
made available during property transactions. These significantly restrict the real impact of the 
certificates.  

Option  B1:  Quality  and  compliance  requirements  for  certificates.  It  is  proposed  to  require 
random  sampling  checks  of  the  certificate's  quality  and  of  compliance  with  the  building 
energy  codes  to  be  carried  out  by  public  authorities  or  accredited  institutions.  This  would 
ensure that the information in the certificates is of good quality and reliable. It is expected that 
this would trigger an increase in the renovation rate, and thus higher energy savings.  

Option  B2:  Requiring  that  the  recommended  cost-effective  measures  of  the  certificate  are 
realized within a certain time period. Such a requirement would lead to high savings but also 
to a significant financial burden for EU citizens and businesses as the measures might then not 
be combined with a 'major renovation' and therefore it cannot be justified at EU-level.  

Option B3: Making certificates a mandatory part of property advertisement and/or property 
transactions  documents.  This  would  entail  that  information  on  the  energy  performance  of  a 
building  is  included  in  publicity  for  property  transactions  (similar  to  the  display  of  CO2 
emission of new cars) and that with each transaction the certificate has to be presented.  

Option  B4:  Requiring  the  linking  of  the  certificates  with  other  support  or  discouragement 
mechanisms. It is suggested that the energy efficiency improvements of a building which are 
achieved as a result of a financial incentive, are demonstrated or justified with the certificate. 
This  would  help  property  owners/tenants  in  making  informed  decisions  about  the  cost-
effectiveness of their investments and there would be a proof that the funding provided really 
lead to energy savings. However, such a requirement may not be in line with the subsidiarity 
principle and may require a change in the legal basis of the Directive.  

The analysis indicated 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 potential, up to 40-60% of their total energy 
use.  At  present,  EPBD  requires  regular  inspection  above  a  certain  threshold  but  it  is  very 
unclear  as  to  what  the  outcomes  are.  Also,  the  quality  of  inspections  is  not  always 
satisfactory.  As  a  result,  it  is  estimated  that  the  current  EPBD  can  bring  only  10%  energy 
savings in this area by 2020. There is significant room for further savings. 

Option  C1:  Requiring  an  'inspection  report'  for  heating  and  air-conditioning  systems.  It  is 
proposed  that  an  'inspection  report'  that  is  to  include  an  energy  efficiency  rating  of  the 
heating/cooling  system  and  recommendations  for  its  improvement,  is  drawn  up  by  an 
independent  expert  and  is  given  to  the  buildings'  owner.  The  report  would  be  an  important 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
upgrading  of  the  existing  requirements  and  would  help  consumers  in  identifying  important 
possibilities for cost-effective energy savings.  

Option C2: Introducing compliance requirements. It is proposed that random sampling checks 
of  inspection  reports  of  different  levels  of  detail  are  introduced.  This  could  ensure  that  the 
inspections are carried out regularly and are of satisfactory quality.  

The analysis indicated that taken together, options C1 and C2 are the most beneficial. 

D: Energy performance requirements 

At  present,  Member  States  determine  individual  energy  performance  requirements  and  their 
levels of ambition. These vary broadly across the EU, even within similar climatic zones, and 
for many Member States cost-optimal levels are not yet achieved. Cross-border comparisons 
are difficult due to the diverse calculation approaches and parameters used. Therefore, further 
stimulation at Community level could realize additional energy savings.  

Option D1: Specifying EU–wide energy performance requirements. The proposal entails that 
specific energy performance requirements levels are proposed. This would allow for a large 
part  of  the  energy  savings  potential  to  be  reaped,  would  ease  cross-border  operating 
businesses,  and  would  support  the  internal  market  of  related  construction  materials  and 
appliances.  However,  determining  these  levels  would  be  a  very  demanding  and  highly 
disputed task and would entail very high level of EU regulation.  

Option  D2:  Introducing  a  benchmarking  mechanism.  The  proposal  is  to  include  a 
benchmarking  mechanism  in  the  EPBD  principal  methodology  to  calculate  the  cost-optimal 
level of energy performance requirements for buildings. The current provisions of the EPBD 
would not be changed and Member States would still have to set up their individual levels. A 
benchmarking  mechanism  would  clearly  indicate  whether  Member  States  are  below  the 
optimal  levels,  i.e.  money  from  energy  savings  is  lost  every  time  when  these  building 
regulations  are  applied.  This  is  a  "soft  law"  instrument  but  it  could  create  significant  'peer-
pressure'  that  would  ultimately  move  all  Member  States  towards  optimal  and  therefore 
considerably more ambitious levels. 

Option D3: Requiring an evolving improvement scheme for the buildings stock focussing on 
the  worst  performing  buildings.  It  is  proposed  that  Member  States  should  prepare  Action 
Plans  on  how  to  increase  the  refurbishment  rate  and  the  energy  efficiency  of  the  worst 
performing buildings. Such an approach would require high administrative costs for Member 
States  and  would  also  be  a  considerable  burden  for  the  owners  of  the  poor  performing 
buildings. 

Option  D4:  Setting  up  EU–wide  low  or  zero  energy/carbon  buildings/passive  house 
requirements.  Introducing  such  requirement  for  newly  constructed  buildings  from  a  certain 
date  onwards  would  lead  to  very  well  performing  new  buildings  and  foster  innovation. 
However,  it  would  increase  houses  prices  and  the  additional  investments  may  not  be  fully 
paid back by energy cost savings, posing a significant burden to citizens and national budgets. 
Therefore,  a  softer  approach  could  be  taken  which  is  to  include  the  obligation  on  the 
development  of  'roadmaps'  in  which  Member States  would  show  their  commitment  towards 
achieving low energy/emission houses. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The  analysis  indicates  that  option  D2  could  significantly  contribute  towards  achieving  cost-
optimal levels. 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 be considered in a less prescribed form, i.e. by national roadmaps. 

The  role  of  the  public  sector  as  a  leading  example  is  proposed  to  be  increased  by  stricter 
obligations  on  displaying  the  certificate  and  shorter  deadlines  than  for  the  other  sectors  to 
fulfil the revised provisions.  

Conclusions 

Significant  positive  impacts  are  possible  if  the  Directive  is  revised.  These  would  make 
use  of  a  large  part  of  the  remaining  potential  in  the  buildings  sector  and  would  also 
contribute  to  the  realization  of  the  full  potential  of  the  current  EPBD.  This  would  also 
create a simplified and improved framework for energy savings.  

The  minimum  total  impact  of  the  most  beneficial  options  for  which  quantification  was 
possible, is: 

–  60 – 80 Mtoe/year energy savings by 2020, i.e. a reduction of 5-6% of the EU final energy 

consumption in 2020; 

–  160 to 210 Mt/year CO2 savings by 2020, i.e. 4-5% of EU total CO2 emissions in 2020; 

–  280,000 (to 450,000) potential new jobs by 2020, mainly in the construction sector, energy 

certifiers and auditors and inspectors of heating and air-conditioning systems.  

The investment requirements and the administrative costs of the measures were analysed and 
are  relatively  low  compared  to  the  benefits  and  the  returns.  For  example,  on  an  EU  scale 
abolishing  the  1000  m2  threshold  would  lead  to  €8  billio n/year  additional  capital  costs  but 
would trigger €25 billion/year  energy cost savings by 2020 and therefore create negative CO2 
abatement costs.  

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 to be 
undertaken. 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 
transaction.  However,  with  high  oil  prices  these  initial  investments  will  have  attractive 
returns.  

The overall benefits for society in terms of reduction of energy consumption and thus reduced 
CO2 emissions and energy import dependency, job creation, especially at local and regional 
level, positive health and labour productivity far exceed the costs of the measures analysed. 

EN 

7 

   EN