REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Progress by Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements
Date: 2016-07-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: building, building insulation, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental standard, improvement of housing

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.7.2016  COM(2016) 464 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Progress by Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

6. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

What is cost-optimality? .............................................................................................. 4 

Legal context ................................................................................................................ 5 

Overview of the national cost-optimal calculations ..................................................... 5 

Progress towards cost-optimality ................................................................................. 8 

New buildings .............................................................................................................. 8 

Existing buildings / major renovations ........................................................................ 9 

Replacement of building elements ............................................................................... 9 

Plans to reduce the gaps ............................................................................................. 10 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  reviews  progress  achieved  by  Member  States  in  reaching  cost-optimal  levels  of 
minimum  energy  performance  requirements  for  new  and  existing  buildings,  and  also  for 
building  elements.  It  fulfils  the  obligation  upon  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council on the use of the delegated powers referred to in Article 5(4) and 
Article 23 of Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings (‘the Directive’) 1. 
This report will also inform the ongoing review of the Directive, which is an action point of 
the energy union framework strategy2.  
Buildings  are  central  to  the  EU’s  energy  efficiency  policy.  Nearly  40 %3  of  final  energy 
consumption and 36 % of greenhouse gas emissions is due to houses, offices, shops and other 
buildings.  Improving  the  energy  performance  of  Europe’s  building  stock  is  crucial  for 
achieving the EU’s 2020 emissions reduction and energy efficiency targets. It will also help to 
meet the longer-term objectives laid down in the policy framework for climate and energy in 
the period from 2020 to 20304, and in the low-carbon economy roadmap for 20505. 

The Directive on the energy performance of buildings is the main legislative instrument at EU 
level  for  improving  the  energy  efficiency  of  buildings.  Under  the  previous  Directive 
2002/91/EC6, Member States had to set minimum energy performance requirements for new 
and  existing  buildings.  However,  the  setting  of  these  requirements  varied  across  the  EU. 
Many Member States did not evaluate the energy-saving potential compared with the costs to 
determine the optimal levels of the various energy performance requirements. As cost-optimal 
levels were not calculated, the cost-efficient energy savings potential was not clearly known. 

Furthermore,  cross-border  comparisons  of  how  Member  States  progressed  on  this  were 
difficult.  This  is  due  to  diverse  national  and  regional  approaches  and  the  use  of  different 
parameters  and  methodologies.  Therefore,  the  EU  legislators  decided  to  establish  under  the 
Directive  a  benchmarking  mechanism  to  calculate  the  cost-optimal  level  of  energy 
performance  requirements  for  new  and  existing  buildings,  both  residential  (single  family 
houses  and  apartments)  and  non-residential  (offices,  educational  buildings,  hospitals,  etc.) 
This  benchmarking  mechanism  indicates  where  Member  States  are  setting  performance 
requirements  that  are  below  cost-optimal  levels,  meaning  that  there  is  an  untapped  cost-
efficient energy-saving potential in national building stocks. 

The benchmarking mechanism is drawn up based on a framework methodology that enables 
the  comparison  of  energy  efficiency  measures,  measures  incorporating  renewable  energy 
sources and various  combinations of these  measures.  The methodology  is  based on primary 
energy performance and costs, and takes into account estimated building lifetimes. 

This  framework  enables  the  Commission  to  measure  Member  States’  progress  in  reaching 
cost-optimal levels of minimum performance requirements. The progress of Member States in 
implementing  the  Directive’s  provisions  on  cost-optimal  and  minimum  energy  performance 
requirements was considered when assessing preconditions under the European Structural and 

1  
2  

4  
5  

6  

OJ L153 of 18.6.2010, p.13. 
COM(2015) 80 final. 
In 2010. See ‘Energy, transport and environment indicators, 2012 edition’, European Commission. For 
the  purpose of  this estimate,  the  final  energy consumption for  the household  and  services  sectors  has 
been  combined.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  includes,  for  example,  electricity  consumption  for 
appliances but excludes energy consumption in industrial buildings. 
COM/2014/015 final 
COM(2011) 112. To achieve the 2050 target the residential and tertiary sectors together are to reduce 
their CO2 reductions by -88 to -91% (compared to 1990 levels). 
OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p.65. 

3 

 
                                                 
Investment  Funds  for  energy  efficiency  in  infrastructure,  public  buildings  and  housing.  The 
cost-optimal  benchmarks  are  also  used  by  the  European  Investment  Bank  for  assessing  the 
expected effectiveness of investments in building renovation and modernisation projects and 
programmes. 

The following sections explain the framework methodology, legal context and requirements, 
and the progress made by Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels of minimum energy 
performance requirements. 

2. 

WHAT IS COST-OPTIMALITY? 

The  cost-optimal  level  is  defined  in  Article  2(14)  of  the  Directive.  It  is  the  energy 
performance (measured in kWh/m2 of primary energy7) that leads to the lowest cost during the 
estimated  building  life  cycle  (30  years  for  residential  buildings  and  20  years  for  non-
residential  buildings).  The  cost  calculations  (expressed  in  net  present  value)  include 
investment  costs  in  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  measures,  maintenance  and 
operating  costs,  energy  costs,  earnings  from  energy  produced  and  disposal  costs  (costs  for 
deconstruction at the end of a building’s life). 

The  cost-optimal  framework  methodology  is  based  on  a  conventional  cost-benefit  analysis 
framework. It does not take into account all the external factors that can affect the building-
use  life  cycle cost calculations. Similarly, the positive impacts for society  of investments in 
energy efficiency and integrating renewable energy in buildings are also not accounted for by 
the  cost-optimal  framework  methodology.  These  can  include  job  and  wealth  creation, 
increased  productivity,  improved  health  of  building  occupants,  and  value  of  the  buildings. 
Because many of the benefits of energy efficiency are not accounted for in the methodology, 
Member  States  can  opt  for  setting  minimum  requirements  that  are  above  the  cost-optimal 
levels. 

The cost-optimal framework methodology should be understood as a tool to support Member 
States in setting minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and to keep them 
under  review,  by  taking  into  account  market  developments  and  technical  progress.  It  lays 
down principles for comparing energy efficiency measures, measures incorporating renewable 
energy sources and combinations of such measures. 

While the cost-optimal methodology sets the framework for the calculation, it allows Member 
States  significant  flexibility  to  select  the  calculation  parameters  (e.g.  reference  buildings, 
energy  performance  calculation  method,  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  measures, 
costs, energy prices, and discount rates). Therefore, it is not possible to directly compare cost-
optimal levels across Member States. However, the cost-optimal methodology can be used to 
define  the  national  benchmark  for  the  national  minimum  energy  performance  requirements, 
and  to  assess  and  compare  the  relative  ambition  levels  for  which  these  requirements  have 
been set at Member State level. 

In  conclusion,  the  use  of  the  cost-optimal  framework  methodology  contributes  to  setting 
minimum  performance  requirements  for  new  and  existing  buildings  and  building  elements 
(e.g.  walls,  roof,  windows,  etc.)  in  line  with  the  technical  and  economic  energy-saving 
potential and specific national and regional conditions. Furthermore, it enables the definition 
of efficiency levels that are cost-efficient for households and investors. As a result, Member 
States  will not  set  requirements  that  are  too  lax,  which  would  hinder  the  implementation  of 

7 

The calculation of primary energy includes the breakdown of energy needed for space heating, cooling, 
ventilation,  domestic  hot  water  and  lighting  systems.  The  resulting  total  primary  energy  demand  is 
calculated using national primary energy conversion factors. The renewable energy produced on-site, if 
any, is deducted from the total primary energy demand. 

4 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
energy savings. Additionally, market participants have information on the most cost-effective 
energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  measures  and  packages  for  new  and  existing 
buildings, and for the replacement of individual building elements. 

3. 

LEGAL CONTEXT 

The  provisions  for  calculating  cost-optimal  levels  as  the  basis  for  setting  and  reviewing  the 
minimum energy performance requirements at national and regional levels are a key element 
of the Directive on the energy performance of buildings. Article 4(1) of the Directive requires 
that Member States ensure that minimum energy performance requirements for buildings or 
building  units  are  set  according  to  cost-optimal  levels.  Article  5  sets  out  the  framework 
methodology, the obligation of Member States to report the calculations to the Commission, 
and  the  Commission’s  obligation  to  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on 
progress by Member States. 

Detailed  provisions  on  minimum  performance  requirements  with  a  view  to  achieving  cost-
optimal  levels  are  laid  out  in  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  244/20128  (‘the 
Regulation’). The methodology contained in the Regulation was set in accordance with Annex 
III of the Directive and is complemented by guidelines9 that are not legally binding. 

The Regulation includes in its Annex III a template that Member States may use for preparing 
their  cost-optimal  calculation  and  reporting  it  to  the  Commission.  The  Regulation  also 
specifies the main aspects that need to be addressed in the national cost-optimal reports under 
Annex I to the Directive. The national reports should include all input data and assumptions 
used, and a calculation of the difference between the national minimum energy performance 
requirements  and 
the  minimum  energy 
performance requirements  should be set as  the calculated  cost-optimal levels, so there is  no 
difference,  or  gap,  between  the  two.  Alternatively,  they  should  be  set  higher  to  reflect  the 
benefits of energy efficiency that are not reflected in the cost-optimal methodology. 

the  calculated  cost-optimal 

levels.  Ideally, 

However, if a gap exists, with minimum energy performance requirements being higher than 
the calculated cost-optimal levels, Member States must justify it, or include a plan to reduce it 
before the next review of the cost-optimal calculations. Recital 14 of the Directive suggests 
that a significant gap can be considered to exist if cost-optimal levels are 15 % lower than the 
minimum requirements in force. 

4. 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL COST-OPTIMAL CALCULATIONS 

In total, the Commission received 30 reports from  27 Member States over the course of the 
second  half  of  2013  and  2014.  The United  Kingdom  submitted  one report  for  Great  Britain 
and Northern Ireland and a separate report for Gibraltar. Belgium submitted separate reports 
for the regions of Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia. Greece did not submit a national 
cost-optimal report before the date of the present report.  

Most Member States have followed the cost-optimal framework methodology for calculating 
and  reporting  the  cost-optimal  levels,  as  required  by  the  Directive  and  the  Regulation.  The 
technical assessment of the details of national cost-optimal calculations was conducted by an 
external  contractor  and  is  available  online10.  Non-submission  and  incomplete  submission 
cases are being followed up by the Commission as appropriate. 

The calculation of the cost-optimal levels includes several steps: 

8  
9  
10  

OJ L81 of 21.3.2012, p.18. 
OJ C115 of 19.4.2012, p.1. 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings. 

5 

 
                                                 
  definition of reference buildings; 
 
 
 
 

identification of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures; 
calculation of primary energy demand; 
calculation of global costs; and 
calculation of the cost-optimal levels and the gap, if any, between the cost-optimal levels and 
minimum energy performance requirements. 

The first step in the calculations was the definition of reference buildings for new and existing 
single family houses, apartment buildings, office buildings and other relevant non-residential 
buildings.  Reference  buildings  should  be  representative  of  the  national  building  stock  and 
should  be  ‘typical’  buildings  for  which  specific  energy  performance  requirements  exist  in 
national legislation. However, in some Member States, the scarcity of statistical information 
available  on  building  types  and  lack  of  disaggregation  according  to  size,  age,  construction 
material, use pattern and climatic zone  made it difficult to set reference buildings that fully 
describe  national  building  stocks.  Databases  for  national  building  energy  performance 
certification contributed positively to the development of a robust set of reference buildings 
for the cost-optimal calculations in several Member States. 

The second step in the calculations was the identification of energy efficiency measures (e.g. 
double-glazed windows with a certain U-value11), measures based on renewable energy (e.g. 
solar  water  heating)  and  relevant  alternative  high-efficiency  systems  (e.g.  cogeneration, 
district energy supply systems, condensing boilers and heat pumps), which all have an impact 
on  the  energy  performance  of  reference  buildings.  These  measures  are  then  applied  to  the 
selected  reference  buildings,  and  the  resulting  energy  performance  and  global  cost  is 
calculated. 

Individual energy efficiency and renewable energy measures can be combined into packages 
(e.g. double-glazed windows, condensing boiler and solar water heating) or variants (e.g. a set 
of  measures  to  achieve  a  voluntary  certified  eco-labelled  building).  At  least  one  of  these 
packages or variants should meet the requirements for nearly zero-energy buildings for new 
and possibly also existing buildings as defined by Article 9 of the Directive. 

It  was  found  that  some  Member  States  could  have  considered  more  measures,  in  particular 
renewable  energy  measures.  The  consideration  of  more  renewable  energy  measures  might 
have  resulted  in  lower  cost-optimal  levels,  in  particular  for  Member  States  with  higher 
potential for the integration of renewable energy systems in buildings. 

The third step is the calculation of the energy performance of the various measures, packages 
and/or  variants  for the selected reference  buildings  using  CEN  standards12,  or  an  equivalent 
national  calculation  methodology.  The  results  of  the  energy  performance  calculation  are 
presented in annual primary energy demand per square metre of useful floor (in kWh/m2). 

The  verification  of  compliance  of  national  energy  performance  calculation  methodologies 
with the requirements of Annex I to the Directive and Annex A EN 1560313 was undertaken 
with the support of an external contractor, under a service contract14. It was found that some 
of  the  national  energy  performance  calculation  methodologies  do  not  take  into  account  all 
aspects  that  affect  directly  and  indirectly  building  energy  performance.  For  example, 
measures related to new technologies (e.g. on-site wind turbines and on-site cogeneration) and 

11  

12  

13  

14  

U-value  is  a  measure  of  the  thermal  insulation  performance  of  construction  materials,  building 
elements, etc. 
Energy Performance of Buildings — Overall Energy Use and Definition of Energy ratings, EN 15603, 
2008. 
EN  15603:2008,  Energy  performance  of  buildings  —  Overall  energy  use  and  definition  of  energy 
ratings, CEN, January 2008. Annex A of the standard refers to methods for collecting building data. 
ENER/C3/2013-414. 

6 

 
                                                 
passive  solutions  (e.g.  natural  lighting  and  natural  ventilation)  are  not  considered  in  many 
national  methodologies.  Consequently,  the  resulting  cost-optimal  levels  are  perhaps  higher 
than expected, depending on the completeness of the national energy performance calculation 
methodologies. 

The next step is the calculation of the global cost for the various measures, packages and/or 
variants,  based  on  net  present  value  using  a  full  cost  approach.  This  means  that  for  each 
measure, package and/or variant applied to a reference building, the full cost of construction 
(or  major  renovation)  and  the  subsequent  use  of  the  building  was  taken  into  account.  The 
calculation periods considered were 30 years for residential and public buildings, and 20 years 
for non-residential buildings. 

The global costs are calculated from two different perspectives: financial (i.e. building owner 
and  investor  perspective)  and  macroeconomic  (i.e.  societal  perspective).  For  the  financial 
perspective, the costs include the prices paid by the final consumer, including all applicable 
taxes, including VAT, and charges. For the macroeconomic perspective, the prices exclude all 
applicable taxes, VAT, charges and subsidies. However, for the latter, the cost of greenhouse 
gas emissions is included. In addition, one, of the at least two, discount rates to be used for the 
sensitivity analysis for the macroeconomic perspective is 3 % expressed in real terms. For the 
financial  perspective,  discount  rates  should  reflect  national  financing  environments  and 
mortgage conditions. 

Data on maintenance costs and replacement costs were not reported in detail in some Member 
States.  A  lack  of  data  on  building  operation  and  renovation  affected  in  particular  the 
calculations of cost-optimal levels for major renovation and replacement of building elements. 
Consequently,  these  were  more  difficult  to  conduct  than  the  calculations  of  cost-optimal 
levels for new buildings. 

The final steps are the calculation of cost-optimal levels and appraisal of the gap in relation to 
the  minimum  energy  performance  requirements,  for  new  and  existing  single  family  houses, 
apartment buildings, office buildings, etc., and relevant building elements. 

The  calculation  of  cost-optimal  levels  for  each  reference  building  is  detailed  in  point  6  of 
Annex I to the Regulation. The global cost results for the various measures, packages and/or 
variants are compared and the lowest is selected. The cost-optimal levels are the average cost-
optimal  energy  performance  of  all  reference  buildings  in  each  building  category  (single 
family  house,  apartment  buildings,  office  buildings,  etc.),  considering  separately  new  and 
existing  buildings.  Most  Member  States  reported  the  results  clearly,  including  all  the 
assumptions used (e.g. packages/variants, energy price developments, discount rates). 

Once  the  cost-optimal  levels  are  calculated,  the  difference  with  the  minimum  performance 
requirements can be determined and a decision is taken on whether the macroeconomic or the 
financial perspective is going to become the national benchmark. The gap between minimum 
energy performance requirements and cost-optimal levels is the difference between the cost-
optimal  levels  and  the  performance  requirements  in  national  building  codes  divided  by  the 
cost-optimal level, and expressed as a percentage, as presented in point 7.2 of the Guidelines. 

If the gap between cost-optimal levels and building code requirements is significant (>15%), 
Member States have  to  provide a justification, as laid  down in  Article 5(3) of the Directive 
and  Article  6(2)  of  the  Regulation,  in  their  cost-optimal  report.  Where  the  gap  cannot  be 
justified, they must provide a plan with appropriate steps to reduce the gap. 

7 

 
5. 

PROGRESS TOWARDS COST-OPTIMALITY 

The  progress  of  individual  Member  States  towards  setting  cost-optimal  levels  of  minimum 
energy performance requirements is presented in the graphs below which present the average 
gap. The dotted line represents the 15 % threshold above which the gap could be considered 
significant. 

From  the  comparison  of  the  reported  cost-optimal  levels  and  minimum  energy  performance 
requirements, it can be concluded that roughly half of the Member States have set minimum 
performance requirements that are within the 15 % threshold. For example, the average gaps 
between  cost-optimal  levels  and  minimum  requirements  for  all  the  categories  (i.e.  new 
building,  major  renovations,  and  building  elements)  and  building  types  (i.e.  single  family 
houses,  apartment  buildings  and  non-residential  buildings)  are  below  that  threshold  in 
Denmark, Finland and Spain. 

5.1. 

New buildings 

In  the  case  of  new  buildings,  minimum  performance  requirements  were  set  no  more  than 
15 %  above  the  cost-optimal  level  in  13  cases  (out  of  27  calculations):  Belgium-Flanders, 
Belgium-Wallonia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg, 
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK. In Lithuania and Slovenia, the average gap was just slightly 
above the 15 % threshold. 

Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Portugal  and  UK  set  minimum  requirements  that  were  more 
ambitious than the cost-optimal level for those countries. 

Average gap between minimum energy performance requirements and cost-optimal levels: 
new buildings 

5.2. 

Existing buildings / major renovations 

Minimum  performance  requirements  for  major  renovations  were  set  at  no  more  than  15 % 
above the cost-optimal level for 9 cases (out of 19 calculations): Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, 
Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. Latvia’s average gap for major 

8 

-50%0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%AustriaBE-BrusselsBE-FlandersBE-WalloniaBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUKUK-GibraltarAverage gap (%)NEW BUILDINGS 
 
 
 
renovations was just slightly above the 15 % threshold. Cyprus, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain 
set requirements that were exactly cost-optimal or more ambitious than cost-optimal. 

Average gap between minimum energy performance requirements and cost-optimal levels: 
major renovations 

5.3. 

Replacement of building elements 

Most  Member  States  calculated  cost-optimal  levels  for  some  building  elements,  but  usually 
not for all those required by the Directive and the Regulation (wall, roof, window and floor). 
The  minimum  performance  requirements  were  set  at  no  more  than  15 %  above  the  cost-
optimal  level  in  11  cases  (out  of  22  calculations):  Belgium-Flanders,  Czech  Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK. 

9 

-50%0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%AustriaBE-BrusselsBE-FlandersBE-WalloniaBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUKUK-GibraltarAverage gap (%)EXISTING BUILDINGS / MAJOR RENOVATIONS 
 
 
Average gap between minimum energy performance requirements and cost-optimal levels: 
replacement of building elements 

5.4. 

Plans to reduce the gaps 

When there is a gap and Member States set minimum requirements above cost-optimal levels, 
they need to justify it and submit a plan explaining appropriate steps to reduce the gap. Plans 
to reduce gaps were presented for about two thirds of the gaps reported. Ideally, the reports 
should clearly indicate the concrete steps to bridge the gap within the timeframe laid down in 
the Directive and the Regulation, including the minimum requirements for nearly zero-energy 
buildings (in 2018/2020). However, the plans provided in the cost-optimal reports did not all 
set out convincing timelines. 

Monitoring  the  implementation  of  national  plans  to  reduce  the  gaps  is  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  report  because  Member  States  have  until  the  next  five-year  review  of  the  energy 
performance requirements to close the gap. This review is expected to happen by early 2018. 
On the basis of new cost-optimal calculations to be submitted by Member States in 2018, the 
Commission  will  assess  how  the  gaps  between  minimum  energy  performance  requirements 
and current cost-optimal levels have been closed. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

All Member States, except Greece, have submitted cost-optimal calculations. In most cases, 
requirements were met for both the Directive on the energy performance of buildings and the 
Delegated Regulation on the framework methodology. The other cases are being followed up 
by the Commission as appropriate. 

The objective of the cost-optimal framework methodology was achieved, because it informed 
decision-making  on  setting  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  at  national  and 
regional levels at the ‘right’ (i.e. cost-effective) level. 

10 

-40%-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%AustriaBE-BrusselsBE-FlandersBE-WalloniaBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUKUK-GibraltarAverage gap (%)REPLA CEMENT OF BUILDING ELEMENTS 
 
 
 
The  cost-optimal  calculations  have  shown  that  there  is  still  a  significant  potential  for  cost-
effective  energy  savings  that  can  be  achieved  by  bridging  the  gap  between  the  current 
minimum requirements and cost-optimal levels. 

For  the  first  time,  a  benchmarking  framework  based  on  the  cost-optimal  methodology 
proposed  in  the  Directive  and  the  Regulation  was  used.  This  enabled  the  comparison  and 
combination  of  various  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  technologies.  This  work 
supported national authorities in  their  task of setting realistic minimum energy performance 
requirements for buildings and in preparing the ground for meeting the targets for nearly zero- 
energy buildings15. This ultimately contributed to boosting overall ambition levels across the 
EU towards the technical and economic energy-saving potential in the buildings sector, also 
envisaged in the forward-looking strategies for building renovation published under Article 4 
of the Energy Efficiency Directive16. However, the potential of different types of renewable 
energy could have been better explored in the calculations and better statistical information on 
national building stocks could be sought. 

The Commission will fully use its powers under the Treaty to ensure that the Directive on the 
energy performance of buildings is correctly implemented. This includes achieving the cost-
optimal levels  of minimum energy performance requirements, within the indicated timeline, 
to ensure that the EU’s longer-term energy and climate objectives, and the contribution of the 
building sector to meeting those objectives are fulfilled. 

15  

16  

Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings and best 
practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings 
OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1–56 

11