COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Articles 6 and 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, award of contract, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy law, energy saving, invitation to tender, national implementing measure

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.11.2016  SWD(2016) 402 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Articles 6 and 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency {COM(2016) 761 final} {SWD(2016) 403 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.1 

1.1.1 

1.4.1 
1.4.2 
1.4.3 
1.4.4 
1.4.5 
1.4.6 
1.4.7 
1.4.8 
1.4.9 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ........................................................................................ 7 
Description of the initiative and its objectives ................................................................ 7 
1.2 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS..................................................................................................... 10 
1.3  METHOD ................................................................................................................................ 11 
IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ...................................................................................... 11 
1.4 
Progress in the transposition of Article 6 ...................................................................... 11 
Definition of‘central government’ ................................................................................. 11 
Share of public procurements covered by Article 6 ...................................................... 12 
Contract thresholds ....................................................................................................... 12 
Conditionalities .............................................................................................................. 12 
Armed forces ................................................................................................................. 13 
Services and buildings (Annex III) .................................................................................. 13 
Practical implementation .............................................................................................. 13 
Main barriers ................................................................................................................. 13 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 14 
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 14 
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 17 
Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 18 
Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 19 
Added value ................................................................................................................... 20 

1.5.1 
1.5.2 
1.5.3 
1.5.4 
1.5.5 

1.5 

2  EVALUATION OF ARTICLE 7 ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY OBLIGATION SCHEMES AND 
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 22 

2.1 

2.1.1 
2.1.2 

BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE....................................................................................... 22 
Description of the initiative and its objectives .............................................................. 22 
Baseline situation .......................................................................................................... 23 
2.2 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS..................................................................................................... 24 
2.3  METHOD ................................................................................................................................ 25 
IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................................... 26 
2.4 
Overall progress ............................................................................................................ 26 
Policy measures ............................................................................................................. 28 
Calculation methodologies ............................................................................................ 33 
Monitoring and verification of savings .......................................................................... 39 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 41 
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 41 
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 46 
Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 54 
Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 54 
EU added value .............................................................................................................. 56 

2.5.1 
2.5.2 
2.5.3 
2.5.4 
2.5.5 

2.4.1 
2.4.2 
2.4.3 
2.4.4 

2.5 

3  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 58 

3.1 
3.2 

Conclusions on the implementation of Article 6 ................................................................... 58 
Conclusions on the implementation of Article 7 ................................................................... 60 

4  ANNEXES TO THE FINAL REPORT .............................................................................................. 64 

2 

 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Commission's Communication on a Framework Strategy for the Energy Union adopted 
on 25 February 20151 indicates that Energy efficiency, contributing to moderation of demand, 
represents one of the five mutually-reinforcing and closely interrelated dimensions designed 
to bring greater energy security, sustainability and competitiveness in Europe. 

As  part  of  the  Energy  Union  Strategy,  the  Commission  announced  45  key  actions  to  be 
brought  forward  over  the  course  of  2015  and  2016.  Review  of  Directive  2012/27/EU2 on 
energy  efficiency  (EED)  was  one  of  these.  Energy  efficiency  plays  a  prominent  role  as  the 
Commission  called  on  Member  States  to  treat  energy  efficiency  as  an  energy  source  in  its 
own right in its Energy Union Strategy of 25 February 20153. 

Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency establishes a common framework of measures for 
the promotion of energy efficiency within the EU in order to ensure the achievement of the 
20 %  headline  target  on  energy  efficiency  by  2020  and  to  pave  the  way  for  further  energy 
efficiency  improvements  beyond  that  date.  It  was  published  in  the  Official  Journal  on  14 
November 2012 and entered into force on 4 December 2012. Member States had to transpose 
it  by  5  June  2014  (apart  from  certain  provisions  for  which  a  different  transposition  date  is 
foreseen). 

The  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive 4 ,  Energy 
Labelling  Directive 5 and  Ecodesign  Directive 6 are  the  key  building  blocks  of  the  current 
energy efficiency framework. Many climate policies, such as the CO2 performance standards 
for  passenger  cars  and  light  commercial  vehicles,  also  make  a  major  contribution  to 
improving  energy  efficiency.  Thanks  to  these  instruments,  to  national  measures,  and  thanks 
also  to  an  increase  in  EU  and  national  financing,  significant  progress  has  been  achieved  by 
Member States in terms of energy savings over the past ten –years, contributing to the overall 
2020 energy and climate policy objectives. The effectiveness and impact of energy efficiency 
investment funding strongly depends (inter alia) on the implementation of energy efficiency 
legislation, including the Energy Efficiency Directive.  

The 2012 Energy  Efficiency Directive establishes a set of binding measures to  help the EU 
reach its 20 % energy efficiency target by 2020. Under the Directive, all Member States are 
required to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain from its production to 
its  final  consumption.  New  national  measures  have  to  ensure  major  energy  savings  for 
consumers  and  industry  alike.  These  include  measures  implemented  under  the  following 
articles:  

Article 1, 3 

EU countries set national energy efficiency targets for 2020 

Article 4 

EU  countries  establish  long  term  strategies  to  facilitate  investment  in 
the renovation of all buildings 

1 COM(2015) 80 final 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_002_cwp_energy_efficiency_en.pdf  
3 COM(2015) 80 final 
4 Directive 2010/31/EU 
5 Directive 2010/30/EU; a Commission proposal to update and simplify the Directive in the form of a Regulation 

is currently under consideration by the Council and European Parliament (COM(2015) 341) 

6 Directive 2009/125/EC 

3 

 
 
                                                            
Article 5 

Article 6 

Article 7 

Article 8 

Articles 9-11 

EU governments to carry out energy efficient renovations annually on 
at least 3 % of the buildings they own and occupy by floor area 

the  public  sector  in  EU  countries  to  purchase  energy  efficient 
buildings, products and services 

energy  distributors  or  retail  energy  sales  companies  have  to  achieve 
additional  1.5 %  energy  savings  per  year  through  the  implementation 
of energy efficiency measures until 2020 

(Member States  can  opt to  achieve the same level of savings  through 
alternative measures)  

large  companies  to  make  audits  of  their  energy  consumption  to  help 
them identify ways to reduce it, and SMEs that benefit from incentives 
to undergo energy audits 

empowering  energy  consumers  to  better  manage  consumption.  This 
includes  easy  and  free  access  to  data  on  consumption through 
individual metering 

Articles 14-15  Member  States  promote  efficient  heating  and  cooling  and  high 

efficiency cogeneration 

Member States were required to transpose the Directive's provisions into their national laws 
by 5 June  2014. It is  early to  evaluate the effects of the Directive after only  one and a half 
years from its due date for transposition.  

Member States had to set their national energy efficiency targets under Article 3 and report 
them  to  the  Commission  by  30  April  2013.  The  Commission  has  evaluated  these  targets 
already and summarised the results in its 2014 Communication on energy efficiency7. 

According to Article 24(8) and (9), the Commission is required to report to the Council and 
the Parliament in 2016 on the implementation of Articles 6 and 7 and if appropriate propose 
legislative  changes.  Given  that  the  consumer  is  to  be  at  the  centre  of  the  Energy  Union, 
Articles 9-11 were evaluated, also in relation to the Market Design Initiative and the review of 
the Renewable Energy Directive, to reach the most benefits for citizens.  

To  support  Member  States  a  Communication  was  published  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Energy  Efficiency  Directive8,  to  which  seven  Guidance  Notes in  the  form  of  Staff  Working 
Documents on various articles of the EED (Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-11, 14 and 15) were attached. 
Moreover, timely transposition and implementation of the EED is facilitated through constant 
collaboration  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  and  through  a  dedicated 
Concerted  Action  for  the  EED 9.  DG  Energy  has  met  bilaterally  with  Member  States  on 
numerous occasions and organised missions to individual Member States.  

Information on the implementation of current energy efficiency policies is available from the 
regular  dialogue  with  Member  States  and  the  reporting  obligations  under  the  EED.  This 
information is built on: 1) Member States' Annual Reports on progress towards their national 

7 COM(2014) 520 final 
8  COM(2013) 762 final 
9 http://www.esd-ca.eu/ 

4 

 
 
                                                            
indicative  energy  efficiency  targets 10 ;  2)  the  National  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plans 
(NEEAPs)  submitted  every  three  years  by  Member  States 11 ,  with  the  most  recent  one 
submitted in 2014 and the next due in 2017; 3) the Commission's annual report assessing the 
progress  of  the  EU  towards  reaching  the  2020  target  and  checking  the  national 
implementation  of  the  EED  (the  first,  2015  Progress  report  was  published  along  with  the 
Report on the State of the Energy Union on 18 November 2015). 

Feedback  on  practical  application  at  Member  State  level  is  also  provided  through  the 
Concerted  Action  for  the  EED  and  the  building-related  Concerted  Action  work  on  the 
EPBD12. 

A small number of formal complaints have been received through the "CHAP" system. These 
have  been  investigated  and  mostly  found  not  to  involve  breaches  of  the  Directive.  Lessons 
learnt (for example, reasons for protracted implementation) are fed into the evaluation. 

In line with the requirement of Article 3(2) of the EED, an assessment was carried out by the 
Commission  in  2014  to  review  progress  towards  the  EU  20 %  energy  efficiency  target  for 
2020, the findings of which were presented in the Energy Efficiency Communication, adopted 
on 23 July 201413. In summary, analysis showed that the EU is on the right track in terms of 
reducing  its  primary  energy  consumption  which  was  due  to  some  extent  to  economic  crisis 
(1/3) but for large part (2/3) it was due to energy efficiency improvements taken by Member 
States which is a positive sign. The EU is expected to achieve energy savings of 18 %-19 % 
by 2020 – missing the 20 % target by 1 %-2 %. The gap could be averted if Member States 
implement  fully  the  existing  EU  legislation  on  energy  efficiency14.  An  updated  analysis  of 
how Member States are achieving the 20 % 2020 target on energy efficiency was published as 
part of the State of the Energy Union package in November 201515. This analysis confirmed 
that there is significant progress in terms of energy efficiency influenced by rather high level 
of ambition in Member States.  

According to the reporting obligations laid down in Article 24 of the EED the Commission is 
required to review the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 (on purchasing by public 
bodies) and of Article 7 (on energy efficiency obligation schemes and alternative measures) 
and  report  on  progress  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  with  accompanying 
legislative proposals where appropriate. This evaluation16 will support this reporting. 

In  this  context  and  given  the  recent  implementation  date  of  the  EED,  the  evaluation  is 
therefore  focused  on  those  elements  of  Directive  insofar  they  are  either  subject  to  the 
reporting  obligation  or  subject  to  parallel  energy  and  climate  initiatives  which  potentially 
have an impact on the EED regulated policies. The results of this evaluation will feed into the 
impact assessment of the Review of the EED. This evaluation is supported by a stakeholder 
consultation process. 

10  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive/national-energy-efficiency-

action-plans  

11  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive/national-energy-efficiency-

action-plans  

12 http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ 
13 COM(2014) 520 final 
14 COM(2014) 520 final 
15 COM(2014) 450 final 
16 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_ener_062_evaluation_energy_efficiency_eed_en.pdf 

5 

 
                                                            
The scope of the evaluation of the EED therefore assesses the following elements as required 
by the reporting obligation under Article 24(8) and (9):  

1)  Article  6  on  purchasing  by  public  bodies  of  energy  efficient  buildings,  goods 

and services 

This  evaluation  is  based  on  the  principles  laid  out  in  the  Commission's  Communication 
"Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda" of 19 May 2015 (COM(2015) 215 final) 
(the five Better Regulation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU-
added value, and includes the following elements: 

1.  Overview of the implementation of Article 6 of the EED in the Member States; 
2.  Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance 

of Article 6;  

3.  Conclusions and recommendations. 

Due to the recent transposition date (5 June 2014), there is a fragmented overview of how the 
Member  States  have  transposed  Article  6  and  on  how  it  is  being  implemented.  The  lack  of 
complete  data  on  practical  implementation  in  the  Member  States  inevitably  impacts  this 
evaluation which can therefore only be considered partial.  

2)  Article 7 on energy efficiency obligation schemes or alternative measures 

The evaluation on Article 7 focusses on the following elements: 

1.  An  overview  of  the  overall  state  of  play  regarding  targets  and  measures  notified  by 

Member States for the purposes of Article 7; 

2.  A quantified assessment of progress from the measures introduced by Member States 
under  Article  7  and  their  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  overall  EU  2020 
energy efficiency target and indications for their contribution to the 2030 target; 

3.   Analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  including  administrative  burden  related  to  the 

implementation of Article 7; 

4.  Examination of implementation of Article 7 to this date and, in particular, examination 
of the options for amendments contained in Article 24(9) with a view of considering 
any legal revisions and/or amendments of Article 7 and/or Annex V. 

The  analysis  of  this  report  is  based  on  information  notified  by  Member  States,  on  energy 
savings as estimated (from the measures put in place) by the Member States and on studies 
carried  out  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  national  notifications 17 .  Further  results  on 
achieved  savings  will  become  available  as  of  mid-2016  as  the  Member  States  will  submit 
their Annual Reports under Article 24(1)18. 

17 First  notifications  were  due  by  5  December  2013,  whereby  Member  States  had  to  notify  their  plans  and 

methodologies under Article 7.  

18 Preliminary information submitted in the Annual Reports 2016 will be included in the Impact Assessment of 

the EED Review, if available. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
EVALUATION OF ARTICLE 6 ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 

1.1  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

1.1.1  Description of the initiative and its objectives 

Article  6  paragraph  (1)  of  the EED  states  that  "Member  States  shall  ensure  that  central 
governments  purchase  only  products,  services  and  buildings  with  a  high  energy-efficiency 
performance  insofar  that  it  is  consistent  with  cost-effectiveness,  economic  feasibility,  wider 
sustainability,  technical  suitability  and  sufficient  competition  as  referred  to  in  Annex  III19.” 
This  obligation  applies  for  contracts  passed  by  central  governments  with  a  value  above 
specific  thresholds  described  in  the  Public  Procurement  Directive20.  Annex  III  of  the  EED 
provides  more  details  on  what  should  be  considered  as  high  energy-efficiency  performance 
for  some  products.  Article  6,  paragraph  3,  of  the  EED  encourages  Member  States  to  apply 
these public purchase requirements to other public bodies, including at the regional and local 
levels. 

One of the objectives of the EED is indeed to improve and strengthen energy efficiency via 
the system of public procurement. It is considered (Recital 19 of the EED) that, in the attempt 
to reach the 2020 target and in relation to energy efficiency, the central governments of the 
EU Member States should “lead by example” and make energy-efficient purchasing decisions.  

The main ideas behind the requirements of Article 6 of the EED are that central governments 
have strong market power and that the public sector is an important driver to stimulate market 
transformation  towards  more  efficient  products,  buildings  and  services  (Recital  15  of  the 
EED). Every year public authorities in the EU are estimated to spend around 18 % of GDP on 
the purchase of services, works and supplies21.  

3.1.2 Baseline situation 

Before  the  adoption  of  the  EED,  the  Energy  Services  Directive  (ESD)22 already  contained 
legally binding provisions for energy end-use efficiency in the public sector. These provisions 
were  complemented  with  the  Energy  Star  Communication 23 ,  the  public  procurement 
framework and the Green Public Procurement initiative. The impact assessment of the EED24 
showed  that  the  ESD  had  not  adequately  driven  Member  States  to  oblige  public  bodies  to 
purchase  high  energy  performance  products,  vehicles  and  buildings.  The  same  impact 
assessment  showed  estimates  for  primary  energy  savings  in  2020  ranging  between  8.9  and 
17.9 Mtoe  (and  2.5-5 %  of  the  20 %  target)  from  the  adoption  of  more  stringent  energy 
efficiency requirements for public procurement.  

19 Annex III of the EED is on energy efficiency requirements for purchasing products, services and buildings by 

central governments. 

20 Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement defines rules only for contracts with a value above thresholds: 

€134 000 for products; €134 000 for services; €5 186 000 for works.  
21 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement/index_en.htm 
22 Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services  
23 COM(2011) 337 
24 SEC(2011) 779 final. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1 illustrates the intervention logic of Article 6 within the EED:  

To be effective, energy efficiency standards must be applied at the right stage of the public 
procurement procedure. The link between the EU Public Procurement Directives and Article 
6 of the EED will be addressed more in detail under section 3 when assessing the coherence 
issue. 

Figure 2 below summarises the broad intervention logic of Article 6: 

8 

 
 
 
 
Objective of Article 6: 

Each  Member  State  shall  ensure  that  central  governments  purchase  only  products,  services  and  buildings  with  a 
high energy-efficiency performance insofar that it is consistent with cost-effectiveness, economic feasibility, wider 
sustainability, technical suitability and sufficient competition. 

Scope of Article 6: What to purchase? 

  Public procurements at central governments level. 

+ 

  Public  procurements  of  products,  services  and 
buildings of high energy-efficient performance. 
+ 

  Public procurements with value above thresholds. 

+ 

  Public procurements respecting 5 conditionalities: 
+ cost-effectiveness 
+ economic feasibility 
+ wider sustainability 
+ technical suitability 
+ sufficient competition 

  Article  6(2)  allows  Member  States  to  exclude 

contracts of the armed forces. 

  Article  6(3)  encourages  energy  efficiency  in  public 

procurements at local and regional levels. 

  Article 6(4)  encourages  aggregate  energy  efficiency 

when purchasing products package. 

  Annex  III  describes  in  particular  what  should  be 
considered  as  high  energy-efficiency  performance 
for some products. 

EU  public  procurement 
purchase? 

framework:  How 

to 

 

  Directive  2014/24/EU  on  Public  Procurement 
defines rules on technical specifications, award and 
evaluation criteria, exclusion and selection criteria.  
It  allows  additional  conditions  to  be  described  in 
sectoral  legislation  such  as  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive. 
It 
methodologies for life cycle costing. 
It  only  covers    contracts  with  a  value  above 
thresholds:  

encourages 

definition 

common 

the 

of 

 

 

o  €134 000 for products 
o  €134 000  for services  
o  €5 186 000 for works  

External Factors: 

  Different starting points in Member States and know-how; 
  National and regional transposition and implementation measures; 
  National energy mix and energy markets; 
  Differences in national administrations and enforcement systems; 
  Cost-effectiveness; 
  Technological development and innovation; 
  Access to national public and private finance. 
  Budgetary cycle 

Expected Results/Impacts: 

  Achieved  energy  savings  that  contribute  to  the  2020  energy 

efficiency target; 

  Reduced GHG emissions and reduced energy imports; 
  Reduced  resource  use  for  energy  extraction, 

transformation, 

 

transportation and use; 
Jobs (created and retained) in the renovation, energy efficiency and 
energy services sectors; 

  Benefits to human health and environment, more efficient industrial 

processes; 

  Exemplary  role  of  central  government  in  serving  as  a  model  for 

other purchasers 

  Consumer awareness of energy efficiency activities and impact; 
  Reduced energy bills for EU citizens; 
  New  business  and  financing  models,  competitiveness,  growth  of 

SMEs. 

9 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2  EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

This  section  is  structured  around  the  main  evaluation  questions  included  in  the  Evaluation 
Roadmap which are presented below: 

Effectiveness: 

  To what extent have the measures referred to in Article 6 achieved its objectives? 

  What main factors, in particular related to the national implementation of Article 6 have 

positively influenced, or prevented achieving the objectives? 

  What  are  stakeholders  and/or  citizens'  expectations  for  the  EU  role  to  ensure  that  the 

objectives related to Article 6 are achieved? 

Efficiency 

  Is there potential to simplify and deliver the objectives of Article 6 more efficiently? 

  To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been 

achieved? 

  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  proportionate  to  the  benefits  achieved?  What  factors  are 

influencing any particular discrepancies? 

Relevance 

  How relevant is the EU intervention to EU citizens? 

  Do  the  objectives  of  Article  6  correspond  to  the  needs  of  the  policy  area  concerned/  to 

what extent is the intervention still relevant? 

  Are there some ways to simplify or streamline the provisions of Article 6? 

Coherence 

  To what extent the provisions contained in Article 6 of the EED are internally coherent or 

what are the possible overlaps with other relevant EU legislation?  

  Do provisions contained in Article 6 contradict or complement other EU interventions with 

similar objectives? 

EU added value 

  What  has  been  the  EU-added  value  of  Article  6  and  do  the  issues  addressed  continue  to 

require action at EU level? 

  Why would the objectives of Article 6 be better achieved by EU action? 

  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what could 

be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? 

10 

 
1.3 

 METHOD  

Most of the findings of this evaluation are based on the external study launched in May 2015 
and finalised in December 2015 (for more details on the process, see Annex 2.  

The results from the online public consultation on the review of the EED, that took place from 
4 November 2015 until 29 January 2016, were also reflected in this evaluation (see Annex 3).  

1.4 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

In 2013 the Commission published seven Guidance Notes on specific articles of the EED in 
order to help the Member States in their transposition and implementation process. Article 6 
was the subject of one of these guidance notes25. 

The  implementation  overview  that  follows  is  based  on  a specific  and  scoped  methodology26  
and does not preclude nor constitute the legal assessment of the European Commission of the 
transposition and implementation of EU legislation. 

1.4.1  Progress in the transposition of Article 6  

According  to  an  analysis27 carried  out  for  the  Commission  and  covering  the  period  up  to 
September 2015, 20 Member States have transposed Article 6 of the EED into their national 
legislation.  A  slim  majority  of  Member  States  have  transposed  all  of  the  individual 
requirements  of  Article  6  of  the  EED.  One  Member  State  announced  that  it  would  not 
transpose  Article  6  based  on  the  fact  that  the  relevant  energy  efficiency  requirements  are 
already applied through existing policy and practice and one Member State indicated that it 
would rely on legislation in force before the adoption of the EED. 

Table 1: An overview of the transposition of Article 628  

Form of transposition  
Countries with direct transposition  BG, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PT, RO (specific efficiency laws) 

Member States  

Countries with implementation 
plus additional national rules 

Countries with planned 
transposition but not yet 
completed 
Other countries 

DK, FI, UK (circular/policy notes/decision in principle) 

AT, CZ, LV, SE, SK (procurement and energy efficiency legislation).  

BE, SI, SP (public procurement legislation) 

CY, EE, EL, FR, LU, PL 

NL (not transposed in legal order) 

DE (pre-existing law was cited) 

1.4.2  Definition of‘central government’  

Most Member States transposed the term ‘central government’ identically with or in line with 
the  Directive.).  Some  of  these  Member  States  refer  to  national  lists  of  central  government 

25 SWD(2013) 446 final, guidance note on Article 6. 
26 Study Review of the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 of the EED, Spark/Ecorys, December 2015.  
35 Study Review of the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 of the EED, Spark/Ecorys, December 2015. 
28 Study Review of the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 of the EED, Spark/Ecorys, December 2015. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
bodies  or  European  lists  such  as  the  list  of  Annex  IV  of  Directive  2004/18/EC29.  While  the 
analysis carried out for the Commission revealed that there are linguistic and legal differences 
concerning the definition of “central government” among the Member States, the definitions 
used have a similar legal meaning and as such do not give rise to differences in interpretation 
of the term ‘central government’. 

1.4.3  Share of public procurements covered by Article 6  

Previous  research30 has  shown  that  the  proportion  of  procurement  that  is  carried  out  by  the 
bodies covered by the obligation of Article 6 differs strongly between Member States. Overall, 
the  EU-share  of  public  procurement  contracts  attributed  to  central  government  bodies  is 
estimated to be approximately 16 %. At Member State level this varies between 5 % and 86 %. 
Including procurement by central agencies and offices, the total share of central procurement 
becomes 29 %, with values at Member State level ranging from 8 % to 97 %. The difference 
in  shares  can  be  mostly  attributed  to  the  size  of  the  country,  with  central  government's 
proportion shrinking with the size of the country. 

1.4.4  Contract thresholds  

17 of the 28 Member States have opted for the same thresholds as the EU thresholds31 in the 
Public  Procurement  Directive32.  In  two  Member  States  thresholds  are  not  applied,  therefore 
energy  efficiency  requirements  should  be  considered  in  public  contracts  of  any  value.  In  7 
Member States, lower thresholds are applicable33.  

The evaluation showed that no structural information is collected by the Member States on the 
percentage  of  central  government  contracts  for  each  of  the  items  listed  in  Annex  III  of  the 
EED with a value above the applicable thresholds. Analysis of European public procurement 
data  shows  that  for  2010  the  share  of  procurements  of  products  (and  not  services  and 
buildings) covered by Annex III in total procurement by central government was on average 
0.23 % with values ranging between 0 % and 3.89 %34. 

1.4.5 

 Conditionalities  

Most Member States (15) have or will make use of all five conditionalities (cost-effectiveness, 
economic  feasibility,  wider  sustainability,  technical  suitability  and  sufficient  competition). 
Some  of  these  Member  States  did  this  without  defining  or  elaborating  on  the  concepts  in 
policy  notes  or  legislative  frameworks,  while  others  gave  guidance.  Guidance  was  mostly 
related to the cost-effectiveness criterion, only one Member State gave guidance on multiple 
conditionalities. 3 Member States did not make use of any of the conditionalities, whereas 6 
other Member States only implemented some of the conditionalities. From the evaluation at 

29 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of 
procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. 
30 PWC, London Economics and Ecorys, 2011, ‘Public procurement in Europe: Cost and Effectiveness’, study 

for the European Commission. 

31 Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement only covers contracts with a value above thresholds:  €134 000 

for products; €134 000 for services; €5 186 000 for works. 

32 Thirteen (AT, CZ, DK, FI, HR, HU, IE, MT, PT, SK, ES, SE, UK), possibly seventeen if CY, EE, EL and PL 
transpose Article 6 EED as planned, out of 28 Member States have implemented the same thresholds as those 
used  in article  6  EED.  Most of  these  countries  have  indeed referred  to the  EU 2004  (or 2014: HU) Public 
Procurement Directives. 
33  BE, BG, DE, IT, LT, LV, SI 
34 Study on the Review of the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 of the EED, Spark/Ecorys, 2015. 

12 

 
                                                            
national level, it can be concluded that out of the list of conditionalities, “cost-effectiveness” 
and “economic feasibility” are the most widely implemented.  

1.4.6  Armed forces  

Article 6(2) of the EED contains two specific exclusions in relation to the armed forces. The 
majority of the EU Member States have transposed with identical words the first exclusion, i.e. 
"conflict with the nature and primary aim of the armed forces” in their national legal order. 
Other  Member  States  appear  to  have  implemented  a  broader  exclusion  than  Article  6(2) 
prescribes, while a couple of Member States have not transposed this part of the Article at all.  

With  regard  to  the  second  exclusion  –  “military  equipment”  –  again  the  majority  of  the 
Member States have transposed this in an identical manner as set out in the Directive. At the 
same  time,  it  is  noteworthy  that  a  significant  number  of  Member  States  have  chosen  not  to 
transpose this exclusion. 

1.4.7  Services and buildings (Annex III)  

While Annex III (a) to (d) of the EED sets out the purchasing obligations imposed on central 
governments  when  purchasing  each  category  of  product,  Annex  III  (e)  of  the  EED  is 
designed to ensure that similar energy efficiency considerations are taken into account when 
central  government  is  tendering  for  the  provision  of  services,  for  example  cleaning  and  IT 
contracts. Energy efficient products are covered under the obligations when these products are 
newly  purchased  by  the  service  providers  and  (partially)  necessary  for  providing  the 
service.The  content  of  Annex  III(e)  of  the  EED  in  relation  to  services  has  largely  been 
transposed by 15 Member States in a similar form as expressed in Annex III of the Directive, 
while six Member States have not or have incompletely transposed Annex III(e).  

Annex III(f) - relating to contracts for buildings purchased or rented - is transposed into the 
national  law  of  15  Member  States  in  a  relatively  straightforward  fashion.  These  are  mostly 
similar to how the Member States transposed the content of Annex III(e).  

1.4.8  Practical implementation 

The  study  carried  out  by  the  Commission  included  asking  public  authorities  what  kind  of 
support  they  receive  to  help  them  use  energy  efficiency  criteria  in  public  procurement. 
Various support mechanisms were  mentioned, including the provision  of criteria documents 
(which  include  minimum  requirements  and  award  criteria  for  different  product  groups), 
specific  advice,  the  provision  of  specific  methodologies  (e.g.  life  cycle  costing),  the 
availability of websites and web-portals, the provision of web based tools and handbooks and 
guidelines.  Among  these  the  added  value  of  the  provision  of  specific  methodologies  was 
considered highest, followed by the availability of websites/web-portals and web based tools. 
However,  the  level  and  quality  of  these  measures  differed  among  Member  States,  which 
probably relates to the awareness level and the limited availability of the resources and tools 
in place.  

1.4.9  Main barriers  

According to the analysis and the survey made by the external contractor35, the main barriers 
which  prevent  procurement  bodies  from  applying  energy  efficiency  criteria  in  their  public 
procurement  procedures  relate  to  (i)  a  general  lack  of  awareness,  (ii)  a  perceived 

35 Study Review of the effectiveness of implementation of Article 6 of the EED, Spark/Ecorys, December 2015. 

13 

 
                                                            
inconsistency  of  energy  efficiency  criteria  with  other  procurement  criteria,  (iii)  a  lack  of 
knowledge  and  expertise,  (iv)  higher  initial  costs  when  procuring  energy  efficient  products, 
services or buildings, and (v) experienced difficulties to check the requirements or the lack of 
information. 

The  survey  also  revealed  that  the  main  reasons  for  not  selecting  the  most  energy  efficient 
offer  were  mainly  related  to  (i)  the  high  initial  costs  compared  to  the  savings  in  terms  of 
energy efficiency, (ii) the limited number of products, services or buildings available on the 
market, or (iii) the fact the most efficient offers did not fulfil the technical requirements. 

1.5  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

To  assess  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance  and  coherence,  and 
also  EU  added  value,  examples  are  given  of  how  public  purchasing  bodies  operate  in  the 
Member States and how this approach is a consequence of the implementation of Article 6 of 
the  EED  or  supports  its  positive  application.  This  description  is  complemented  by  an 
assessment  of  the  practical  implementation,  such  as  an  inventory  of  the  processes  that  have 
been  put  in  place  to  assist  central  government  standards  set  by  the  EED,  the  way 
conditionalities were implemented in national law, and the measures put in place at regional 
levels. 

The evaluation also assesses how effective this environment is in stimulating energy efficient 
public procurement in terms of the scope of Article 6, the estimation of the value of all public 
contracts in public procurement and the barriers perceived by public purchasing bodies. 

This  evaluation  is  mainly  based  on a  qualitative  assessment.  The  study has  revealed  a  clear 
lack  of  data  and  statistics  (for  example  increase  or  not  of  the  share  of  public  procurements 
using  energy  efficiency  criteria),  which  prevents  comparing  results  with  an  initial  reference 
scenario.  

1.5.1  Effectiveness 

  To what extent have the measures referred to in Article 6 achieved its objectives? 

The evaluation of the implementation of Article 6 to date reveals that it is too early to judge 
the achievement of the objectives of Article 6 due to the following reasons: 

1)  The transposition deadline was 5 June 2014 and many Member States are still putting 
in  place  the  needed  transposition  and  implementation  measures  related  to  Article  6 
(time constraint); 

2)  There is insufficient experience in the Member States on implementing Article 6;  
3)  There  are  no  data  allowing  the  quantification  of  progress  in  the  rate  of  public 
procurement  applying  energy  efficiency  criteria  of  Article  6  of  the  EED  (data 
constraint). 

  What main factors, in particular related to the national implementation of Article 6 have 

positively influenced, or prevented achieving the objectives? 

The main factor that influenced achieving the objectives of Article 6 at national level is the 
existence  of  prior  practice  in  terms  of  ‘green  procurement’  and  the  availability  of  tools  to 
support  this  practice,  such  as  handbooks  or  methodologies  for  the  assessment  of  life-cycle 
costs. 

14 

 
 
According  to  the  above-mentioned  analysis,  it  appears  that  the  main  barriers  preventing 
procurement  bodies  from  applying  energy  efficiency  criteria  in  their  public  procurement 
procedures relate to  

–  A  general  lack  of  awareness  about  energy  efficiency  requirements  in  public 

purchasing; 

–  Perceived inconsistency (including incompatibility) of energy efficiency criteria with 

other procurement criteria; 

–  A lack of knowledge and expertise; 
–  Higher (initial)  costs experienced  when procuring energy efficient  products, services 

or buildings; and  

–  Difficulties  in  checking  the  requirements  for  public  procurement  or  in  obtaining  the 

necessary information. 

The  survey  also  revealed  that  the  main  reasons  for  not  selecting  the  most  energy  efficient 
offer  were  mainly  related  to  (i)  the  high  initial  costs  compared  to  the  savings  in  terms  of 
energy efficiency, (ii) the limited number of products, services or buildings available on the 
market, or (iii) the fact the most efficient offers did not fulfil the requirements. 

Overview of processes and tools in place to stimulate energy efficient purchasing 

The  analysis  of  the  processes  and  tools  in  place  in  the  Member  States  to  support  energy 
efficient purchasing and/or establish whether a given product meets the requirements listed in 
Article 6(1) of the EED has been mainly based on individual interviews with representatives 
of the Member States operating at central government level.  

Processes and tools used in the Member States include: 

  General website, general information centres and web based tools; 
  Criteria  documents  (which  include  minimum  requirements  and  award  criteria  for 

different product groups); 

  Specific support by government experts; helpdesk, technical support, advice;  
  Handbook and /or guidelines on certain products36;  
  Specific methodologies, e.g. the assessment of lifecycle costs; 
  Specific  advice/expertise,  information  campaigns,  education,  seminars,  specific 

projects, conferences; 

  Database37; 
  Co-financing options. 

Tools and specific methodologies are, for example, mechanisms to calculate energy efficiency 
savings  providing  guidance  on  specific  products  (e.g.  Total  Costs  of  Ownership  (TCO), 
Energy  Efficiency Calculation Tools (EEC), Best  Value Procurement (BVP)  and LCC tools 
for all products). Lifecycle cost tools were explicitly mentioned by policy makers in Denmark 
and Germany during the interviews. 
Specific  methodologies  and  web  based  tools  were  considered  very  useful.  For  example, 
Swedish  and  British  procurement  bodies  mentioned  that  they  used  the  standardised  criteria 
documents and that this was useful in advance planning.  

36 E.g. DK, FI, LV. 
37 Databases are mentioned by BG, LV and UK. For example: databases of high-performing products such as the 
at: 
UK  Government’s  Energy  Technology  List 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-technology-list. In Latvia databases with (technical) information about 
state  of  the  art  solutions  with  a  high  energy  efficiency  performance  are  maintained  by  the  Procurement 
Monitoring Bureau.  

(ETCL),  more 

information 

available 

15 

 
                                                            
However, the general impression is that there are strong differences between Member States 
on  the  level,  quality  and  availability  of  processes  in  place  to  help  the  purchasing  bodies. 
Procurement  bodies  from  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic  and  the  UK  mentioned  receiving 
support  in  the  form  of  4  or  more  different  measures,  whereas  other  procurement  bodies 
mentioned receiving only one or two of the support types. 

Best practice in energy efficient purchasing  

According to a 2010 study38 , the overall front runners on Green Public Procurement in the EU 
are the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.  

Procurement  bodies  in  several  Member  States  mentioned  framework  agreements  or  specific 
websites  they  use  or  are  obliged  to  use  when  tendering.  These  were  considered  useful  and 
effective – but drawbacks mentioned were the monopoly positions of the selected contractors 
and difficulties for smaller producers of energy efficiency products to be included. One of the 
services  mentioned  is  Hansel  in  Finland.  Similar  tendering  and  information  services  are 
provided in other Member States (e.g. PIANO in the Netherlands39, the Office of Government 
Procurement in Ireland40, the State Regional Development Agency in Latvia41 and the Shared 
Service  Entity  of  Public  Administration  in  Portugal).  Since  June  2015  the  European 
Commission Green Public Procurement (GPP) Helpdesk is working on information sharing in 
the form of webinars on Life Cycle Costing (LCC) tools for public procurement,  developing 
calculation tools for public authorities that aim to facilitate the application of common LCC 
methods  for  purchasing  products  (of  which  some  procurement  bodies/policy  makers  are 
already aware) 42.  

Processes and tools to stimulate energy efficient purchase by non-central governments 

According  to  Article  6(3)  of  the  EED,  Member  States  must  “encourage”  public  bodies, 
including  at  regional  and  local  level,  to  follow  the  exemplary  role  of  their  central 
governments  to  purchase  only  products,  services  and  buildings  with  high  energy-efficiency 
performance. In practice, some central governments have decided to extend the obligation by 
means of a statutory provision43, while others have issued internal procurement guidelines to 
such bodies.  

The  biggest  differences  between  regional/local  and  central  governments  appear  to  be  in 
relation  to  funding  and  awareness  levels.  Several  interviewees  mentioned  the  funding 
difficulties  of  non-central  government  bodies  when  procuring  energy  efficient  products, 
services  or  buildings.  Funding  energy  efficient procurement  is  considered  more  difficult  for 
non-central procurement bodies and, according to some interviewees, non-central bodies are 
also less aware of the energy efficiency requirements.  

Several projects were recently launched at European level under the H2020 Energy-Efficiency 
Call  2014  to  support  public  authorities  notably  at  local  or  regional  level  in  applying  GPP 
criteria: Greens44 ; CEPPI2, Grasps45, SPP Regions46. 

38 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/strategic-use-public-

procurement-europe_en.pdf. 

39 https://www.pianoo.nl/public-procurement-in-the-netherlands  
40 http://www.etenders.gov.ie/  
41 http://www.vraa.gov.lv/en/  
42 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/webinars_en.htm. 
43 8 Member States extended the scope of ‘central governments’ within the national implementation. As a result, 

the requirements of article 6 EED in these countries apply to a broader scope of public authorities. 

44 http://greensproject.eu  

16 

 
                                                            
  What are stakeholders and/or citizens' expectations for the EU role to ensure that the 

objectives related to Article 6 are achieved? 

52 % of all participants shared the view that existing EU energy efficiency requirements for 
public  procurement  are  not  sufficient  to  achieve  the  needed  impact  of  energy  savings,  as 
opposed  to  29 %  who  had  no  view  on  this  and  19 %  who  believed  that  requirements  are 
sufficient. Participants argued that provisions at a Member State level would be sufficient, but 
that otherwise requirements would be very complicated and difficult to understand. Some also 
noted  that  the  scope  of  the  requirements  were  too  narrow,  by  focusing  only  on  'central 
governments'.  

1.5.2  Efficiency 

  Is there potential to simplify and deliver the objectives of Article 6 more efficiently? 

While it is too early to judge whether the provisions of Article 6 could be simplified, the study 
supporting this  analysis identified  several avenues  for improving  the implementation of this 
article, such as increasing the practical knowhow; improving guidance and tools; the increase 
of awareness; the development of internal guidelines; the creation of national public expertise 
centres. (See also Recommendations section). 

  To what extent are  the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects which have 
been  achieved? To what extent  are the costs proportionate to  the benefits achieved? 
What factors are influencing any particular discrepancies? 

As  regards  cost  efficiency,  one  of  the  conditionalities  specifically  asks  to  assess  the  cost-
effectiveness of the energy efficient criteria. The evaluation at national level revealed that out 
of  the  list  of  conditionalities,  “cost-effectiveness”  and  “economic  feasibility”  are  the  most 
widely implemented ones. Therefore, while the administrative cost of putting these processes 
in place could not be estimated, by systematically including life-cycle cost-efficiency criteria 
for  procurement,  rather  than  the  initial  cost,  the  cost-effectiveness  of  these  processes  is 
expected to increase. 

  Are there some ways to simplify or streamline the provisions of Article 6? 

As regards ways to simplify or streamline the provisions of Article 6, the evaluation suggests 
a  need  for  clarification,  guidance  to  implement  and  to  strengthen  the  synergies  with  others 
existing frameworks on sustainable public procurement, such as the EU voluntary scheme on 
Green Public Procurement (See under Recommendations section). 

45 More information available at http://www.grasp-tmn.eu/  
46 http://www.sustainable-procurement.org/get-involved/spp-regions/  

17 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
1.5.3  Relevance 

  How relevant is the EU intervention to EU citizens? 

The  main  idea  behind  Article  6  of  the  EED  is  related  to  the  fact  that  central  governments 
represent a strong market power and that the public sector constitutes an important driver to 
stimulate  market  transformation  towards  more  efficient  products,  buildings  and  services 47. 
Over  250 000  public  authorities  in  the  EU  spend  around  18 %  of  GDP  on  the  purchase  of 
services, works and supplies48. In 2008, approximately a fifth of that  total annual value was 
procured at European level (so, above the specified thresholds), which is approximately 3.1 % 
of  the  total  GDP  of  the  European  Union 49.  Central  governments  can  contribute  to  policy 
objectives, such as: 

  Supporting certain markets by purchasing specific energy efficient products, services 

and buildings; 

  Serving as an example for regional and local governments to push for energy-efficient 

procurements; 

  Providing  a  push  for  energy  efficient  purchasing  decisions  which  the  market  will 
(most likely) follow, thereby providing incentives for innovation in the field of energy 
efficiency; 

  Eliminating specific market (entry) barriers and; 
  Releasing public resources for other purposes by the decrease of energy consumption 

through energy efficiency improvement measures.  

Firstly, the EU intervention is therefore relevant to EU citizens by providing better value for 
money in the operations of public administrations. 

Secondly, it acts as a ‘pull’ factor encouraging manufacturers to place on the market better (i.e. 
with  higher  profit  margins)  products:  the  2011  Energy  Star  Communication50   showed  that 
public  procurement  obligations  are  a  strong  driver  for  manufacturers  for  factoring  energy 
efficiency into their production processes. 

Thirdly, by transforming the market towards greater efficiency it allows consumers to benefit 
from this trend and reduce their energy bill given that the majority of items covered by Annex 
III  of  the  EED  are  consumer  products.    This  includes  products  for  which  there  are  energy 
labels,  products  covered  by  Eco-design  regulations,  products  under  the  Energy  Star 
programme 51 ,  (lighting,  boilers,  fans,  refrigeration,  washing  machines  and  dishwashers, 
tumble driers, vacuum cleaners, personal computers and displays, imaging equipment, copiers, 
faxes, printers, scanners, televisions, air conditions  as well as tyres and buildings. The list is 
therefore  not  fixed  and  exhaustive,  with  the  exception  of  tyres  and  buildings,  because  the 
product list of Energy Star, Energy labels and products under Eco-design regulations can be 
extended within the respective Directives.  

47 Recital 15 of Directive 2012/27/EU 
48 DG  Growth,  based  on  TED  data  (the  official  source  for  public  contracts  in  Europe),  available  at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement/index_en.htm.  

49  Dimitri,  N.,  G.  Piga  en  G.  Spagnolo,  2006,  ‘Handbook  of  Procurement’.  Cambridge  University  Press, 
Cambridge. See also: PWC, London Economics and Ecorys, 2011, ‘Public procurement in Europe: Cost and 
Effectiveness’, study for the European Commission.  

50 COM(2011) 337  
51 Office equipment products covered by Council Decision 2006/1005/EC. The EU Energy Star Programme is a 
at 
for 

equipment,  more 

information 

energy 

office 

voluntary 
labelling 
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/eu-energy-star 

programme 

18 

 
                                                            
  Do  the  objectives  of  Article  6  correspond  to  the  needs  of  the  policy  area  concerned/  to 

what extent is the intervention still relevant? 

There have been no changes in the policy framework making the intervention less relevant. 

1.5.4  Coherence 

  To what extent the provisions contained in Article 6 of the EED are internally coherent or 

what are the possible overlaps with other relevant EU legislation?  

Coherence with the EU public procurement legislation 

The EU Public Procurement Directive was revised at around the same time as the EED was 
adopted.  The  two  work  together  and  complement  each  other.  The  Public  Procurement 
Directive  clarified  what  public  bodies  may  do  in  terms  of  the  criteria  they  use;  the  EED 
identifies a certain, more limited set of criteria that they must use.  

The guidance note52 published in 2013 clarified the relationship between Article 6 and the EU 
Public Procurement Directive: 

The Public Procurement Directive sets the framework for how procurement should be 
undertaken  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  principles  such  as  fair  competition  and  getting 
best value for taxpayers’ money. It leaves to specific legislation, such as the EED, any 
definition of what has to be purchased. The rules included in such specific legislation 
need, however, to be in line with the rules of the general procurement framework.  

In  the case of  the EED  the principles of  'acting fairly' and 'getting value for  money' 
are ensured by the fact that the minimum requirements the procured items must meet 
are  openly-available/non-proprietary  and  common  and  they  aim  at  minimising  the 
life-cycle cost of these items.  

These  clarifications  remain  valid  also  for  the  new  Public  Procurement  Directive  (PPD) 
adopted in 2014 (2014/24/EU). This Directive includes some novelties on sustainability issues 
such  as  the  cost-benefit  and  the  life  cycle  costing  approaches  (Articles  67  and  68).  In 
particular, Article  67  of  the  PPD  includes  a  description  of  the  ‘cost-effectiveness  approach’ 
which  may include the best price-quality ratio, which shall be assessed on the basis of criteria, 
including qualitative, environmental and/or social aspects, linked to the subject-matter of the 
public  contract  in  question’.  Life-cycle  costing  is  provided  as  an  example  of  a  cost 
effectiveness  approach,  with  Article  68  encouraging  contracting  authorities  to  move  away 
from  evaluating  the  lowest  delivery  cost  towards  consideration  of  the  whole-life/long-term 
cost of the works, supplies or services procured53. Energy consumption is listed amongst the 
factors that may be taken into account under a life-cycle cost approach. 

The  requirements  of  Article  6  of  the  EED  are  in  line  with  and  complement  the  above-
described  provisions  laid  down  in  the  New  Public  Procurement  Directive  and  more 
specifically Articles 67 and 68 of that Directive.  

52 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0446 
53 The new Directive contains detailed provisions on the EU concept of ‘life-cycle costing’, defining ‘life-cycle’ 
in  Article  2(20)  as  “all  consecutive  and/or  interlinked  stages,  including  research  and  development  to  be 
carried out, production, trading and its conditions, transport, use and maintenance, throughout the existence 
of the product or the works or the provision of the services, from raw material acquisition or generation of 
resources to disposal, clearance and end of service or utilisation”. This broad description links in with the 
description given in the Commission Guidance Note on Article 6 

19 

 
                                                            
Coherence with EU legislation on energy labelling and on ecodesign 

The provisions contained in Article 6 complement other EU policies with similar objectives 
such as the EU energy labelling and ecodesign rules. In the case of products regulated under 
EU legislation on energy labelling and ecodesign Member States have to purchase only those 
products that belong to the highest energy efficiency class possible in the light of the need to 
ensure  sufficient  competition.  For  products  covered  by  Ecodesign  implementing  measures 
adopted  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  EED,  central  governments  may  only  purchase 
products 
that 
implementing measure.  

efficiency  benchmarks 

comply  with 

specified 

energy 

that 

in 

Coherence with EU legislation on energy performance of buildings  

The  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  (EPBD) 54  and  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive are the two main directives aiming at reduction of energy demand by buildings.  

In  purchasing  or  making  new  rental  agreements  for  buildings,  central  governments  will  in 
general have to choose only buildings which comply with the minimum energy performance 
requirements that the Member State in question has set under the EPBD.  

Article 6 and Annex III of the EED indicate that purchased or rented buildings have to meet 
the  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  set  under  Article  4  of  the  EPBD.  The  link 
between Article 6 and the EPBD requirements means that central government must, in public 
procurement contracts, opt for energy efficient buildings. 

Article 5(1) of the EED imposes an obligation on central governments to gradually upgrade 
their existing building stock, so that each year 3 % of buildings owned or occupied by central 
government  is  renovated  to  the  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  set  under  the 
EPBD.  While the  obligation  in  Article  5(1)  is  designed  to  improve  the energy efficiency  of 
the public building stock, the obligation in Article 6(1) and Annex III(f) is designed to prevent 
the  addition  of  new  buildings  or  the  renewal  of  leases  for  existing  buildings  which  do  not 
meet the minimum requirements.  

  Do provisions contained in Article 6 contradict or complement other EU interventions with 

similar objectives? 

No contradiction between the provisions of Art 6 EED and EU public procurement legislation 
has  been  identified.  In  terms  of  EU  energy  efficiency  legislation  on  products  in  particular, 
Article 6 provides a complement in that it stimulates the take up of products covered by EU 
eco design and labelling regulations.  

1.5.5  Added value 

  What  has  been  the  EU-added  value  of  Article  6  and  do  the  issues  addressed  continue  to 
require action at EU level? Why would the objectives of Article 6 be better achieved by EU 
action?  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EU  intervention(s),  compared  to 
what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? 

The experience from the implementation of the previous EU policies on energy efficiency in 
particular  Directive  2006/32/EC  on  energy  end-use  efficiency  and  energy  services,  showed 

54 Directive 2010/31/EU 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
that the lack of a detailed EU framework made it difficult to achieve the energy savings target 
agreed  by  Member  States.  The  Impact  Assessment  of  the  EED 55 estimated  that  having  a 
common EU framework would reduce costs, allow Member States to benefit from the scale of 
the internal market and allow national policy-makers to learn from each other. Moreover, the 
provisions  of  a  common  EU  framework  aim  at  creating  a  level-playing  field  across  the 
internal market. 

55 SEC(2011) 779 final. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
2  EVALUATION  OF  ARTICLE  7  ON  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  OBLIGATION  SCHEMES  AND 

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES  

2.1  BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE 

2.1.1  Description of the initiative and its objectives 

Article 7 on Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes (EEOSs) requires each Member State to 
establish an energy efficiency obligation scheme or alternative policies measures that would 
deliver  a  set  amount  of  end-use  energy  savings  over  the  2014-2020  obligation  period, 
equivalent  to  1.5 %  savings  of  annual  energy  sales.  An  EEOS  is  a  scheme  established 
nationally by requiring energy companies to achieve yearly energy savings of 1.5 % of annual 
sales  to  final  consumers.  In  order  to  reach  this  requirement,  companies  have  to  carry  out 
measures which help final consumers improve energy efficiency. This may include improving 
the  heating  system  in  consumers'  homes,  installing  double  glazed  windows,  or  better 
insulating roofs to reduce energy consumption. 'Alternative measures' are those undertaken by 
the  government  or  other  public  authorities  that  have  the  effect  of  reducing  end-use 
consumption  such  as,  Energy  or  carbon  taxes;  financing  instruments  or  fiscal  incentives; 
regulations or voluntary agreements, training, education or information measures etc. 

Article 7 is a pivotal provision of the EED. The Commission services estimated56 that Article 
7  and  related  Annex  V  would  be  responsible  for  more  than  half57 of  the  energy  savings  the 
Member  States  should  achieve  under  the  EED.  In  implementing  this  provision,  Member 
States can choose from a wide range of policy measures, energy using sectors and individual 
energy efficiency improvement actions.  

To ensure proper implementation of Article 7 and Annex V and the possibility for adjustment 
of  the  national  or  regional  policy  measures  and  the  methodology  used,  the  EED  required 
Member States to notify to the Commission their detailed plans already by 5 December 2013. 
These  plans  needed  to  include  the  Member  States’  planned,  proposed  or  legally  defined 
design and methodology, for the operation of their energy efficiency obligation scheme and/or 
alternative  measures  to  reach  the  energy  savings  target  under  Article  7.  Informal  bilateral 
meetings  between  Members  States  and  the  Commission  services  took  place  in  winter  and 
early spring 2014 to discuss these plans so as to identify possible elements of improvement.  

Member States had to notify their legal transposition of Article 7 by the general transposition 
deadline  of  5  June  2014.  Some  elements  of  Article  7  were  notified  also  as  part  of  the  first 
EED  National  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plans  (NEEAPs)  due  by  30  April  2014.  Some 
Member States could already report on achieved savings for the previous year (2014) in their 
2015  Annual  Report.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  also  submitted  updated  Article  7 
notifications.  The  Commission  has  sought  further  information  from  Member  States  through 
the  structured  dialogue58 on  certain  elements  which  were  not  provided  for  or  not  properly 
addressed in their notifications on Article 7. 

56  SEC(2011)779 and annexes 
57 Amounts to 85 Mtoe of primary energy consumption in 2020 according to the internal estimates carried out by 

the Commission services during the negotiations of the EED (in 2012). 

58  EU  Pilot  is  a  scheme  designed  to  quickly  resolve  compliance  problems  without  having  to  resort  to 
infringement procedures, for the benefit of citizen and business. Requests for additional information on the 
transposition and implementation of Article 7 were initiated in the summer 2015. 

22 

 
                                                            
2.1.2  Baseline situation 

The  requirement  for  energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  or  an  equivalent  alternative 
delivering a binding quantity of energy savings is a new element introduced under the EED to 
strengthen  the  achievement  of  the  EU  headline  2020  target  of  20 %  -  since  the  mid-term 
analysis of Directive 2006/32/EC showed that the existing framework in place and efforts by 
Member  States  were  not  sufficient  to  achieve  the  EU  energy  savings  objective  by  202059. 
Article 7 of the EED builds on provisions of a voluntary nature in Article 6 of the former ESD 
(see below the intervention logic of Article7).  

Figure 3: Intervention logic of Article 7: 

Objective of Article 7: 
Each Member State shall set up an energy efficiency obligation scheme (EEOS). That scheme shall ensure that 
energy  distributors  and/or  retail  energy  sales  companies  that  are  designated  as  obligated  parties  under 
paragraph 4 operating in each Member State’s territory achieve a cumulative end-use energy savings target by 
31 December 2020 (new savings of 1.5 % annually), without prejudice to paragraph 2.  
As an alternative to setting up the EEOS, Member States may opt to take alternative policy measures to achieve 
the same amount of energy savings among final customers or combine the EEOS with alternative measures. 

Key  obligations  for  Member  States  (MS)  having  an 
EEOS: 
  To  designate,  on  the  basis  of  objective  and  non-
discriminatory  criteria,  obligated  parties  amongst 
energy  distributors  and/or 
retail  energy  sales 
companies operating in its territory; 

  To  ensure  that  the  savings  are  calculated  in 
accordance with points (1) and (2) of Annex V; 

  To  put 

in  place  measurement,  control  and 
verification  systems  and  ensure  that  verification  of 
energy  savings  have  been  done  independently  of 
the obligated parties; 

  To  publish  annually  the  savings  achieved  by  each 
obligated  party,  or  each  sub-category  of  obligated 
party, and in total under the scheme; 

  To ensure that when the impact of policy measures 
or individual actions overlaps, no double counting of 
energy savings is made. 

Key  obligations  for  Member  States  (MS)  having 
alternative measures: 
  Responsibility of each entrusted, participating party 
or implementing public authority should be defined;  

  Energy savings are calculated using methods and 
principles in line with Annex V (1) (2) and (3);  
  An annual report of savings achieved is provided by 
participating parties and made publicly available;  
  Monitoring of the results is ensured; measures are 
envisaged if the progress is not satisfactory;  
  A control system is put in place that includes 

independent verification of a statistically significant 
proportion of the measures;  

  Data on the annual trend of energy savings are 

published annually; 

  To  ensure  no  double counting of energy  savings is 
made in case of overlaps between the actions; 
  To put in place penalties applicable in case of non-

  To put in place penalties applicable in case of non-

compliance. 

compliance. 

External Factors: 
  Different starting points in 
MS and know-how; 

  National and regional 
transposition and 
implementation measures; 

  National energy mix and 

energy markets; 
  Differences in national 
administrations and 
enforcement systems; 
Technological development 
and innovation; 

 

  Access to national public 
and private finance. 
  Energy costs and tariffs 
setting mechanisms 

59 COM(2013) 938 final 

Expected Results/Impacts: 

  Achieved energy savings that contribute to the 2020 EE target; 
  Reduced energy bills for EU citizens, energy costs for enterprises 
  Reduced GHG emissions and reduced gas imports; 
  Reduced resource use for energy extraction, transformation, 

transportation and use; 
Jobs (created and retained) in the renovation, energy services sectors; 

 
  Benefits to health and environment,  
  More efficient industrial processes; 
  Consumer awareness of energy efficiency activities and impact; 
  New business, financing models, competitiveness, growth of SMEs. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  impact  assessment  of  the  EED60 concluded  that  energy  saving  obligations  for  utilities 
were an effective instrument performing well already in five Member States (France, Belgium 
(Flanders region), Denmark, Italy, and the UK) to save energy and also bring other direct and 
indirect  benefits  to  the  consumers,  for  instance  addressing  energy  poverty  (in  the  UK  and 
France). On the basis of that analysis, energy efficiency obligation schemes were proposed as 
a binding measure under the EED (set at the level of 1.5 % annual savings of the final energy 
sales)  with  a  number  of  flexibilities  introduced  during  the  proposal's  negotiation  so  that 
national situations and specific energy market conditions could be taken into account. 

The  same  impact  assessment  estimated  that  this  instrument  (energy  efficiency  obligation 
schemes and alternative measures) would generate 108 – 118 Mtoe savings in primary energy 
in 2020 provided Member States fully apply the rate of 1.5 % (without taking into account the 
possible  exemptions  under  paragraph  2).  As  stated  above,  the  Commission  services  have 
estimated that the proposal in its adopted form would deliver 85 Mtoe of savings in primary 
energy by the same date.  

2.2  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The main evaluation questions included in the Evaluation Roadmap are presented below: 

Effectiveness: 

  To what extent have the measures referred to in Article 7 achieved their objectives? 

  What  main  factors,  in  particular  related  to  the  national  implementation  of  Article  7  of 

EED, have positively influenced, or prevented, the achievement of the objectives? 

  What  are  stakeholders  and/or  citizens'  expectations  for  the  EU  role  to  ensure  that  the 

objectives related to Article 7 are achieved? 

Efficiency 

  To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been 

so far achieved? 

  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the  achievements  observed  were 

attained? 

  Is there potential to simplify and deliver the objectives of Article 7 more efficiently? 

  To what extent has the intervention been cost effective? 

Relevance 

  To what extent is the intervention still relevant? 

  To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives  proven  to  have  been  appropriate  for  the 

intervention in question? 

  How well do the (original) objectives (still) correspond to the needs within the EU? 

60 SEC(2011) 779 

24 

 
                                                            
Coherence 

  Do the provisions contained in Article 7 contradict or complement other EU interventions 

with similar objectives? 

  To what extent  are the provisions contained in Article 7 internally coherent or  are there 

possible overlaps with other relevant EU legislation?  

EU added value 

  What  has  been  the  EU-added  value  of  Article  7,  and  do  the  issues  addressed  continue 

requiring action at EU level? 

  Why would the objectives of Article 7 be better achieved by EU action? 

2.3  METHOD  

Taking into account the requirement to report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the implementation of Article 7 by 30 June 2016, the process was launched at the end of 2014, 
when the Commission commissioned a study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of 
the EED and the analysis is supported by other external studies carried out for assessing the 
Member States' notifications61 .  

The analysis of this report is based on information  notified by Member States during the time 
period from December 2013 until October 2015 (some parts of analysis cover only the period 
until  1  May  2015).  Most  of  the  data  contained  in  the  notifications  are  based  on  estimated 
energy  savings  (for  the  national  measures and methodologies  put  in  place  or  foreseen  to  be 
put in place).  

This  evaluation  also  looks  at  the  quantification  of  the  impact  of  measures  notified  under 
Article 7 and how the impact of these measures contributes to the EU energy efficiency target 
of  2020  and  initial  assumptions  of  the  potential  share  of  savings  stemming  from  Article  7 
towards the 2030 target, if Article 7 were to be extended beyond the present end date of 2020. 

Given the recent implementation and transposition of the EED, the deadline for which was on 
5 June 2014, and given the fact that Member States have notified estimated energy savings for 
measures under Article 7, the evaluation faces data limitations related to the energy savings 
actually  achieved  –  and  verified  by  the  Member  States  for  the  measures  notified.  More 
concrete results of the implementation will become available as of 2016 as the Member States 
submit  their  Annual  Reports  under  Article  24(1).  This  will  allow  an  assessment  of  whether 
the  energy  savings  are  being  delivered  in  line  with  expectations  notified  in  Member  States' 
plans.  To  the  extent  that  it  is  available,  this  information  will  be  integrated  in  the  impact 
assessment. 

For the purposes of this evaluation and to comply with the requirement of Article 24(9), an 
internet-based public consultation took place from 4 November 2015 until 29 January 2016 to 
gather the views of the general public, industry, obligated parties, stakeholders in general and 
other  market  actors  concerned  as  regards  the  implementation  of  Article  7  of  the  EED  (for 
more detail, see Annex 3). 

61 References to the concrete study are provided throughout the report concerning relevant parts of the document. 

25 

 
                                                            
2.4 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

2.4.1  Overall progress 

In order to calculate the required amount of savings to be achieved by 2020, which has to be 
equivalent to achieving new savings each year of 1.5 % from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 
2020, Member States had to establish the baseline – energy sales averaged over the three-year 
period,  prior  to  January  2013  (for  2010-2012).  Energy  used  by  transport  may  be  fully  or 
partly excluded from the baseline. This possibility was fully used by all Member States except 
Sweden. These adjustments resulted in a baseline that was around 33 % lower – 723.6 Mtoe - 
than it would have been if the full amount of energy consumption would have been taken into 
account in the calculation (1 080.4 Mtoe62), see Table 2. 

On  the  basis  of  the  established  baseline,  each  Member  State  had  to  calculate  the  required 
amount of cumulative energy savings (of 1.5 % per year) to be achieved over the obligation 
period from 1st January 2014 to 31 December 2020.  

As  regards  the  use  of  the  four  exemptions  allowed  under  paragraph  2  of  Article  7  of  the 
EED63, 21 Member States applied the "slow start" option (a) which allows the use of lower 
rates  in  the  first  years  of  the  obligation  period.  15  Member  States  used  option  (b)  by 
excluding  all  or  part  of  the  sales  of  ETS  industries,  5  Member  States  used  option  (c)  by 
counting towards their target savings achieved in the energy supply and transmission sector. 
13  Member  States  used  option  (d)  by  counting  towards  the  target  savings  from  actions 
implemented  between  31  December  2008  which  will  continue  have  an  impact  in  2020  (see 
Table 2). 

62 Final energy consumption (averaged for 2010-2012) used for calculation the amount of savings to be achieved 

over the obligation period 2014-2020. 

63 Article  7(2)  allows  four  possibilities  to  reduce  the  target:  (a)  slow  start:  Member  States  can  calculate  the 
required target by using values of 1 % in 2014 and 2015; 1.25 % in 2016 and 2017; and 1.5 % in 2018, 2019 
and 2020.; (b) exclude from the calculation all or part of the sales, by volume, of energy used in industrial 
activities  listed  in  Annex  I  to  Directive  2003/87/EC;  (c)  allow  energy  savings  achieved  in  the  energy 
transformation, distribution and transmission sectors, including district heating / cooling infrastructure, as a 
result of the implementation of the requirements of Article 14(4)(b), Article 14(5) and Article 15(1)- (6), (9); 
and last (d) count energy savings resulting from individual actions newly implemented since 31 December 
2008 that continue to have an impact in 2020 and that can be measured and verified. There is no limitation on 
Member State's choice or combination of these four options as long as the exemption does not exceed 25 % 
of the reduction allowed in paragraph 3.   

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
Table 2: Notified baselines and exemptions applied per each Member State64 

Member State 

Adjusted 
baseline65 
(ktoe) 

% 
exemptions 
used 

Exemptions used 

(a) 

(Article 7.2)  
(c ) 

(b) 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Total 

16,508 
21,940 
6,167 
4,112 
767 
14,491 
10,113 
1,938 
13,373 
97,060 
133,324 
10,580 
11,675 
6,873 
80,961 
2,702 
3,188 
1,636 
179 
36,591 
47,040 
8,038 
17,495 
7,252 
2,999 
50,727 
27,438 
88,392 
723,55966 

25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
3 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
0 % 
21 % 
25 % 
25 % 
25 % 
21 % 
25 % 

y 

y 
y 
y 

y 
y 

y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 

n/a 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 
y 

y 

y 
y 

y 
y 
y 

y 
y 
y 

y 

y 

y 
y 
n/a 

y 

y 

y 

y 

y 

y 

n/a 

y 

21 

15 

5 

13 

(d) 
y 
y 
y 

y 

y 
y 
y 
y 

y 

y 

y 

y 
n/a 

y 

* Not specified by all Member States 

As a result, the sum of notified cumulative targets for all Member States reached 230.2 Mtoe 
(see Table 3). This amounts to about 31.8 % of the sum of the adjusted baselines67. The table 
also lists the savings expected from the policy measures notified per Member State which for 
some countries differs from the savings target.  

64 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
65 Transport sector excluded and own energy and non-energy use subtracted by certain Member States. 
66 For  comparison:  The  adjusted  final  energy  use  (average  2010-2012,  all  28  Member  States),  according  to 
Eurostat, with energy use by transport fully excluded, without exclusion of energy production for own use, is 
764.588 ktoe/yr. 

67 NB: Romania has not yet provided a baseline, but has provided a savings target. 

27 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                            
Table  3:  Notified  cumulative  savings  and  the  sum  of  savings  expected  from  the  measures  per 
Member State (for the period 2014-2020)68 

Member State 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

Total 

Notified target 
(ktoe) 

Notified sum of 
expected savings69 
(ktoe) 

Percentage to be 
delivered by EEOS (%) 

         5,200  
         6,911  
         1,943 * 
         1,295  
            242  
         4,564  
         4,130  
            610  
         4,213  
       30,574  
       41,989  
         3,333  
         3,396  
         2,164  
       25,502  
            851  
         1,004  
            515  
              56  
       11,512  
       14,818 
         3,376  
         5,817  
         2,284  
            945  
       15,979  
         9,114  
       27,859  

230,195 

9,146 
7,155 
1,943 
1,295 
243 
5,170 
4,130 
611 
8,819 
31,130 
44,484 
3,333 
* 
2,243 
25,830 
851 
1,044 
515 
67 
11,270** 
14,818 
3,408 
5,863 
2,287 
945 
14,361 
11,513 
37,799 

250,274 

42 % 

100 % 
41 % 

100 % 
5 % 

87 % 

48 % 
62 % 
65 % 
77 % 
100 % 
14 % 

100 % 

33 % 
44 % 

21 % 

34 % 

* Hungary did not yet notify savings for its policy measures, Bulgaria did not yet notify its savings target; 
** The Netherlands notified ranges of savings for (groups of) policy measures. 

2.4.2  Policy measures 

Article 7 allows flexibility for Member States in terms of selecting the policy mix to achieve 
the  required  amount  of  savings.  A  great  variety  of  alternative  measures  in  addition  to  the 
energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  were  notified  by  Member  States  under  Article 7 
(resulting in total of 477 measures). 

The  highest  amount  of  savings  (34 %  or  86.1 Mtoe)  is  expected  to  come  from  energy 
efficiency  obligations  schemes  (EEOSs),  which  are  the  default  instrument  of  Article  7, 
notified by sixteen Member States, see figure 2. Four Member States have chosen to achieve 

68 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
69 These represent sum of cumulative savings per all measures notified per Member State. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  required  savings  solely  with  this  instrument  and  twelve  in  combination  with  alternative 
measures.  Another  twelve  Member  States  are  to  achieve  savings  only  with  alternative 
measures (see Table 4). 

29 

 
 
 
Table 4: Overview of policy measures notified by Member States (per measure type) 70 

n
o
i
t
a
g

i
l

i

b
o
y
c
n
c
c
i
f
f
e
y
g
r
e
n
E

e
m
e
h
c
s

d
n
u
F

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
N
y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E
y
g
r
e
n
E

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 
Germany72 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 
Slovakia73 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Total [number of 
measures] 

Total [number of MS] 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1* 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

3** 

21 

16 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

4 

4 

l

a
c
s
i
f

r
o
s
e
m
e
h
c
s
g
n
c
n
a
n
F
)
b
(

i

i

)
s
t
n
a
r
g
g
n
d
u
c
n
i
(

l

i

s
e
v
i
t
n
e
c
n

i

y
r
a
t
n
u
o
v

l

r
o

s
n
o
i
t
a
u
g
e
R

l

)
c
(

s
t
n
e
m
e
e
r
g
a

s
m
r
o
n
d
n
a
s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
S

)
d
(

4 

14 

0 

9 

3 

23 

0 

1 

3 

1 

26 

17 

3 

2 

2 

4 

1 

0 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

12 

19 

3 

0 

2 

18 

21 

0 

9 

0 

5 

4 

0 

3 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

6 

s
e
x
a
t

2

O
C

r
o
y
g
r
e
n
E

)
a
(

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1
7
w
a

l

U
E

r
e
d
n
u

S
M
n

i

l

e
b
a
c

i
l

p
p
a

d
n
a
y
r
o
t
a
d
n
a
m

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

10 

8 

183 

22 

46 

12 

25 

9 

n

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e

i

d
n
a
g
n
n
a
r
T
)
f
(

i

n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c

,
s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m
y
c

i
l

o
p
r
e
h
t
o
y
n
A

)
i

r
a
e
c

l

t
o
n
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
c

r
o
/
d
n
a

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

y
g
r
e
n
e
e
s
u
-
d
n
e
g
n
c
u
d
e
r

i

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m
y
c

i
l

o
p

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

9 

22 

1 

11 

5 

23 

1 

3 

8 

3 

13 

66 

112 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

15 

0 

13 

7 

44 

0 

0 

0 

2 

20 

3 

10 

3 

7 

15 

1 

35* 

29 

1 

24 

28 

66 

2 

14 

1 

20 

26 

10 

156 

477 

12 

28 

s
e
m
e
h
c
s
g
n

i
l
l

e
b
a

l

y
g
r
e
n
E

)
e
(

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

4 

70 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
71 NB: only savings above minimum EU-levels may be counted towards the target. 
72 Germany notified 65 policy measures that are implemented by the German States (Länder) 
73  Slovakia  provided  savings  per  group  of  policy  measures,  targeted  to  a  specific  sector;  not  savings  per 

individual policy measure. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
*  Malta notified 4 measures labelled as EEOS (which are individually included in the total of 35 measures for 
Malta).  In  practice  these  are  four  separate  measures  that  form  part  of  a  single  obligation  scheme,  so  this 
represents just one policy measure. This is recorded as a single EEOS, but as 4 measures in the total column; 
**  The  UK  notified  three  EEOS.  Two  of  the  schemes  ran  from  2010-2012  and  are  now  expired,  so  only  one 
scheme is planned to be operational for the 2014 to 2020 commitment period.  

Other major policy measures in terms of the amount of expected energy savings are financing 
schemes and fiscal incentives (19 % or 49.0 Mtoe) followed by energy and CO2 tax measures 
(15 % or 34.4  Mtoe) and regulations and voluntary agreements (11 % or 27.1  Mtoe). These 
four types of measures are together expected to deliver 79 % of the cumulative savings (see 
Figure  5).  More  detailed  information  on  major  policy  measures  notified  under  Article  7, 
containing  examples  and  best  practice  is  provided  in  four  case  studies  annexed  to  the 
Evaluation Study74. 

The sum of the notified planned savings is 250.3 Mtoe, which is 9 % higher than the sum of 
the notified targets (see Table 3). As regards the sectoral split of notified savings, most of the 
savings  are  expected  to  come  from  measures  targeting  the  buildings  sector  (42 %  or 
104.4 Mtoe). It is expected that 8 % or 18.9 Mtoe of savings will be generated from measures 
targeting  specifically  industry,  followed  by  6 %  or  15.7  Mtoe  from  measures  targeting  the 
transport sector. The rest of the savings (44 % or 111.3 Mtoe) is expected to come from cross-
cutting  measures  (e.g.  taxes,  building  regulations  applying  to  domestic  and  non-domestic 
buildings, financing incentives applying to multiple sectors) – see Figure 4. 

Figure 4: Energy savings per target sector (ktoe)  

Industry, 18,895; 
8% 

Transport, 
15,712; 6% 

Buildings, 
104,367; 42% 

Cross cutting, 
111,300; 44% 

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

74 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 5: Cumulative energy savings per type of measure notified (ktoe)  

(f) Training and 
education, 9,154; 4% 

(i) Other policy 
measures, 15,197; 
6% 

(e) Energy labelling 
schemes, 1,004; 0.4% 

(d) Standards and 
norms, 21,640; 9% 

(c) Regulation or 
voluntary agreement, 
27,129; 11% 

(b) Financing 
schemes or fiscal 
incentives, 49,032; 
19% 

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

Energy Efficiency 
Obligation Scheme 
(EEOS), 86,051; 34% 

Energy efficiency 
National Fund, 6,646; 
3% 

(a) Energy or CO₂ 
taxes, 34,421; 14% 

According  to  findings  of  the  analysis,  it  is  important  to  note  that  around  69 %  of  savings 
notified could be qualified as fully eligible under Article 7, complying with the objective to 
achieve end-use energy efficiency improvements75. The rest of the savings were qualified as 
either  partly  (25 %)  or  fully  (6 %)  not  compliant  with  the  overall  objective  of  Article  7,  as 
they mainly targeted other objectives such as addressing the traffic congestion or large scale 
renewables deployment76.  

Analysis points out that eligibility under Article 7 needs to be clarified in the context of the 
existing  EED  Review  to  see  how  this  fits  with  the  overall  energy  and  climate  policy 
framework  objectives  while  avoiding  overlaps  and  ensuring  consistency  and  sound 
accounting of savings claimed. It is true that Article 7 does not provide a concrete definition 
of what is an 'eligible' energy saving measure, although the eligibility criterion is referred to 
in  Article  7(1)  which  underlines  the  achievement  of  the  "end-use  energy  savings  target"  so 
that the primary objective of the introduced measures should be end-use energy savings.  

Moreover, Article 2(18) and (19) of the EED specify the definitions of 'policy measure' and 
'individual action'. A policy measure is a regulatory, financial fiscal voluntary or information 
provision  instrument  formally  established  and  implemented  in  a  Member  State    and  an 
'individual  action'  is  an  action  that  leads  to  verifiable  and  measurable  or  estimable  energy 
efficiency improvement, as a result of a policy measure (Article 2(19)).  

75 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of the EED. 
76 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of the EED. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
The Guidance77 provides further explanation of how these  definitions contained in Article 2 
should be applied and which policy measures can be used for Article 7 purposes. To this end, 
the  Guidance  points  out  that  measures  that  are  not  primarily  intended  to  support  energy 
efficiency  policy  objectives  or  policies  that  do  not  trigger  end-use  energy  savings  amongst 
final consumers, are not eligible. Examples of non-eligible measures are also provided such as 
construction of new roads to ease traffic congestion, various energy grid network charges or 
feed-in tariffs.  

Some Member States have notified measures which do not target end-use energy savings, for 
example, CHP technologies78, feed-in tariffs, or construction of metro lines.  

The assessment of the implementation79 so far and the dialogue with Member States has made 
clear  that  problems  with  understanding  what  is  an  eligible  measure  in  respect  of  which  the 
Member States can claim energy savings for the purposes of Article 7 is linked also to issues 
with the calculation method including how the additionality and materiality requirements are 
addressed.  

Some of the policies claimed by Member States (for example in the transport sector related to 
fast speed trains, transport infrastructure) might also achieve the end-use energy savings even 
if that is not their primary objective. If they also fulfil the additionality and materiality criteria 
then Member States should perhaps be allowed to claim the savings resulting from them.  

To this end, the Commission has clarified80 the use of measures promoting the deployment of 
renewable energy which may qualify if these measures do actually result, at least in part, in 
end  use  savings,  and  if  the  Member  State  can  prove  those  end-use  savings  in  line  with  the 
requirements of Annex V.  

Against  this  background,  the  eligibility  concept  needs  to  be  further  defined  and  explained 
more concretely, to ensure also consistency with other EU climate and energy policies.  

The results of the public consultation reveal that a majority of stakeholders (70 %) consider 
that the scope of eligible measures allowed under Article 7 should be clarified, and 67 % of 
these stated that the scope of eligible measures should be even expanded. 

2.4.3  Calculation methodologies  

Member  States  had  to  develop  methodologies  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  Annex  V 
ensuring  that  the  calculation  of  the  impact  of  measures  takes  into  account  the  principles  of 
additionality, materiality and also lifetimes of measures.  

The  central  purpose  of  Article  7  is  to  introduce  measures  that  trigger market-based  end-use 
energy savings which are additional to the existing EU energy efficiency framework Member 
States therefore had to define in their methodologies how they have taken this key element – 
the additionality principle -  into account81. 

77 SWD(2013) 451 final (section C). 
78 Supply side measures that trigger the primary energy savings are allowed under Article 7(2)(c) as one of the 

four exemptions subject to 25 % reduction limit. 

79 Member  States  in  line  with  Annex  V(4)(e)  had  to  provide  information  in  their  notifications  (Dec.2013)  on 

eligible measure categories in line with Annex V(4)(e).  
80 During the EED Committee meeting of 16 September 2015. 
81 Additionality is referred to in Annex V (2), (3), and in Article 7(9)(d) and (e). 

33 

 
                                                            
Member  States  are  using  different  calculation  methodologies  among  the  options  in 
Annex V(1) 82.  The  most  used  calculation  method  is  the  deemed  savings  method  (used  by 
17 MS). This is also widely used for EEO schemes. Metered and scaled  savings calculation 
methods  were  used  by  9  MS.  Some  Member  States  (7)  have  indicated  in  their  notifications 
that for calculating the impact they have applied bottom-up calculation methods developed for 
the purposes of Annex IV of the ESD83.  

The level of credibility of notified savings depends on how the calculation has been done at 
national level and how accurately the requirements of Article 7 and Annex V have been taken 
into account. Studies on the implementation of Article 7 suggest that Member States  find it 
challenging  to  work  out  how  to  apply  certain  key  requirements  of  Annex  V,  notably 
additionality  and  materiality  –  and  this  impression  has  been  reinforced  in  dialogue  between 
the Commission services and Member States. The risk of double counting is also one of the 
issues  which  could  be  better  addressed  by  Member  States  given  the  wide  policy  mix 
introduced  under  Article  7.  These  three  elements  are  therefore  analysed  in  more  in  detail 
below. 

2.4.3.1  Additionality  

Additionality  is  a  key  principle  of  Article  7,  as  it  requires  that  Member  States  count  only 
those savings that are triggered by policy measures which are additional to national measures 
that  they  have  to  implement  under  other  EU  legal  obligations  or  that  they  would  have 
implemented also in the absence of the EED. Provisions of Article 7 and Annex V define in 
more detail how this is to work in relation to existing policy measures adopted at EU level84. 

The  guidance  note85 further  explains  the  principle  “The  qualification  related  to  'mandatory 
and  applicable  in  Member  States  under  Union  law'  means  that,  when  concrete  energy 
performance  levels  or  labelling  schemes  are  laid  down  in  EU  legislation,  then  the  energy 
savings  stemming  from  individual  actions  that  result  from  automatic  transposition  of  these 

82 Annex V(1) stipulates that obligated, participating or entrusted parties, or implementing public authorities may 
use one or more of the four methods for calculating energy savings: (a) by reference to the results of previous 
independently  monitored  energy  improvements  in  similar  installations  (ex-ante  approach);  (b)  metered 
savings, whereby the savings from the installation of a measure, or package of measures, is determined by 
recording the actual reduction in energy use, taking due account of factors such as additionality, occupancy, 
production  levels  and  the  weather  which  may  affect  consumption  (ex-pots  approach);  (c)  scaled  savings, 
whereby engineering estimates of savings are used and where establishing robust measured data for a specific 
installation is difficult or disproportionately expensive, e.g. replacing a compressor or electric motor with a 
different kWh rating than that for which independent information on savings has been measured, or where 
they  are  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  nationally  established  methodologies  and  benchmarks  by  qualified  or 
accredited  experts  that  are  independent  of  the  obligated,  participating  or  entrusted  parties  involved;  (d) 
surveyed  savings,  where  consumers’  response  to  advice,  information  campaigns,  labelling  or  certification 
schemes,  or  smart  metering  is  determined.  This  approach  may  only  be  used  for  savings  resulting  from 
changes in consumer behaviour. 

83 It was not always indicated whether and how this was compatible with Annex V of the EED. 
84 Annex  V(2)(a)  and  (3)(a)  lay  down  that  credit  may  only  be  given  for  savings  exceeding  the  following 
performance standards and requirements established by EU law: for products – the requirements established 
by  implementing  measures  under  the  Ecodesign  Directive,  for  new  passenger  cars  and  light  commercial 
vehicles  –  the  emission  performance  standards  established  by  Regulations  443/20099  and  510/201110;  for 
taxes – the minimum levels of taxation applicable to fuels as required in Council Directive 2003/96/EC on 
restructuring  the  Community  framework  for  the  taxation  of  energy  products  and  electricity  or  in  Council 
Directive  2006/112/EC  on  the  common  system  of  value  added  tax.  As  regards  alternative  measures  under 
Article 7(9)(d) and (e) -  concerning standards and norms and energy labelling schemes only if the nationally 
established  levels  which  are  more  ambitious  than  those  required  at  EU  level  -  the  difference  (of  energy 
savings) between the mandatory EU levels and the established levels can be counted. 

85 SWD(2013) 451 final (section D.2 paragraph 34). 

34 

 
                                                            
levels  cannot  be  counted  as  an  alternative  policy  measure.  It  is  only  if  the  nationally 
established  levels  are  more  ambitious  than  those  required  at  EU  level  –  as  far  as  this  is 
legally  possible  –  that  the  difference  between  the  mandatory  EU  levels  and  the  concretely 
established levels can be counted”. 

Analysis of the notifications and discussions with Member States reveal that this requirement 
has  been  understood  or  interpreted  differently  by  Member  States,  very  often  leading  to 
incorrect  application,  especially  concerning  the  savings  calculated  from  national  building 
codes.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  in  the  report  of  the  technical  workshop  on  Calculation 
methodologies  for  Article  7  organised  by  the  Commission's  Joint  Research  Centre86 in  June 
2015. It is also partly linked to the fact that EED does not provide a concrete definition of the 
"additionality" concept, resulting in the different interpretations by Member States. This also 
had implications for the distinction between the notions of additionality and materiality87. 

More  specifically  as  regards  the  application  of  additionality  principle  in  relation  to  Article 
7(9)(d)  which  stipulates  that  Member  States  can  count  savings  from  standards  and  norms 
aimed  at  improving  the  energy  efficiency  of  products  and  services,  including  buildings  and 
vehicles, except where these are mandatory and applicable in Member States under EU law,  
savings generated by major renovations or construction of new buildings can be counted only  
where they exceed cost-optimal levels of energy performances established by Member States 
under the EPBD88. A number of Member States did not provide sufficient information in their 
notifications  on  their  calculation  methodologies  whether  and  how  they  have  taken  into 
account cost-optimal levels as the reference consumption baseline in cases they have claimed 
savings generated by major renovations or construction of new buildings.  

This  issue  is  also  reflected  in  the  study  commissioned  by  the  Commission89 (see  Figure  6), 
which shows that less than half (43 %) of the savings notified have, at most, very small issues 
with  additionality,  whereas  24 %  of  the  savings  have  minor  issues  and  14 %  have  major 
issues. For the remaining 19 %, the situation remains unclear (and is being explored between 
the Commission services and the Member States by means of a structured dialogue90. 

86 JRC  (2015):  Report  on  Common  Methods  and  Principles  for  Calculating  the  Impact  of  Energy  Efficiency 
Obligation 
EED: 
Policy  Measures 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC99698/report%20on%20eed%20art%207%20-
%20publishable.pdf .  

under  Article 

or  Other 

Schemes 

the 

of 

87 JRC  (2015):  Report  on  Common  Methods  and  Principles  for  Calculating  the  Impact  of  Energy  Efficiency 

7 

Obligation Schemes or Other Policy Measures under Article 7 of the EED. 

88 These  levels  represent  a  standard  implemented  under  the  Union  law;  therefore,  the  application  of  Article 
7(9)(d)  implies  that  those  Member  States  having  implemented  cost-optimal  levels  can  count  only  energy 
savings  exceeding  these  levels.  Although  each  Member  State  will  have  different  minimum  energy 
performance requirements, it is mandatory for the Member States to set such requirements under EU law (i.e. 
EPBD), with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels as referred to in Article 4(1) of the EPBD. 
89 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of the EED. 
90 Several  best  practice  examples  on  how  additionality  has  been  applied  for  the  major  measures  used  under 
Article  7  are  provided  in  the  four  case  studies  (Appendix  4  of  the  Study  on  evaluating  Article  7,  Ricardo 
AEA/ CE Delft, 2015). 

35 

 
                                                            
Figure 6: Split of savings per additionality category (EU-28)  

19% 

14% 

24% 

43% 

No or only very
small issues
Minor issues

Major issues

Unclear

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

The structured dialogue with Member States allowed some of the information gaps as regards 
the application of the additionality principle to be reduced, even though for a large of number 
of  policy  measures  this  should  still  be  further  explored  with  the  Member  States,  as  for 
example, only 6 Member States have specified how they plan to address additionality in the 
savings calculations. On the other hand, 6 Member States provided no information or almost 
no  information  on  additionality,  and  further  13  Member  States  only  provided  simply  the 
statement that additionality to minimum EU requirements will be ensured (without explaining 
how  it  is  ensured).  In  addition,  only  4  Member  States  mentioned  in  their  notifications  that 
free-riders will be taken into account, other providing no information91. 

To this end, the evaluation study concluded that further clarification and guidance as regards 
the  application  of  "additionality"  should  be  provided  given  that  the  policy  framework  has 
further developed over the last years.  

2.4.3.2  Materiality 

The  EED  requires  that  new  savings  of  1.5 %  are  achieved  each  year.  The  activities  of  the 
obligated or participating parties must contribute to the achievement of the specific individual 
action which is being counted for the purposes of Article 792, and thus actions that would have 
happened  anyway  (thanks  to  automatic  rolling  out  of  EU  legislation,  or  autonomous 
improvements because of, for example, market forces or technological developments) are not 
taken into account.  

This provision provides confidence that the energy savings have actually been triggered as a 
result of policy interventions. It should also reduce the effect of free-riding93.  

91 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of the EED. 
92 Annex V(2)(c). 
93 The  "free-rider"  effect  in  the  context  of  Article  7  can  be  explained  as  a  situation  in  which  the  obligated  or 
participating parties give subsidies to those end users that would have installed the energy efficiency measure 
anyway without a policy measure being put in place. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
As stated in the Guidance note94, the application of the materiality principle is one of the steps 
necessary to ensure respect for the additionality principle. It may contribute to enforcing the 
additionality principle by requiring that actors – obligated or participating parties involved in 
the measure's implementation  - have materially contributed to the generation of the claimed 
savings.  

According to the assessment, only half of the Member States have so far provided information 
on materiality. Lack of information therefore limits the overall assessment of how effectively 
the materiality requirement has been applied in practice.  

The  evaluation  study  pointed  out  challenges  related  to  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
materiality.  Even  though  the  requirement  to  demonstrate  materiality  refers  to  all  measures 
(except for energy and CO2 taxes), the relevance of the materiality criterion differs between 
types of measure. Materiality could be perceived as most relevant for financing schemes and 
instruments,  fiscal  incentives,  energy  labelling  schemes,  and  training  and  education 
programmes; however, the approach to demonstrate materiality may differ  for each measure 
type.  The  fact  that  Member  States  had  to  define  themselves  the  test  of  materiality  for  each 
individual action seemed to pose some challenges in interpreting this requirement.  

For  instance,  for  financing  schemes  the  amount  of  subsidy  was  often  indicated  by  Member 
States  to  demonstrate  materiality  even  though  this  factor  alone  does  not  guarantee  that 
subsidies  have  actually  influenced  end-users  investment  decisions 95 .  The  role  played  by 
involved actors in the implemented actions may in principle be proved without a subsidy as a 
benchmark  whereby  standardised  actions  could  be  an  important  materiality  indicator  (e.g. 
creation of installation standards for products, energy advice and energy audits when followed 
by the actual implementation of actions) 96. 

It  must  be  noted  that  it  is  not  obvious  what  evidence  Member  States  must  provide  to  the 
Commission to prove that a particular action has resulted in the savings claimed, and this is 
particularly  difficult  with  "behavioural"  type  measures  such  as  information  campaigns.  The 
study on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 suggests 97 that the "materiality test" may 
even  not  be  relevant  for  certain  measures  such  as  regulations  and  voluntary  agreements,  or 
standards and norms, assuming the enforcement and compliance is strong for these measures. 
This  should  be  further  explored  in  the  context  of  the  post  2020  framework  in  case  the 
commitment period under Article 7 is extended. 

2.4.3.3  Risk of double counting 

Member States are required to ensure that when the impact of policy measures or individual 
actions overlaps, no double counting of energy savings is made98. It is necessary for Member 
States  to  address  this  as  part  of  their  monitoring  and  verification  of  savings  required  under 
Article 7. 

Given  the  large  variety  of  instruments  notified  by  Member  States  and  moreover,  given  the 
high likelihood of policy overlaps from the use of both the obligation schemes and alternative 

94 SWD(2013) 451 final (section D.2 paragraph 34). 
95 JRC (2015): Report on common methods and principles for calculating impact from EEOS or other measures 

under Article 7 of the EED. 

96 JRC (2015): Report on common methods and principles for calculating impact from EEOS or other measures 

under Article 7 of the EED. 

97 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
98 Article 7(12) and AnnexV(2)(d). 

37 

 
                                                            
measures  (for  instance  interaction  between  energy  taxation  and  subsidy  to  households  to 
replace  windows  or  space  heaters),  it  is  crucial  to  address  these  possible  risks  of  double 
counting so that an impact is not counted twice. 

Whilst  building  renovation  measures  have  to  be  at  the  level  set  under  the  EPBD,  as  that 
Directive does not require any particular number of renovations, no consequent savings have 
to be reported under it. There is therefore no risk of double counting of savings in relation to 
energy  savings  due  to  building  renovation  measures  claimed  under  Article  7  of  the  EED. 
Most Member States indicated in their notifications that they were aware of the need to avoid 
double counting due to possible policy overlap, but did not provide enough detail on how they 
ensure this apart from indication by a majority of Member States that a database could be seen 
as an effective tool to tackle this issue99. 

For  instance,  some  Member  States  have  stated  in  their  notifications  that  savings  will  be 
attributed  only  to  one  of  the  policy  instruments  implemented  and  for  the  other  policy 
instrument(s)  savings  are  not  taken  into  account    at  all  (e.g.  Denmark,  Sweden).  Other 
Member  States  aim  to  address  the  risk  of  double  counting  with  the  help  of  a  self-reporting 
database (e.g. Austria) to be used for all measures. According to the available information 16 
Member States intend using a database as an effective tool to detect possible overlaps.  

The  results  of  the  assessment 100 depicted  in  Figure  7  show  that  81 %  of  the  savings  are 
assessed as having no or only very small issues in relation to risk of double counting, and only 
1 % of the savings notified have major issues. For 12 % of savings there are minor issues and 
for 6 % of savings it is unclear. 

It is  expected that the annual reports as  of 2016 will provide more information  on how this 
aspect is actually addressed as the savings achieved will be reported.  

Figure 7: Split of savings per category of risk on double counting (cumulative savings 2020)  

1% 

12% 

6% 

81% 

No or only very
small issues
Minor issues

Major issues

Unclear

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

99 For  example,  the  database  would  register  that  a  subsidy  to  encourage  the  replacement  of  old  boilers  had 
already been paid to a certain household, if the same household applies again, a warning would pop up. 

100 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 

38 

 
 
                                                            
 
2.4.4  Monitoring and verification of savings 

Almost  all  Member  States  have  established  Monitoring  and  Verification  (M&V)  systems  to 
check the reported energy savings for the EEOS and alternative measures. As regards these 
systems,  slightly  different  requirements  are  laid  down  in  the  Directive  for  the  EEOS  and 
alternative measures.  

a)  As  regards  Energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes,  Member  States  need  to  put  in  place 
measurement,  control  and  verification  M&V  systems  under  which  a  significant  proportion 
and  representative  sample  of  energy  efficiency  improvement  measures  put  in  place  by 
obligated parties are verified101, and this verification should be done independently from the 
obligated parties.  

b) For alternative measures102, Member States are required to ensure monitoring of results and 
put  in  place  a  control  system  that  includes  independent  verification  of  a  statistically 
significant proportion of efficiency improvement measures.  

2.4.4.1  Energy efficiency obligation schemes 

For  EEOSs,  thirteen  Member  States  have  ensured  that  the  authority  responsible  for 
measurement and verification is fully independent, two Member States are still in the process 
of  establishing  their  M&V  systems  and  independence  will  need  to  be  reviewed  once  the 
systems are implemented. 

As regards the statistically representative sample required to verify the savings claimed, ten 
Member States have confirmed that  such a sample will be applied. This is not fully evident 
for four Member States and neither it is clear for two Member States which are in the process 
of  establishing  the  measuring  and  verification  systems.  It  should  be  noted  that  there  is  no 
definition in the Directive of what is a 'statistically representative sample'. 

Seven  Member  States  have  confirmed  that  audit  protocols103 are  in  place,  even  though  two 
Member States did not state whether or not audit protocols have been implemented yet, five 
Member  States  do  not  provide  sufficient  detail  that  would  allow  concluding  that  audit 
protocols are in place.  

Member States are obliged to put in place effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for 
breaches  of  the  national  provisions  that  implement  the  EED,  including  Article  7.  Eleven 
Member States that have EEOS have penalties in place for non-compliance and two Member 
States are in the process of determining their penalty regimes. Three Member States have no 
penalties in place yet. 

2.4.4.2  Alternative measures 

All but two Member States have established M&V systems for the purpose of monitoring the 
performance of alternative measures and ensuring proper control of saving claimed. 

For  alternative  measures,  the  use  of  statistically  representative  samples  is  not  clear  for  six 
Member States  as sampling is  mentioned but  not  explicitly that a statistically representative 
sample  will  be  analysed.  Eight  Member  States  did  not  state  whether  or  not  a  statistically 

101 Article 7(6) of the EED 
102 Article 7(10)(h) and (i) of the EED 
103 In the context of Article 7, an audit protocol defines the way the audit is conducted, standards to be checked, 

benchmarks to be used, and how the results of the audit are communicated to the parties in question. 

39 

 
                                                            
representative sample is checked and two Member States do not state that this is the case for 
all policy measures. Two countries explicitly state that they do not intend to use a statistically 
representative sample. 

According to the available information, audit protocols are established for all policy measures 
only in eight Member States that notified alternative approach. Three Member States do not 
specify  audit  protocols  for  all  alternative  measures  and  in  two  cases  it  is  not  clear  whether 
audit protocols are in place or not. Audit protocols are not addressed by nine Member States. 

Only two Member States confirm that penalties are in place for all alternative policy measures 
and  for  14  Member  States  it  is  not  clear  whether  penalties  have  been  put  in  place  for 
alternative measures.  

There is a need under both types of instruments (EEOS and alternative measures) to ensure 
annual reporting which should be made publicly available. More specific reporting provisions 
are  defined  for  the  EEOS  (in  line  with  Article  7(8))  whereby  Member  States  can  request 
obligated  parties  to  provide  aggregated  statistical  information  on  their  final  customers  and 
also  data  on  consumption  or  customer  segmentation).  Similarly  for  alternative  measures  (in 
line  with  Article  7(10)(g)  and  (j))  participating  parties  should  prepare  an  annual  report  on 
savings achieved and ensure that the trend of achieved savings is published once a year. 

Member States' notifications revealed that a majority of Member States have more than one 
measurement/monitoring and verification system in place for alternative measures (or in the 
case  of  combination  of  EEOS  and  alternative  measures)  which  varies  depending  on  the 
measure type, whereas for EEOSs this is  usually the responsibility of a single institution104. 
Only five Member States intend to give the same institution responsibility for implementing, 
monitoring,  control  and  verification  of  savings  for  both  an  EEO  scheme  and  alternative 
measures.  For  example,  in  nine  Member  States  different  actors  are  responsible  for 
independent  verification  of  energy  efficiency  improvements  measures  depending  on  the 
measure, whereas for three Member States verification of savings is planned to be done by a 
third  party,  and  final  responsibility  lies  with  either  a  ministry,  energy  agency  or  regulator 
(FI)105. 

As  regards  the  monitoring  and  verification  tools  used,  a  majority  of  Member  States  have 
established  a  IT-based  tool  or  intend  to  establish  one  to  collect  the  data,  track  the 
implementation  and  impact  of  energy  efficiency  measures  and  carry  out  the  verification  of 
projects  according  to  the  established  control  system  including  carrying  out  the  random 
checks.  According  to  Member  States'  experience,  clear  and  transparent  rules  that  are 
communicated to all actors involved are a prerequisite for lowering the administrative burden 
in monitoring of the energy efficiency measures under Article 7. 

A database is perceived by a majority of Member States106 as an effective tool for addressing 
the  risks  of  double  counting  in  case  of  potential  overlaps  between  the  measures  which  can 
also occur for a single policy measure when several actors (e.g. funding institutions) claim the 
savings  of  this  measure  and  16  Member  States  intend  using  the  database  established  for 
monitoring energy efficiency measures under Article 7.  

Due  to  the  fact  that  the  obligation  period  started  only  on  1st  January  2014,  and  only  a  few 
Member States reported on the achieved savings for 2014 in their 2015 annual reports, there is 

104 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4, Case study on the EEOS, table 3. 
105 CA EED: Core theme 8 report (on the monitoring and verification systems under Article 7, July 2015).  
106 CA EED: Core theme 8 report (on double counting, November 2014).  

40 

 
                                                            
limited  evidence  available  how  the  specific  monitoring  and  verification  provisions  have 
worked  so  far  for  a  majority  of  Member  States,  especially  for  the  alternative  measures107. 
Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  Member  States  have  put  in  place  appropriate  Monitoring  and 
Verification systems suggests that the achievement of savings will be monitored and verified 
to  ensure  credibility  of  savings  reported.  The  credibility  of  energy  savings  claimed  will 
depend on how correctly the monitoring and verification is done at national level. 

2.5  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

This  chapter  will  assess  each  evaluation  criteria  on  the  basis  of  the  relevant  evaluation 
questions listed in chapter 4.2 under each criteria.  

2.5.1  Effectiveness 

  To what extent have the measures referred to in Article 7 achieved their objectives? 

The overall objective of Article 7 is that it requires each Member State to achieve new savings 
of 1.5 % annually by establishing an energy efficiency obligation scheme (EEOS) by putting 
an  obligation  to  energy  distributors  and/or  retail  energy  sales  companies  to  achieve  a 
cumulative  end-use  energy  savings  target  by  31  December  2020.  It  could  be  done  also 
through alternative policy measures that should achieve the same amount  of energy savings 
among final customers. 

It  is  too  early  to  conclude  whether  Member  States  will  achieve  the  savings  requirement 
because  the  final  date  by  when  the  savings  should  be  achieved  is  31  December  2020.  The 
reporting requirement laid down in the Directive (Article 24(1)) will allow trends and savings 
to be followed on an annual basis, but until 2020 the final result cannot be calculated. Only 4 
Member  States  reported  on  the  achieved  energy  savings  for  2014  in  the  annual  reports 
required under Article 24(1) that had to be submitted by 30 April 2015108. 

Comparing the notified savings (estimated for 2020 alone) with the estimations made in the 
(2011) impact assessment of the EED109, the sum of energy savings from the notified policy 
measures is only 1 % lower than the originally expected amount.110 A slightly higher shortfall 
is  observed  when  comparing  the  notified  targets  with  the  expected  amount  which  is  10 % 
lower,  see  Figure  8  below.  To  note,  this  comparison  should  serve  as  a  theoretical  reference 
point  and  not  as  the  benchmark  to  be  attained,  as  the  assumed  savings  in  the  2011  impact 
assessment (including the corrected figure of 84.8 Mtoe) were based on a different baseline111 
and  by  taking  into  account  the  average  savings  target  of  the  existing  energy  efficiency 
obligation schemes of that time112.  

107 See Annex 3: Conclusions of the workshop of M&V under Article 7 EED, 3 February 2016. 
108 This was not an obligation for 2014, according to the Guidance SWD(2013)180, issued to Member States. 
109 The IA of the EED estimated 108-118 Mtoe of primary energy savings in 2020 from Article 7 (the approach 
of this comparison is explained in the study on evaluation of Article 7, Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft). This figure 
was adjusted by the Commission services during the negotiations and resulted in 84.8 Mtoe (primary energy) 
savings in 2020.  

110 The savings and targets are significantly lower than the 2011 Impact Assessment estimate, but this estimate 

did not include exemptions. 

111 PRIMES Energy Efficiency scenario 2009 which varied from the baseline used for calculating the targets (i.e. 

averaged annual energy sales to final consumers over 2010-2012).  

112 Annex VII of the 2011 IA EED: Explanation and analysis of Options B1-B5 on energy savings obligations. 

41 

 
                                                            
Figure 8: Comparison of notified energy savings to the expected impact under Article 7113 

113 

85 

84 

76 

2011 Impact Assessment

Final EED text

Energy saving targets

Policy measures

0
2
0
2
n

i

e
o
t
M
n

i

s
g
n
i
v
a
s
y
r
a
m

i
r
P

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Primary energy savings in Mtoe in 2020

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

Analysis of the reported estimations from national notifications114 and ongoing dialogue with 
Member states suggest that Member States would achieve the required savings by 2020 given 
the  commitments  made  by  putting  in  place  the  necessary  measures.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
achievement depends on whether the requirements of Article 7 and Annex V will be properly 
complied with115. This analysis is provided further in the report. 

  What  main  factors,  in  particular  related  to  the  national  implementation  of  Article  7  of 

EED, have positively influenced, or prevented, the achievement of the objectives? 

The  Commission  services  are  assessing  how  Member  States  have  transposed  the  EED  into 
their  national  legislation.  As  regards  Article  7,  some  Member  States  have  used  legal 
measures, in particular in relation to requirements on obligated parties under EEOS as well as 
putting specific measures in place. Other Member States however have transposed Article 7 
and the savings requirements with non-legislative measures - policy documents and specific 
measures.  Each  Member  State  has  set  out  their  approach  in  detail  in  the  National  Energy 
Efficiency Plans116 notified to the Commission in 2014 which will be updated in 2017.  

Similarly, Member States have generally put in place complex measurement, verification and 
control  systems  to  ensure  that  the  reported  energy  savings  by  involved  parties  are  correctly 
accounted  for  in  the  measures  and  individual  actions  implemented,  including  ensuring 
additionality of savings as compared to existing EU policies and avoiding overlaps with other 
policies, especially in the case of savings stemming from alternative measures117. Monitoring 

113 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
114  Notified  targets  and  methodologies  by  Member  States  to  comply  with  the  reporting  requirement  by  5 

December 2013 under Article 7(9). 

115 Ricardo  AEA/  CE  Delft  (2014):  Study  on  evaluating  the  measures  and  methodologies  notified  by  Member 

States under Article 7 of the EED. 

116 Please  consult  the  NEEAPs  (2014)  and  Article  7  notifications:  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-

efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive. 

117 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4, Case study on EEOS, Table 4 – Overview of the EEOS. 

42 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
and control systems for the alternative measures have been developed all relevant MS except 
two.  

However,  Article  7  will  deliver  energy  savings  by  2020  on the  scale  anticipated  if Member 
States will fully and correctly implement the requirements of Article 7 and Annex V, notably 
the  additionality  and  materiality  principles  referred  to  in  paragraph  9(d)(e)  and  Annex 
V(2)(3). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Member States ensure the enforcement of 
the necessary provisos and are committed to the achievement of required amount of savings 
as notified under Article 7(1). 

Article  7  complements  the  implementation  of  other  aspects  of  the  EU's  energy  efficiency 
policy.  For  example,  the  EPBD  driving  an  increase  in  the  depth  of  renovation  of  existing 
buildings, and is complemented by Article 7 which serves to increase their rate. Almost half 
of the savings notified under Article 7 are in the buildings sector and it can be observed that 
the  rate  of  renovation  is  accelerated  due  to  the  specific    measures  (i.e.  financing  incentives 
and programmes) introduced in Member States to stimulate the renovation of residential and 
tertiary buildings (see Figure 9). 

Figure 9: Share of policy measures (with long lifetimes) targeting buildings’ sector 

(d) Standards and 
norms 
36% 

Energy Efficiency 
Obligation Scheme 
(EEOS) 
13% 

(c) Regulations or 
voluntary 
agreements 
18% 

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

(b) Financing 
schemes or fiscal 
incentives 
32% 

  What  are  stakeholders  and/or  citizens'  expectations  for  the  EU  role  to  ensure  that  the 

objectives related to Article 7 are achieved? 

The stakeholder consultation revealed that 68 % of respondents consider that Article 7 is an 
effective  instrument  to  achieve  final  energy  savings,  versus  32 %  who  opposed  this  view. 
63 %  of  stakeholders  stated  that  Article  7  should  continue  beyond  2020,  versus  28 % 
opposing this view, and 9 % did not have a view on this. 70 % of respondents in favor of the 
extension of Article 7 consider that the scope of eligible measures should be clarified further; 
of these, 67 % stated that eligible measures should be expanded.  

43 

 
 
Respondents also pointed out the main barriers related to the implementation of the existing 
provisions Article 7 which are amongst others 'limited timeframe (2014-2020) that makes it 
hard  to  attract  investment  for  long  term  measures'  (115);  a  'high  administrative  burden' 
associated with certain measures (113) and 'ensuring sound and independent monitoring and 
verification of energy savings' (104). 

As regards the specific EU role, stakeholders shared the view that the EU should monitor the 
implementation  of  Article  7  and  its  progress;  ensure  compliance  across  the  EU;  provide 
guidance,  for  example  regarding  savings  calculation  methodologies  (Annex  V);  facilitate 
overall  transparency  and  comparability;  set  clear  energy  efficiency  targets;  provide  funding 
for  energy  efficiency  initiatives;  and  support  the  development  of  financing  products  that 
promote energy efficiency.  

2.5.1.1  Energy efficiency obligation schemes 

Given that the EEOS is the default instrument under Article 7, it is important to specifically 
analyse  the  effectiveness  of  this  part  of  the  policy.  In  fact,  34 %  of  the  savings  will  be 
achieved  by  this  instrument  by  2020 118,  which  was  notified  by  16  Member  States  (with 
4 Member States using it as the only instrument to achieve savings).  

Evidence from third countries (such as the United States and Australia)119 shows that energy 
efficiency obligation schemes have been an effective instrument to efficiently reduce energy 
consumption  (at  a  low  cost  in  terms  of  administrative  burden)  by  putting  obligations  on 
energy suppliers and distributors120. In the EU, Belgium (Flanders region)121, Denmark, Italy, 
France, and United Kingdom had already implemented this instrument before the EED, and 
analyses of the impact of these schemes demonstrated that this is a cost-effective policy122 to 
achieve  the  required  energy  savings 123.  In  fact,  evidence  suggests  the  targets  put  on  the 
obligated parties in these countries have risen significantly over time and have continued to be 
met by these parties124. These Member States also have helped the other countries with their 
expertise  by  organising  and  taking  part  in  technical  workshops  and  seminars  to  share  their 
knowledge.  

The Table 5 demonstrates the impact of EEOSs on final energy consumption in selected EU 
Member States and in Vermont and California in the U.S. 

118 66 % of energy savings to be achieved by the alternative measures. 
119 RAP (2012): Best practices in designing the EEOSs. 
120 RAP (2012): Best practices in designing the EEOSs. 
121 While  Belgium  (Flanders  region)  had  an  EEOS  in  the  past,  it  decided  not  to  have  the  scheme  under  the 

Energy Efficiency Directive. 

122 Eoin Lees (eceee 2012) EEOS - the EU experience. 
123 For  example,  in  the  UK  total  household  energy  consumption  decreased  by  19 %  between  2000  and  2014, 
despite a 12 % increase in the number of households and a 9.7 % increase in population. More specifically, 
around two thirds of the reduction in household gas consumption between 2006 and 2009 (4.9 %/year) was 
attributed to energy efficiency (36 % was due to insulation, 36 % to condensing boilers and the remainder to 
behavioural change) and the primary driver of energy savings over this period was the supplier obligations. 
124 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4: Case study on the EEOS: In the UK it was doubled in 2005 and 
in 2008 followed by another increase of 20 % (of the 2008 target) in 2009. In France, the target for 2015-
2017 is almost 100 % higher than for the period 2011-2014. In Italy the annual targets increased by 100 % 
every year from 2005 to 2007, almost by 300 % from 2007 to 2008; then increased by on average 20 % until 
2016. 

44 

 
                                                            
Table 5: Impact on energy demand due to the measures implemented under the EEOS125 

Final energy savings 
per year (ktoe) 

Reduction of final 
energy consumption 
per year 

UK 

Denmark 

France 

Italy 

Austria 

Time period 

2008-2012 

2015 

2011-2013 

2015 

2015 

Vermont, U.S. 

2012-2014 

California, 
U.S. 

2010-2012 

Source: Regulatory Assistance Project  

237 

291 

377 

500 

136 

10 

384 

0.5 % 

4.2 % 

0.4 % 

0.4 % 

0.9 % 

1.7 % 

1 % 

Sector 
household 
sector  
all sectors 

all sectors 

all sectors 
household and 
industry sectors 
all sectors 
except transport 
all sectors 
except transport 

To  help  disseminate  best  practice  and  guidance  on  EEOS  and  alternative  measures  an  EU 
observatory  has  been  established  under  the  ENSPOL  project  financed  under  the  Intelligent 
Energy Europe programme126. 

Four Member States have designed their obligation schemes to tackle also energy poverty127. 
Evidence  shows  that  this  has  proven  to  work  effectively.128 For  example,  in  the  UK,  the 
existing ECO129 requires that about 1/3 of the total energy savings are delivered in the poorest 
areas  (25 %  lowest  areas  on  the  Index  of  Multiple  Deprivation)  and  £3.7  bn  of  lifetime 
savings should be achieved within households who receive certain state benefits. In Ireland it 
is required that obligated parties achieve 5 % of savings among households in fuel poverty130. 

2.5.1.2  Alternative measures  

As  alternative  to  or  addition  to  an  energy  efficiency  obligation  scheme,  Member  States  can 
opt  for  other  measures  as  long  as  the  amount  of  savings  required  under  Article  7(1)  is 
achieved  by  2020.  12  Member  States  have  chosen  to  implement  only  alternative  measures; 
another 12 Member States have opted for the mixed approach (EEO scheme in combination 
with alternative measures). 

As for the obligation schemes, the default instrument in Article 7, Member States have put in 
place  appropriate  monitoring,  control  and  verification  systems  to  ensure  that  the  reported 
energy savings are credible and in line with the requirements of Article 7 and Annex V.  

125 The reduction of final energy consumption per year is expressed in both absolute values and as a percentage 

of anticipated consumption under a BAU scenario).  

126 ENSPOL  project  co-funded  by  the  IEE,  Contract  N°:  IEE/13/824/SI2.675067  (objective  to  help  Member 
States establish and implement robust EEOS or alternative policy measures under Article 7 of the EED). 
127 Article 7(7)(a) provides that Member States may include social aims within the EEOS and require obligates 

parties to achieve certain amount of savings with households at energy poverty or in social housing. 

128 Historically only the UK has used EEOS widely for this purpose (France introduced the option to support fuel 
poverty programmes as part of their EEOS as well), and these were initially on a voluntary basis (for further 
information consult analysis by Rosenow et al. (2013)). 
129 Energy Company obligation (in place from 2015-2017). 
130 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015), Appendix 4: Case study on EEOS, Table 4 – Overview of the EEOS. 

45 

 
 
                                                            
2.5.2  Efficiency 

  To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been 

so far achieved? 

There is limited evidence available to what extent the costs related to the implementation of 
the requirements of Article 7 and Annex V could be justified given that the objectives are to 
be  achieved  only  by  end  of  2020  and  it  is  too  early  to  make  such  assessment.  There  is, 
however, evidence available as regards the cost-effectiveness related to the energy efficiency 
obligation  schemes  in  some  Member  States  (including  the  administrative  costs)  and 
information on costs-effectiveness of some alternative measures (financing schemes and fiscal 
measures,  regulations  and  voluntary  agreements)  which  are  used  for  achieving  the  required 
savings  under  Article  7,  as  these  were  already  widely  used  as  part  of  energy  efficiency 
policies before the EED.  

In general, there are two types of costs involved – investment costs and administrative costs 
(including monitoring and reporting) to run the policy. The situation is different for the EEO 
schemes  and  the  alternative  measures  as  energy  suppliers  and  distributors  are  obliged  to 
materially  contribute  to  the  generation  of  energy  savings  at  energy  end-users  sites  under 
EEOS and to do so they have to borne some investment costs that can however generally be 
passed  on  to  these  end-users.  More  importantly,  market  based  instruments  (e.g.  EEOS  and 
taxes) tend to stimulate market activity, while subsidies may bring the risk of crowding-out of 
private capital, if not used as a triggering element addressing predominantly additional costs 
related  with  long-term  payback  measures,  or  to  address  social  issues.  The  effectiveness  of 
grants can be low if not designed properly, and if not monitored131.  

Available  information  from  dialogue  with  the  Member  States  suggests  that  administrative 
burden associated with the implementation of the requirements of Article 7 is somewhat high 
as Member States had to put in place monitoring and verification systems to ensure credibility 
of savings achieved. Concrete evidence for assessing such costs is limited and available only 
for  a  few  Member  States,  and  mostly  for  those  having  an  EEOS.  The  Commission  will 
analyse this in due time when more evidence on the achievement of the savings under Article 
7 becomes available.  

The  other  aspect  which  should  be  taken  into  account  is  the  range  of  benefits  thanks  to  the 
reduced final energy consumption which are translated first of all to lower bills for the final 
consumers  (thanks  for  example  to  the  renovated  buildings  that  consumes  less  energy), 
especially for poor households132, also contributing to lower CO2 emission levels and better 
air  quality  and  health,  and  in  the  wider  perspective  reduces  the  dependence  from  imported 
energy.  

To what extent has the intervention been cost-effective? 

The available evidence shows that the EEOS are highly cost-effective (see Figure 8)133. The 
literature  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  different  energy  efficiency  policy  measures  points 

131 Report  of  European  Court  of  Auditors  (2012)  on  "Cost-effectiveness  of  Cohesion  Policy  investments  in 

energy efficiency":  http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR12_21/SR12_21_EN.PDF. 

132 When measures are properly designed to target this end-users category (e.g. by imposing energy saving sub-

targets to be achieved in this category). 

133 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED (section 4.3). 

46 

 
 
                                                            
out that alternative policy measures can also be cost-effective134 135,. This depends on the level 
of the target measure aims to achieve, the measure itself, its design and also on the sector. For 
example,  administrative  costs  of  taxes  can  be  modest  in  relation  to  the  revenues  generated 
(see Table 6), but it is though difficult to draw firm conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of 
energy and CO2 taxes in general terms since a range of factors need to be considered when 
assessing their cost-effectiveness.  

As  regards  voluntary  agreements  and  regulations,  the  cost  effectiveness  of  these  measures 
depends  also  on  design  and  objectives.  In  addition  they  are  very  often  implemented  in 
combination  with  other  policy  measures  such  as  financial  support  and  thus  the  assessment 
should  be  carried  out  on  the  integrated  policy  package136.  For  example,  the  Case  study  on 
voluntary  agreements  notified  under  Article  7  refers  to  the  JRC  (2010) 137  report  which 
provides an overview of the annual administrative costs of voluntary agreements (prior 2010), 
cannot  provide  concrete  conclusions  as  regards  the  administrative  burden  related  to  the 
implementation of Article 7 of the EED. The estimates included in the above mentioned JRC 
report  refer  only  to  the  public  authorities'  manpower  costs  (Denmark  and  Sweden),  in  the 
range  of  150 000-270 000  Euro/year.  Cost  items  such  as  public  authorities'  subcontracting 
costs (Finland) and financial support to the development of roadmaps for relevant sectors (the 
Netherlands)  were  found  to  be  much  more  substantial,  up  to  25.5  million  Euro  in  the 
Netherlands in 2010. 

Table 6: Administrative Costs of Environmental Taxes138 

Country 

Poland 

Tax 

Administrative Cost 

Environmental taxes 

0.8-4.5 % of revenues 

Germany 

Environmental taxes 

0.1 % of revenues 

Czech Republic 

Energy taxes 

0.7-2.7 % of revenues 

UK 

Environmental taxes 

0.2-0.3 % of revenues 

Source: Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft 

As  regards  the  major  types  of  alternative  measures  notified  under  Article  7(9),  a  detailed 
analysis of each type of these measures is provided in the relevant case studies which are part 
of the Study on evaluating Article 7 of the EED139. 

134 Ricardo-AEA,  Harwell,  UK:  Review  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  energy  efficiency  schemes:  Rosenow,  J., 
Porter, F. (2015): A Comparative Review of Housing; Energy Efficiency Interventions. A report for Climate 
Change. Also (Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft): Case studies on alternative measures. 

135 RAP (2011): A Comparative Review of Housing. UK used an example suggests that EEOSs deliver seven to 
nine  times  more  savings  from  each  Euro  spent  in  a  well-managed  efficiency  programme  --  in  MWh  and 
resulting  GHG  emissions  --  than  it  will  through  generalised,  across-the-board  price  increases  achieved 
through taxation measures135. However, the same is likely to be the case for effective alternative measures. 

136 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015), Appendix 4: Case study on voluntary agreements and regulations. 
137 JRC.  (2010)  Voluntary  agreements  in  the  field  of  energy  efficiency  and  emission  reduction:  review  and 
analysis of the experience in member states of the European Union; Paolo Bertoldi and Silvia Rezessy, May 
2010, Ispra. 

138 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4: Case study on Energy and CO2 taxes. 
139 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4, Case studies on regulations, voluntary agreements, energy and 

CO2 taxes and financing programmes and fiscal incentives. 

47 

 
                                                            
  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the  achievements  observed  were 

attained? 

As stated above, the level of efficiency depends on the type of measures selected for Article 7 
purposes  and  also  on  the  complexity  of  monitoring  and  verification  regime  established  by 
Member  States  to  verify  the  savings  claimed  by  obligated  and  participating  parties.140 For 
example,  in  the  UK,  since  the  launch  of  the  UK’s  first  energy  company  obligation  (EEC1), 
through the end of CERT in 2012, the number of Ofgem staff dedicated to administration of 
the scheme was between 4 and 9 staff members. With the introduction of a more complicated 
structure,  the  number  increased  to  38  under  the  current  ECO  scheme (2013  -  present)141, 
which also imply higher costs to administer the scheme. 

The possibility of using multiple instruments (for ten Member States the number of measures 
equals or exceed 20) risks resulting in greater complexity for the Member States both in terms 
of greater effort associated with implementation, for example, calculating the energy savings 
and  more  importantly  ensuring  the  enforcement  of  these  different  instruments  especially  in 
the  case  of  extensive  scope,  and  verification  of  the  impact  including  addressing  the  risk  of 
double counting, especially in case of mixed approach (energy efficiency obligation schemes 
and alternative measures). This might lead to a high administrative burden and related costs. 

According to Member States' experience, clear and transparent rules that are communicated to 
all actors involved are a prerequisite for lowering the administrative burden in monitoring of 
the  energy  efficiency  measures  under  Article  7  for  both  instrument  types  –  EEOS  and 
alternative policy measures. This requires some level of standardisation of data structure, also 
allowing for consistent verification of achieved savings. 

Even though certain reporting requirements under Article 7 and Article 24(1) may be assumed 
to pose additional administrative burden on Member States142, the stakeholders' replies to the 
public  consultation  of  the  EED  revealed  that  monitoring  and  reporting  is  an  effective  and 
efficient  way  to  track  the  progress  of  achieved  savings  on  annual  basis.  This  is  especially 
important as regards tracking progress of the achievement of new savings of 1.5 % per year to 
see  how  Member  States  are  achieving  their  cumulative  targets  and  whether  additional 
measures are needed to fill the gap. 

Energy efficiency obligation schemes 

A  recent  review  of  the  existing  EEOS  in  France,  Italy  and  the  UK  analysed  the  cost-
effectiveness of the schemes and showed that all three systems are cost-effective.143 Evidence 
on the costs (administrative cost of the EEOS in France, Denmark, Italy and UK) has been as 
following144: 

140 CA  EED  –  Core  theme  8  on  monitoring  and  verification  (July  2015).  Member  States  have  underlined  that 
automation  of  the  monitoring  and  control  process  by  having  an  IT-based  system  helps  reducing  the 
administrative burden.  

141 Eoin Lees (2015) – toolbox on monitoring and verification of savings under Article 7 (UK experience). 
142 CA  EED  –  Core  theme  8  on  monitoring  and  verification  (November  2014).  As  regards  the  reporting  of 
savings, Member States have pointed out that in order to comply with the reporting requirement under Article 
24(1) by providing data on saving achieved for the previous year, only 5 MS will be able to submit this data 
by end of April as it is currently required, 4 MS will be able to submit this data later  – by June and 7 MS 
even by October. 

143 Giraudet,  L.-G.,  Finon,  D  European  experiences  with  white  certificate  obligations:  A  critical  review  of 

existing evaluations. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy (2014). 

144 Lees, E. (2012): Energy efficiency obligations–the EU experience. European Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy. 

48 

 
                                                            
  France: 0.4 Eurocent / kWh 
  Denmark: 0.45 Eurocent / kWh  
  Italy: 1.7 Eurocent / kWh  
  UK: 0.7 Eurocent / kWh  

As  indicated  above,  the  case  study  on  EEOS145 also  points  out  that  the  cost  of  the  scheme 
depends  on  the  type  of  energy  efficiency  measures  supported  by  the  EEOS  –  a  scheme 
promoting large and expensive measures may in fact incur lower cost per unit of energy saved 
compared  to  a  scheme  that  supports  small  and  not  standardized  measures.  Furthermore,  the 
administration  of  the  scheme  adds  to  the  cost  and  the  more  complex  an  EEOS  (e.g.  due  to   
complex calculation methods, or to the administration of such scheme including of a possibly 
established trading platform) the higher its administrative cost are likely to be. However, the 
evidence  on  administrative  cost  suggests  that  these  are  very  small  compared  to  the  overall 
cost of the scheme146. 

The  costs  associated  with  setting  up  the  EEO  schemes  are  relatively  high;  however,  the 
administrative  costs  to  run  the  scheme  form  then  a  relatively  small  part  of  the  overall 
expenditure of the energy efficiency actions (see Table 7).147 As regards the capital costs, the 
data  from  the  experienced  EEOS  schemes  of  the  EU  show  that  these  costs  have  decreased 
thanks to the expertise gained by the obligated parties and improved quality of installation of 
the measures.148 In general the costs to the energy companies vary significantly depending on 
the country ranging from EUR 185 million per year in Denmark to more than 1 billion EUR 
per year in the UK, which depends on the size of the scheme and the target to be achieved, 
and also on the specific actions financed through the EEOS.  

Table 7: Annual company cost and compliance cost of EEOSs149 

Time period 

2008-2012 
2015 
2011-2013 
2014 
2015 
2012-2014 
2010-2012 

Energy company 
costs (million Euro/ 
year) 
1,052 
185 
390 
700 
95 
39 
742150 

Energy company 
costs (Euro/ capita/ 
year)* 
 16  
 33 
 6  
 12  
 11  
 62  
 19  

Administrative costs (% 
of overall program 
costs) 
0.2 % 
0.3 % 
0.4 % 
1.4 % 
not available 
<0.3 %** 
not available 

UK 
Denmark 
France 
Italy 
Austria 
Vermont 
California 

*  Shown  on  per  capita  basis  solely  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  for  comparison;  this  does  not  indicate  the 
amount of money paid by individuals. 

** This is an estimate, based on the monitoring and evaluation expense of the Vermont Department of Public 
Service as a percentage of total operating expenses for state-wide energy efficiency programmes. 

145 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
146 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
147 Rosenow, J., Bayer, E. (2016): Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. Regulatory 

Assistance Project. 

148 eceee (2012) Briefing for DG Energy, EU Experience of Energy Efficiency Obligations/White 

Certificates & their Importance in Meeting Climate Change Challenges. 

149 Rosenow, J., Bayer, E. (2016): Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. Regulatory 
Assistance Project. 
150 Total program expenditure over 3 years ($2.5 billion)/ 3, converted into Euros. It does not include 

expenditure related to codes and standards ($30 million), and low-income programmes ($669 million). See 
CPUC.  

49 

 
 
                                                            
EEO schemes have brought significant benefits to final consumers so far such as lower energy 
bills  (see  Figure  10),  increased  indoor  comfort  (for  example,  in  the  UK  and  DK)  including  
low income consumers151. 

Figure 10: Illustrative long-term impact of EEOSs on energy bills152 

In  general,  the  benefits  stemming  from  policies  implemented  under  Article  7  significantly 
outweigh costs, both for obligated and participating parties and for consumers. While the cost 
of implementing the measures initially falls on obligated parties, these are usually passed on 
to end-users (e.g. households and industry)153 who in the end benefit considerably from cost 
savings  which  are  reflected  in  their  lower  energy  bills  (see  Table  9).  In  addition,  there  are 
benefits  incurred  to  obligated  parties  such  as  reduction  in  transmission  losses,  better 
reputation amongst consumers thanks to improved services and increased competitiveness.   

The table below demonstrates the EEOSs' impact on energy bills in terms of cost per kWh and 
compares this to the average cost per supplied kWh (weighted average), which confirms the 
cost-effectiveness  of  the  obligation  schemes  for  the  selected  countries.  In  fact,  for  the 
countries analysed (see Table 8) the cost of an average kWh delivered to final consumers is 
about 13-26 times higher than the cost of saving one kWh of final energy depending on the 
country154. 

151 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015) Case study on EEOS, Table 4 – Overview of the EEOS. 
152 Rosenow, J., Bayer, E. (2016): Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. Regulatory 
Assistance  Project.This  estimation  has  been  based  on  the  typical  characteristics  of  the  EEOS  in  Europe, 
assuming the measures target the household sector with average 1 % yearly savings and average 3 % share of 
costs  of  an  average  annual  energy  bill  of  1  500  euro,  and  split  of  lifetimes:  25 %  5  years,  25 %  10  years, 
25 % 15 years and 25 % 20 years. 

153 Obligated parties operating in fully liberalised markets can pass on the costs at their own discretion, they may 
spread the cost unevenly across customers, putting the burden primarily on those customers who tend not to 
switch supplier (RAP study on determining costs and benefits of EEOSs under Article 7). 

154 Rosenow, J., Bayer, E. (2016): Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. Regulatory 

Assistance Project. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
Table 8: Comparison of costs of EEOSs across selected countries (unit cost of saved energy) 

Time period 

UK 

2008-2012 

Denmark 

2015 

France 

Italy 

Austria 
Vermont, 
U.S. 
California, 
U.S.156 

2011-2013 

2014 

2015 

2012-2014 

2009-2011** 

Weighted average EEOS 
cost of lifetime energy 
savings 
(Eurocent / kWh)155 
1.1 

Weighted average retail prices of 
comparable energy supply for relevant 
sectors 
(Eurocent / kWh) 
10 

0.5 

0.4 

0.7 

0.5 

3.2* 

2.1 

13 

9 

9 

8 

11.57 

12.24 

* Includes both electricity and natural gas and fuel oil savings; may not fully account for longer-lifetimes of 
non-electricity savings measures. 

** Data for a different set of years; the cost to the energy companies not available for the 2010-2012 period. 

According to the analysis, EEOSs' costs are equivalent to about 1-5 % of the average energy 
bill on the assumption that costs are passed on to the final consumers (see Table 9). However, 
it is important to note that although it results in the higher cost per energy unit consumed, in 
reality the energy efficiency actions carried out under the EEO scheme  have direct impact on 
reduced  energy consumption level which in  turn benefit  consumers through reduced overall 
energy bills due to the achieved energy cost savings.   

Table 9: Comparison of costs of EEOSs, expressed as share of energy bill157 

Cost as share of average energy bill 

Household sector 

Industry sector  All sectors 

2 % 
2 % 
N/A 
1 % 
not available yet 

N/A 
5 % 
N/A 
not available 
0.9 % - 1.4 % 

N/A 
N/A 
0.5 % - 1.0 % 
not available 
not available  

6 % 

6 % 

N/A 

UK 
Denmark 
France 
Italy 
Austria 
Vermont, 
U.S. 

Source: The Regulatory Assistance Project 

Moreover,  data  on  the  breakdown  of  energy  bills  in  some  countries  also  illustrate  the 
comparatively  low  cost  recovered  through  the  energy  bills  for  the  measures  financed  under 
the EEOSs in comparison to other bill items (see Figure 11). 

155 The figures for the U.S. are generally higher because costs in the US are generally higher than those in the 
EU  due  to:  shorter  measure  life  assumptions,  more  'aggressive'  or  'deeper'  savings,  also  targeting  energy 
poverty which is more costly; costs are levelised whereas in the EU not all countries discount energy savings, 
the higher depth of savings than in most of the EU examples.  

156 https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/cse-report-summary-overview-presentation_0.pdf  
157 Rosenow, J., Bayer, E. (2016): Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes. Regulatory 

Assistance Project. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 11: Breakdown of the average household energy bill in Italy (2015)158 

Source: The Regulatory Assistance Project 

Some  Member  States  have  developed  trading  systems  to  further  increase  the  cost-
effectiveness.  For  example,  France  and  Italy  have  put  in  place  white  certificate  schemes 
enabling  bidding  for  the  best  market  price  for  white  certificates  issued  following  the 
installation of energy efficiency improvement actions. Evidence from these schemes suggests 
that  trading  systems  have  helped  aggregating  investments  for  small  projects,  creating  new 
business  models,  especially  related  to  energy  performance  contracting  and  energy  services 
companies  (ESCOs)  which  are  often  SMEs.  In  Italy,  for  example,  967  energy  services 
companies159 have  been  actively  involved  in  the  white  certificate  scheme  to  install  energy 
efficiency measures as of 2015. 

In Ireland, a trading platform is established to allow energy services companies to participate 
in the EEOS by bidding more competitive prices while providing high quality installation of 
energy efficiency measures, e.g. insulation of roofs or walls. It is worth to note that, energy 
efficiency obligation schemes help with aggregation of the fragmented market at the level of 
obligated/entrusted parties and that (in particular under white certificates trading which in turn 
builds investment confidence through standardisation). 

Alternative measures 

The  cost-effectiveness  of  these  measures  varies  per  Member  State  as  there  are  different 
factors  involved  such  as  the  type  and  coverage  of  the  measure.  This  has  been  analysed  in 
more  detail  for  three  types  of  major  measures  notified  under  the  alternative  approach  of 
Article  7(9)  (regulations  and  voluntary  agreements,  taxation  measures  and  financing 
programmes and fiscal incentives) in the relevant case studies accompanying the Evaluation 
study on Article 7160. 

Given  that  10  Member  States  have  each  notified  20  or  more  alternative  measures  under 
Article 7 (see table 4) this could imply that the costs involved to administer these measures 
specifically  for  the  purposes  of  Article  7  might  be  higher  (even  though  there  is  no  data 

158 http://www.autorita.energia.it/it/consumatori/bollettatrasp_ele.htm 
159 http://www.gse.it/it/CertificatiBianchi/Pages/default.aspx  
160 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Appendix 4: Case studies on four major measures under Article 7. 

52 

 
 
                                                            
available to prove it), given the need for monitoring and verification of savings claimed from 
these measures, in particular to ensure that the double counting due to potential risks of policy 
overlaps  between  different  instruments  is  addressed  (especially  for  Member  States  having 
mixed approaches - EEO scheme and alternative measures).  

As  regards  regulations  and  voluntary  agreements,  the  literature  review  indicates  that  the 
administrative cost of the measures is relatively low (even lower for voluntary agreements). 
Costs  may  increase  if  these  policy  measures  are  combined  with  other  policies,  such  as  tax 
incentives or other types of financial support.  

Depending  on  the  actions  promoted,  financing  incentives  and  schemes  can  be  very  cost-
effective,  and  benefits  tend  to  exceed  costs  if  additional  tax  revenues,  positive  employment 
effects and reduced GHG emissions are also taken into account.  

Even  though  the  studies  suggest  that  administrative  costs  of  energy  and  CO2  taxes  are 
generally modest in relation to the revenues generated, there is a range of factors which need 
to be considered when assessing their cost-effectiveness, such as the level at which the tax is 
set in comparison to the cost of energy or CO2  reduction, and exemptions granted161. 

Concerning  subsidies,  the  Report  of  European  Court  of  Auditors  pointed  out  in  their 
assessment of Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency, including an examination of 
four programmes and a sample of 24 energy efficiency investment projects in public buildings 
from  the  2000-2006  and  2017-2013  financing  periods,  that  subsidies  had  not  always  been 
deployed  having  in  mind  cost-effectiveness  of  public  expenditure  162 .  In  the  2014-2020 
financing period, this is being addressed by preconditions for the use of the funding, including 
certain  conditions  linked  to  the  EPBD  and  the  EED,  a  reinforced  framework  for  results-
orientated  performance,  and  encouragement  for  increased  use  of  financial  instruments.  In 
general,  a  combination  of  public  funds  (e.g.  addressing  market  failures  –  e.g.  those  cost 
categories  or  measures  not  usually  addressed  under  market  based  mechanisms)  and  private 
capital could provide for more effective solutions.  

  Is there potential to simplify and deliver the objectives of Article 7 more efficiently? 

The fact that Member States have chosen a large number of different alternative measures, or 
a  combination  of  EEOS  and  alternative  measures,  shows  that  the  flexibility  in  Article  7  to 
choose how to achieve the required energy savings has been fully used. Some measures may 
be less  efficient  than others, and the wide choice  may result in  greater complexity  and  thus 
greater efforts associated with calculation of energy savings, and also with the verification of 
actual  impacts  and  possible  double  counting  in  case  of  overlaps  between  the  different 
instruments.  This  is  the  consequence  of  the  Member  State  exercising  the  policy  choice  the 
legislators left to them in order to respect the subsidiarity of Member States. 

Even though it is too early to assess the overall achievement of the objectives of Article 7 due 
to the reasons mentioned above, the available analysis of the implementation of Article 7 and 
the structured dialogue with the Member States show that some of the provisions need to be 
simplified  to  ensure  more  efficient  application  of  the  requirements,  notably  additionality, 
materiality  and  eligibility,  applying  to  both  energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  and 
alternative measures.  

161 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015): Study on evaluating the implementation of Article of the EED. 
162  Court  of  Auditors  report  on  "Cost-effectiveness  of  Cohesion  Policy  investments  in  energy  efficiency": 

http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR12_21/SR12_21_EN.PDF  

53 

 
                                                            
2.5.3  Relevance 

  To what extent is the intervention still relevant? 

Experience  from  the  implementation  of  previous  EU  policies  on  energy  efficiency,  in 
particular under the ESD, showed that the lack of a detailed EU framework made it difficult 
to achieve the energy savings target agreed by Member States. The Impact Assessment of the 
EED163 showed that having a common EU framework reduced costs, benefited from the scale 
of the internal market and allowed national policy-makers to learn from each other.  

  To  what  extent  have  the  original  objectives  proven  to  have  been  appropriate  for  the 

intervention in question? 

The  original  objectives  of  Article  7  remain  appropriate  as  the  European  framework 
complements  national  measures  and  allows  more  effective  and  coordinated  achievement  of 
the EU 2020 energy efficiency objectives. In the context of a new energy efficiency objective 
for 2030, EU action becomes even more relevant to ensure that the effort at national level to 
reduce  the  energy  consumption  leads  to  the  achievement  of  the  new  2030  objective  and 
addresses the climate change, security of supply and competitiveness challenges.  

  How well do the (original) objectives (still) correspond to the needs within the EU? 

Having  an  EU  framework  on  energy  efficiency,  notably  as  regards  Article  7  of  the  Energy 
Efficiency  Directive  (given  that  about  half  of  savings  of  the  EED  are  expected  from  this 
Article),  ensures  also  stability  for  the  long-term  planning  and  unlocks  the  needed  energy 
efficiency  investments  as  it  sends  an  appropriate  signal  to  the  investors  and  businesses 
involved.  

Energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  can  also  contribute  to  effectively  address  energy 
poverty issue as Member States can require obligated parties to achieve a certain amount of 
savings  in  households  affected  by  poverty  in  general  or  energy  poverty  in  particular164.  In 
fact,  four  Member  States  have  foreseen  measures  with  social  aims  (Austria,  France,  Ireland 
and  the  United  Kingdom)  targeting  low  income  households  under  their  schemes,  and  one 
Member  State  (Bulgaria)  has  foreseen  such  a  possibility  in  their  national  legislation  even 
though has not put yet in place concrete measures165. 

2.5.4  Coherence 

  To what extent  are the provisions contained in Article 7 internally coherent or  are there 

possible overlaps with other relevant EU legislation?  

Article 7 is coherent with other measures of the Energy Efficiency Directive. It complements 
other  policies  such  as  ecodesign,  energy  labelling  and  the  energy  performance  of  buildings 
thanks to its "additionality"166 principle requiring that only those end-use energy savings that 
exceed  the  minimum  requirements  originating  from  EU  policies  are  eligible  and  can  be 
counted towards the Article 7 target.   

163 SEC(2011) 779 final, Impact assessment of the EED. 
164 Provision on social aims for EEOS are referred to in Article 7(7)a). 
165 Ricardo AEA/ CE Delft (2015) Case study on EEOS, Table 4 – Overview of the EEOS. 
166 Additionality is referred to in Annex V (2), (3), and in Article 7(9)(d) and (e). 

54 

 
                                                            
This  is  the  only  Article  of  the  Directive  which  puts  an  obligation  upon  utilities  -  energy 
suppliers and distributors - to achieve energy savings amongst their final consumers (chosen 
by 16 Member States) and thus contributes to the achievement of the EU 2020 objective on 
energy  efficiency  given  that  in  addition  to  the  additionality  criterion,  Article  7  also  forbids 
double  counting  in  case  of  internal  policy  overlaps.  Moreover,  Article  7  creates  scope  for 
addressing energy poverty under energy efficiency obligation schemes. In fact, four Member 
States  have  foreseen  measures  targeting  low  income  households  under  their  obligation 
schemes, and one Member State has foreseen such a possibility in their national legislation.  

  Do the provisions contained in Article 7 contradict or complement other EU interventions 

with similar objectives? 

Overall, the provisions contained in Article 7 complement other EU interventions and create 
positive synergies with other climate and energy policies, such as the EPBD, Effort Sharing 
Decision and sustainable transport policies. More detailed analysis on relevant policy areas is 
provided below:  

Interaction with the ETS, Effort-Sharing Decision and non-ETS 

In  general,  the  Emissions  Trading  System  (ETS)  and  energy  efficiency  measures  are  not 
competing but mutually reinforcing instruments. One of the effects of a carbon price created 
by the ETS is that it opens up new markets and applications for energy efficient products and 
technologies. Energy efficiency policy is also aimed at overcoming non-price barriers/market 
failures.  

The  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  offers  flexibility  to  Member  States  as  regards  how  to 
implement  different  obligations  under  Directive  and  their  indicative  national  targets,  and 
notably  Article  7  whereby  Member  States  can  choose  between  the  energy  efficiency 
obligation  scheme167 and  alternative  measures.  In  the  calculation  of  the  required  amount  of 
energy savings under Article 7, Member States could use four exemptions under Article 7(2), 
within the maximum limit of 25 % reduction. One of those exemptions (Article 7(2)b) allows 
excluding final energy consumption by ETS industries, which was used by 15 Member States.  

Energy  efficiency  policy  in  general  and  Article  7  in  particular  will  affect  electricity 
consumption, and hence the demand for ETS allowances in two ways. On the one hand, more 
efficient  electrical  appliances  will  reduce  demand.  On  the  other,  measures  that  drive 
replacement of fossil fuels with energy efficient electric appliances (e.g heat pumps) will lead 
to an increase in the demand for electricity. 

The stakeholders' interviews carried out  in  the context  of the evaluation study on the Effort 
sharing Decision168 point out to strong coherence with the EU objectives of energy efficiency 
and renewable energy169. That study concluded that more analysis needed to be done on how 
the  Effort  Sharing  Decision  interacts  with  energy  efficiency  policies,  notably  on  how  these 
have contributed to the Effort Sharing Decision170, which becomes even more important in the 
light  of more  ambitious  climate objective for 2030. In  addition, the Report  of the European 

167 16  Member  States  have  chosen  the  default  approach  and  12  out  of  those  in  combination  with  alternative 

measures; only 4 Member States have notified EEOS as the only instrument to achieve savings. 

168 Decision No 406/2009/EC. 
169 Final Report on the Study on Evaluation of Decision No 406/2009/EC (Effort Sharing Decision). 
170 ClientEarth (2016): Contribution by energy efficiency to the goals of the Effort Sharing Decision. 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Environmental  Agency  of  2014171 concluded  that  progressing  towards  several  climate  and 
energy targets has presented a number of positive synergies, including that energy efficiency 
measures help meeting the ESD targets. 

Interaction with the EPBD, Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives 

It is worth pointing out that Article 7 complements the implementation of other aspects of the 
EU's energy efficiency policy. As Article 7 also encourages the take up of measures set out in 
those other instruments it is therefore fully coherent with them. The instruments mentioned do 
not require the quantification of energy savings that result from their application, so while it 
may  be  complicated  to  say  which  energy  efficiency  impacts  should  be  'assigned'  to  which 
policy, there is no formal risk of double counting. 

For example, the EBD sets minimum energy requirements for new or renovated buildings, but 
contains  no  requirements  as  to  how  many  buildings  must  be  renovated,  or  by  when.  By 
contrast,  Article  7  requires  actual  energy  savings,  and  therefore  encourages  building 
renovations to take place in practice. The EBPD can therefore be seen as driving an increase 
in the depth of renovation of existing buildings, complemented by Article 7 which serves to 
increase  their  rate.  Almost  half  of  the  savings  notified  under  Article  7  (42 %)  are  to  be 
generated  in  the  buildings  sector  and  it  can  be  observed  that  the  rate  of  renovation  is 
accelerated  due  to  the  specific  measures  (i.e.  financing  incentives  and  programmes) 
introduced in Member States to stimulate the renovation of residential and tertiary buildings 
(see Figure 9). 

Analysis  has  revealed  that  some  aspects  in  relation  to  other  EU  legislation  could  be  better 
clarified  to  ensure  consistency  and  better  links,  notably  as  regards  application  of  the 
"additionality"  principle,  as  Member  States  have  the  possibility  to  use  energy  efficiency 
measures targeting different end-use sectors already covered by the other EU legislation, such 
as  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive,  Ecodesign  and  Energy  Labelling 
Directives. 

2.5.5  EU added value 

  What  has  been  the  EU-added  value  of  Article  7,  and  do  the  issues  addressed  continue 

requiring action at EU level? 

Experience  from  the  implementation  of  the  previous  EU  policies  on  energy  efficiency,  in 
particular  under  the  Energy  Services  Directive,  showed  that  the  lack  of  a  detailed  EU 
framework  made  it  difficult  to  achieve  the  energy  savings  target  agreed  by  Member  States. 
The Impact Assessment of the EED172 showed that having a common EU framework reduced 
costs, benefited from the scale of the internal market and allowed national policy-makers to 
learn from each other. The European framework complements national measures and allows 
more effective and coordinated achievement of the EU 2020 energy efficiency objectives.  

Moreover,  in  view  of  more  ambitious  energy  efficiency  objective  for  2030  agreed  by  the 
European Council of October 2014, Article 7 will inevitably play a role as the key contributor 

171 Trends  and  projections  in  Europe  2014:  Tracking  progress  towards  Europe's  climate  and  energy  targets:  

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/trends-and-projections-in-europe-2014  

172 SEC(2011) 779 final, Impact assessment of the EED. 

56 

 
 
                                                            
to  the  achievement  of  energy  savings  requiring  Member  States  to  put  in  place  energy 
efficiency improvement measures while respecting the subsidiarity principle. 

Having an EU framework on energy efficiency allows businesses and citizens making more 
informed  choices  about  their  energy  consumption,  become  active  players  in  the  energy 
markets and spread best practice across Member States. In addition, the benefit of aggregation 
and  market-based  standardisation  under  EEOs  is  also  an  important  building  stone  for 
increased investments into energy efficiency at the lower cost for taxpayer. 

  Why would the objectives of Article 7 be better achieved by EU action? 

Article  7  is  an  important  instrument  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  that  is  expected  to 
contribute more than half of energy savings to the overall 2020 EU energy efficiency target 
(estimated  impact  of  85  Mtoe  in  primary  energy  in  2020)173.  As  stated  above  the  European 
framework  allows  more  effective  and  coordinated  achievement  of  the  EU  2020  energy 
efficiency  objectives  ensuring  stability  to  investors  that  in  turn  allow  unlock  the  needed 
financing for implementing the energy efficiency measures.  

173 Estimations made by the Commission services on the impact expected from Article 7 in 2020. 

57 

 
 
                                                            
3  CONCLUSIONS  

3.1  Conclusions on the implementation of Article 6 

The  key  finding  from  the  evaluation  is  that  it  is  too  early  to  judge  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives of Article 6. And that in consequence it is premature to proceed to a legal revision 
of Article 6 of the EED.  

Analysis  nonetheless  supports  that  Article  6  addresses  the  main  barriers  which  prevent 
procurement bodies applying energy efficiency criteria in their public procurement procedures. 
These  relate  to  a  general  lack  of  awareness,  perceived  inconsistency  of  energy  efficiency 
criteria with other procurement criteria, the lack of knowledge and expertise, perceived higher 
costs  when  procuring  energy  efficient  products,  services  or  buildings,  and  experienced 
difficulties to check the requirements or the lack of information.  

The following conclusions can be summarised under each evaluation criteria analysed: 

Effectiveness 

The evaluation of the implementation of Article 6 to date reveals that it is too early to judge 
the achievement of the objectives of Article 6 due to the following reasons: 

1) 

2) 

3) 

The transposition deadline was 5 June 2014 and many Member States are 
still putting in place the needed transposition and implementation measures 
related to Article 6 (time constraint); 
There  is  insufficient  experience  in  the  Member  States  on  implementing 
Article 6;  
There  are  no  data  allowing  the  quantification  of  progress  in  the  rate  of 
public  procurement  applying  energy  efficiency  criteria  of Article  6  of  the 
EED (data constraint). 

Efficiency 

It appears too early to judge whether the provisions of Article 6 itself could be simplified. The 
analysis supporting the evaluation has however identified several possible areas for improving 
the implementation of this article.  

The evaluation at national level notably revealed that out of the list of conditionalities, “cost-
effectiveness”  and  “economic  feasibility”  are  the  most  widely  implemented  ones.  The  cost-
effectiveness  of  these  processes  is  expected  to  improve  due  to  systematically  employing 
criteria for the life-cycle rather than the initial cost of the purchase. 

As regards ways to simplify or streamline the provisions of Article 6, the evaluation suggests 
there is a need for clarification, for improved guidance on implementation and that synergies 
with others existing frameworks on sustainable public procurement are strengthened. 

Relevance 

The public sector constitutes an important driver to stimulate market transformation towards 
more  efficient  products,  buildings  and  services.    Over  250 000  public  authorities  in  the  EU 
spend  around  18 %  of  GDP  on  the  purchase  of  services,  works  and  supplies.  In  2008, 
approximately  a  fifth  of  that  total  annual  value  was  procured  at  European  level  which  is 
approximately 3.1 % of the total GDP of the European Union. The evaluation has shown that 
the primary relevance can be summed up as in the following: 

58 

 
Firstly, the EU intervention is relevant to EU citizens by providing better value for money in 
the operations of public administrations. 

Secondly,  it  acts  as  a  ‘pull’  factor  allowing  manufacturers  to  place  on  the  market  better 
products: the Energy Star Communication from 2011 notably showed that public procurement 
obligations  are  a  strong  driver  for  manufacturers  for  factoring  energy  efficiency  into  their 
production processes. 

Thirdly, by transforming the market of goods towards greater efficiency it allows consumers 
to  benefit.  The  article  contributes  to  reduced  energy  bills  given  that  the  majority  of  items 
covered by Annex III of the EED are consumer products.  

The evaluation indicates that the relevance of Article 6 EED for EU energy policy increased 
with the Energy Union Strategy, including the “efficiency first” principle. 

Coherence 

Coherence with the EU public procurement legislation 

The guidance note published in 2013 clarified the relationship between Article 6 and the EU 
Public Procurement Directive: 

The  Public  Procurement  Directive  sets  the  framework  for  how  procurement  should  be 
undertaken with the aim of ensuring principles such as fair competition and getting best value 
for taxpayers’ money. It leaves to specific legislation, such as the EED, any definition of what 
has to be purchased.  

In  the  case  of  the  EED  the  principles  of  'acting  fairly'  and  'getting  value  for  money'  are 
ensured by the fact that the minimum requirements the procured items must meet are openly-
available/non-proprietary and common and they aim at minimising the life-cycle cost of these 
items.  

The  requirements  of  Article  6  of  the  EED  are  in  line  with  and  complement  the  above-
described  generic  provisions  laid  down  in  the  New  Public  Procurement  Directive  and  more 
specifically Articles 67 and 68 of that Directive.  

Coherence with EU legislation on energy labelling and on ecodesign 

The provisions contained in Article 6 complement other EU policies with similar objectives 
such as the EU energy labelling and ecodesign rules. The guidance note on Article 6 clarified 
the  relationship  between  Article  6  and  the  related  procurement  items  covered  by  energy 
labelling 
implementing  regulations  under  Directive  2010/30/EU  and  by  ecodesign 
implementing regulations under Directive 2009/125/EC.   

Coherence with EU legislation on energy performance of buildings  

The EPBD and the EED are the two main directives aiming at reduction of energy demand by 
buildings.  

In  purchasing  or  making  new  rental  agreements  for  buildings,  central  governments  will  in 
general  have  to  choose  only  buildings  which  comply  with  the  minimum  efficiency 
requirements that the Member State in question has set under the EPBD.  

59 

 
Article 6 and Annex III of the EED indicate that purchased or rented buildings have to meet 
the minimum energy performance requirements set under Article 4 of the EPBD. The EPBD 
requires  that  energy  performance  certificates  are  to  be  included  in  sales  advertisements  and 
national  inspection  schemes  for  heating  and  air  conditioning  systems.  It  sets  the  target  for 
zero energy buildings and requires energy performance requirements for new buildings.  

Article 5(1) of the EED imposes also an obligation to gradually upgrade existing stock. While 
the  obligation  in  Article  5(1)  is  designed  to  effect  a  gradually  improvement  of  the  energy 
efficiency of the building stock, the obligation in Article 6(1) and Annex III(f) is designed to 
prevent the addition of new buildings or the renewal of leases for existing buildings which do 
not meet the minimum requirements.  

No contradiction or overlap between the provisions of Art 6 EED and other provisions of this 
legislation has been identified. 

Added value 

The  Impact  Assessment  of  the  EED  showed  that  having  a  common  EU  framework  reduced 
costs, would increase the Member States' ability to achieve the energy savings target agreed , 
and  would  allow  Member  States  to  benefit  from  the  scale  of  the  internal  market  and  for 
national policy-makers to learn from each other. A common EU framework contributes to a 
level-playing field across the internal market. 

3.2  Conclusions on the implementation of Article 7 

Member  States  have  notified  a  broad  range  of  policy  measures  (477)  to  reach  the  required 
end-use savings requirement under Article 7 that amounts to 250.3 Mtoe cumulative savings 
by 2020 (slightly exceeding the sum of notified national requirements which amount to 230.2 
Mtoe).  If  comparing  the  savings  specifically  for  the  year  2020  with  the  expected  energy 
savings  of  the  EED  2011  impact  assessment,  they  are  1 %  and  10 %  expressed  in  primary 
energy savings lower respectively.  

Actions  with  longer  lifetimes  planned  to  be  implemented  over  the  period  2014-2020,  in 
response to the notified policy measures, will continue to have an impact beyond 2020, and 
will therefore make a positive contribution to the 2030 objective. 

Almost  all  Member  States  have  established  Monitoring  and  Verification  (M&V)  systems  to 
check the reported energy savings for the EEOS and alternative measures. As regards specific 
elements  of  the  M&V  systems  (statistically  representative  sample  used,  independence  from 
obligated  and  participating  parties  ensured,  audit  protocols  in  place,  reporting  of  achieved 
savings and penalties applied in case on non-compliance), the level implementation of these 
vary across Member States. 

In general, there is more evidence available on how the monitoring and verification systems 
work  for  the  EEOS  than  for  the  alternative  measures  under  Article  7,  including  limited 
evidence  on  the  administrative  costs  associated  with  the  monitoring  and  reporting  the 
alternative measures, due to the recent implementation. 

More specifically the progress of the implementation is as follows: 

a)  Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes (EEOSs), the default instrument of Article 
7, are expected  to generate the highest amount  of savings by 2020 from a single 
measure notified under Article 7 (34 % or 86.1 Mtoe).  

60 

 
 
b)  Other  major  policy  measures  in  terms  of  the  amount  of  expected  energy  savings 
are  financing  schemes  and  fiscal  incentives  (19 %  or  49.0  Mtoe)  followed  by 
energy and CO2 tax measures (15 % or 34.4 Mtoe) and regulations and voluntary 
agreements (11 % or 27.1 Mtoe). 

c)  The majority of savings (42 % or 104.4 Mtoe) are expected to be generated in the 
buildings  sector  followed  the  industry  (8 %  or  18.9  Mtoe)  and  transport  (6 %  or 
15.7 Mtoe), the rest of the savings (44 % or 111.3 Mtoe) is expected to come from 
cross-cutting  measures  (e.g.  taxes,  building  regulations  applying  to  domestic  and 
non-domestic buildings, financing incentives applying to multiple sectors). 

  As regards the existing framework of Article 7 and Annex V, this is complex and certain 
requirements  are 
to  different 
interpreted  differently  by  Member  States 
transposition and implementation results or lack of information on how these are going to 
be  implemented.  The  most  critical  of  these  are  additionality,  materiality,  eligibility  and 
double  counting.  Those  provisions  require  further  clarification,  simplification  and/  or 
guidance. 

leading 

The following conclusions can be summarised under each evaluation criteria analysed: 

Effectiveness: 

  The  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  Article  7  on  energy  efficiency  obligation 
schemes and alternative measures reveals that Member States are on track to achieve the 
required  savings,  provided  that  the  measures  are  effectively  implemented  by  Member 
States  and  that  robust  monitoring  and  control  systems  are  established  to  check  the 
credibility of reported energy savings. It appears that the effectiveness depend mainly on 
the following factors:  

a)  Effective governance at national level to ensure the enforcement of implementation of 

Article 7 in line with the requirements;  

b)  Regular monitoring (via the Annual Reports) at national and EU level to ensure that 

the real outcome matches the estimated savings; 

c)  Further  Commission  dialogue  with  Member  States  to  address  the  non-conformity 
(including  through  the  infringement  procedure  where  appropriate)  and,  equally 
important, to promote the exchange of best practices. 

  Even though the overall performance appears to be broadly on track, there are still areas 
for further improvement both as regards the implementation of Article 7 at national level 
and  simplification  and  clarification  of  certain  requirements,  notably  "additionality"  and 
"materiality" to allow more effective and efficient achievement of the savings.  

Efficiency: 

  The  evidence  shows  that  the  EEOSs  are  highly  cost-effective  since  the  administrative 
costs  form  a  relatively  small  part  of  the  overall  expenditure  of  the  energy  efficiency 
actions, although they can be expected to vary between Member States. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
  Alternative  policy  measures  also  tend  to  be  cost-effective,  for  example  voluntary 
agreements, taxation measures and financing schemes and incentives. This depends on the 
level of the target (energy savings) measure aims to achieve, design of the measure itself.  

  Given the recent transposition deadline it was not possible to establish the assessment of 
costs  associated  to  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  for  the  application  of 
requirements  under  Article  7  for  the  majority  of  Member  States  as  the  reporting  of  the 
savings is taking off just recently. The dialogue with the Member States suggests though 
that  the  requirements  imply  high  administrative  burden,  which  was  also  stressed  in  the 
replies to the relevant public consultation on the EED. 

Relevance: 

  The  original  objectives  of  Article  7  remain  relevant  as  the  European  framework 
complements  national  measures and  allows  more  effective  and  coordinated  achievement 
of the EU 2020 energy efficiency objectives.  

  This becomes even more relevant in the context of the new 2030 ambitious climate and 
energy  objectives  including  those  set  by  the  EU  decarbonisation  agenda  for  2050,  to 
ensure  that  the  effort  at  national  level  to  reduce  the  energy  consumption  leads  to  the 
achievement  and  addresses  the  persisting  climate  change,  security  of  supply  and 
competitiveness challenges.  

Coherence: 

  Article  7  remains  coherent  with  other  measures  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive.  It 
complements other policies thanks to its "additionality" principle requiring that only those 
end-use  energy  savings  that  exceed  the  minimum  requirements  originating  from  EU 
policies are eligible and can be counted towards the Article 7 target.  

  Article  7  seems  to  complement  the  implementation  of  other  aspects  of  the  EU's  energy 
efficiency policy. For example, the EPBD drives an increase in the depth of renovation of 
existing  buildings,  and  is  complemented  by  Article  7  which  is  serving  to  increase  their 
rate.  

  Nevertheless,  analysis  has  revealed  that  some  aspects  in  relation  to  other  EU  legislation 
could  be  better  clarified  to  ensure  consistency  and  better  links,  notably  as  regards 
application of the "additionality" principle, as Member States have the possibility to use 
energy  efficiency  measures  targeting  different  end-use  sectors  already  covered  by  the 
other EU legislation, such as the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, Ecodesign 
and Energy Labelling Directives. 

  As  regards  the  interaction  with  the  Emissions  Trading  System  (ETS)  and  energy 
efficiency measures, those are mutually reinforcing instruments. The carbon price created 
by  the  ETS  opens  up  new  markets  and  applications  for  energy  efficient  products  and 
technologies. 

  As  regards  the  interaction  with  the  non-ETS  policy,  the  issued  Report  of  the  European 
Environmental Agency (2014) argued that progressing towards several climate and energy 
targets  has  presented  a  number  of  positive  synergies,  including  the  fact  that  energy 
efficiency measures help meeting the targets under the Effort-Sharing Decision. 

62 

 
 
 
 
Added value: 

  Article 7 is an important instrument of the Energy Efficiency Directive that is expected to 
contribute  more  than  half  of  energy  savings  of  the  Directive  to  the  overall  2020  EU 
energy efficiency target (estimated impact of 85 Mtoe in primary energy in 2020) 174.  

  As  stated  above  the  European  framework  allows  more  effective  and  coordinated 
achievement  of  the  EU  2020  energy  efficiency  objectives  ensuring  stability  to  investors 
that  in  turn  allow  unlock  the  needed  financing  for  implementing  the  energy  efficiency 
measures.  

174 Estimations made by the Commission services on the impact expected from Article 7 for year 2020. 

63 

 
 
 
                                                            
4  ANNEXES TO THE FINAL REPORT 

Annex 1 - Glossary of acronyms and abbreviations  

BVP 
CA EED 
CEPPI  
CHAP  
Commission    
DG  
Directive 
EcoDesign  
EE 
EEC 
EED  
EEOS   
Energy Labelling  
EPBD   
ESCOs  
ESD 
ESIF    
ETS  
EU PDA  
FI  
GPP  
GRASP  
H2020   
ICT 
LCC  
M&V    
MS 
NEEAP  
PPD  
PPI 
RAP 
SME 
SPP Regions 
SWD    
TCO  
TED  

Best Value Procurement 
Concerted Action of the Energy Efficiency Directive 
Coordinated energy-related PPI actions for cities 
Central registry for complaints and enquiries 
European Commission, unless specified otherwise  
Directorate-General 
Energy Efficiency Directive, unless specified otherwise  
EcoDesign Directive (2009/125/EC) 
Energy efficiency 
Energy Efficiency Calculation Tools 
Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) 
Energy efficiency obligation scheme 
Energy Labelling Directive (2010/30/EU) 
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2010/31/EU) 
Energy services companies 
Energy Services Directive (2006/32/EC) 
European Structural and Investment Funds 
Emissions Trading System 
EU Project Development Assistance 
Energy agency or regulator 
Green Public Procurement 
Growth and sustainability policies for Europe 
Horizon 2020 
Information and Communication Technologies 
Life Cycle Costing 
Monitoring and verification 
Member State(s) 
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 
Public Procurement Directive (EU/2014/24) 
Pro-innovation procurement approach  
Regulatory Assistance Project 
Small- and medium-sized enterprise  
Sustainable Public Procurement Regions 
Staff Working Document 
Total Costs of Ownership 
European public procurement data. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 – Procedural information 

Directorate  General  for  Energy  (Unit  C.3,  Energy  Efficiency)  was  the  lead  DG  on  the 
evaluation.  The  Evaluation  Roadmap  was  published  on  Agenda  Planning  Tool  with  the 
reference No AP 2015/ENER/062. The work on this evaluation started in January 2015. 

The Secretariat General chaired the Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) which was established 
for  the  Review  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive.  The  draft  evaluation  staff  working 
document  was  presented  and  discussed  with  the  services  on  20  October  2015.  The  ISG 
monitored  the  overall  progress  of  the  evaluation,  provided  comments  and  agreed  on  the 
overall conclusions of the evaluation. The ISG followed that the quality and objectivity of the 
evaluation  including  for  the  external  studies  is  ensured,  including  providing  the  quality 
assessment of the final reports of the relevant studies. 

Most  of  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  on  the  effectiveness  of  Article  6  on  purchasing  by 
public  bodies  are  based  on  the  study  "Review  of  the  effectiveness  of  implementation  of 
Article 6 of the EED", commissioned to the external contractor Spark/Ecorys. The study was 
launched in May 2015 and completed in December 2015.  

As  regards  Article  7  on  the  energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  and  alternative  measures, 
the Commission commissioned a study to the external contractor Ricardo-AEA (launched in 
December 2014 and completed in June 2016) on evaluating the implementation of Article 7 of 
the  EED  which  was  based  on  the  information  notified  by  Member  States  (notifications  to 
comply  with the reporting obligation of 5 December 2013 on Member States' measures and 
methodologies for implementing Article 7, additional information submitted via the National 
Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plans  or  through  the  structured  dialogue  including  the  EU  pilot 
process) during the time period from December 2013 until October 2015. 

Additional external study "Costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes" 
was commissioned to the Regulatory Assistance Project (from November 2015 to June 2016) 
to  specifically  analyse  the  related  costs  and  multiple  benefits  of  the  energy  efficiency 
obligation schemes in selected Member States and leading third countries.  

Even though the evaluation process was launched before the adoption of the Better Regulation 
Package (May 2015), it followed the new Better Regulation guidelines as much as possible.  

Annex 3 – Stakeholder consultation 

Relevant  stakeholders  (Member  States,  industry  associations,  consumers'  associations, 
research  and  academic  institutions,  private  companies,  NGOs  and  citizens)  were  involved 
throughout the entire process of the Review of the Energy Efficiency Directive.  

  Open public on-line consultation  

As  part  of  the  evaluation  process  and  impact  assessment  of  the  EED  Review175,  a  public 
consultation was launched  on 4 November 2015 to  receive feedback and input from a wide 
range of stakeholders. In line with good practice, the survey accepted responses for more than 

175 The consultation contributed to the EED Review and covered the following Articles: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 20; 24. 

65 

 
 
                                                            
12  weeks  (open  until  29  January  2016).  The  consultation  was  published  on  the  DG  Energy 
website176. The Commission's minimum standards on stakeholder consultation were all met.  
In  total  332  responses  were  submitted  to  the  online  survey,  with  additional  69  documents 
submitted  as  either  complementary  to  or  in  lieu  of  survey-based  submissions.  Most 
contributions  were  submitted  by  industry  associations  (140),  private  companies  (47)  and 
NGOs (33). A total of 19 central public authorities submitted contributions, including 18 from 
within the EU and Norway. The synthesis report of the public consultation is available online 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Public%20Consultation%20Report%20
on%20the%20EED%20Review.pdf . 

Energy Efficiency Directive Committee  

A targeted consultation with Member States took place at the EED Committee of 2 February 
where  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  evaluation  were  presented  to  and  discussed  with  the 
Member  States.  The  minutes  of 
the  Committee  meeting  are  available  online  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&1DUc
Ar7swgOUo3QJBUchyABe71l/AR8GAM7vQ7Y0lhQn/Qhs71dMAJ5dvcXCvNIj . 

  Workshop on monitoring and verification under Article 7  

On 3 February 2016 a dedicated workshop on monitoring and verification of energy savings 
generated by the energy efficiency obligation schemes and alternative measures under Article 
7. The workshop aimed at providing an overview of the monitoring and verification (M&V)  
systems  in  the  Member  States  including  the  main  design  features,  technical  monitoring  and 
verification of the savings and interaction with stakeholders. The workshop was attended by 
23 Member States and Norway.  

Summary of the discussion: 

Workshop  on  Monitoring  and  Verification  Systems  under  Article  7  of  the  Energy 
Efficiency Directive, 3 February 2016 

Under Article 7 and Annex V of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), Member States must 
ensure  that  energy  savings  are  correctly  accounted  for,  ensuring,  among  others  that 
independent  Monitoring  and  Verification  (M&V)  systems  covering  at  least  a  statistically 
significant  sample  are  put  in  place  for  both  Energy  Efficiency  Obligation  Schemes  (EEOS) 
and alternative measures. 

The  workshop  aimed  at  an  exchange  of  (good)  practices  between  Member  States.  It  was 
structured into 3 sessions. The first session provided an overview of the implementation of the 
M&V  measures  of  the  EED,  followed  by  presentations  by  several  Member  States  on  the 
general  design  of  M&V  schemes,  technical  monitoring  and  verification  of  savings  and 
interaction with stakeholders. 

The workshop was attended by 23 Member States and Norway.  

176  The  synthesis  report  is  available  on:  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-review-

directive-201227eu-energy-efficiency 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Major findings:  

  The large majority of Member States has reported to have M+V systems in place; and 
a  majority  have  notified  responsible  authorities  for  M&V,  including  the  compliance 
with the need of independent verification. However, a number of Member States still 
need to put in place audit protocols and statistically significant sampling, and penalties 
relating to compliance.  

  The general design of M&V systems varies greatly between Member States, not least 
due to the different designs of national EEOS and alternative measures (e.g. voluntary 
agreements  with  industry  sectors).  Even  between  Member  States  that  use  EEOS, 
M&V  schemes  differ  fundamentally,  due  to  (i)  the  vastly  different  number  of 
obligated parties subject to EEOS, and to (ii) different measures imposed under EEOS 
in  the  respective  Member  States.  Moreover,  M+V  differs  between  Member  States 
having the EEOS, where obligated parties are made to focus on different sectors, for 
example on households (UK), and the industrial sector (IE, DK). The differences also 
occur  in  how  Member  States  administer  the  combined  approach  –  EEOS  and 
alternative measures (specifically designed to address double counting) , for instance 
in AT. No evidence is available, though on how this works as the data are still to be 
collected. The workshops gave the impression that EEOS have more stringent M&V 
requirements  in  place  than  alternative  measures  (this  needs  to  be  confirmed  at  later 
stage). 

  No Member State appears to have yet estimated administrative costs related to M&V 
under Article 7 as  the instrument is relatively new and the achieved  savings are just 
about to be reported for many Member States. However, the administrative costs for 
setting up and maintaining M&V Systems appear to be high in many Member States 
and  it  is  partly  linked  to  the  number  of  measures  used  by  Member  States).   In 
particular in Member States with fully fledged M&V systems that apply a variety of 
measures  under  Article  7  necessitate  different  M&V  systems  with  increased 
monitoring  and  verification  costs.  The  costs  appear  also  to  be  high  for  the  M&V  of 
EEOS which are designed in some Member States to pursue specific policy objectives, 
e.g.  renovation  of  buildings  and  reducing  energy  poverty.  Some  Member  States 
reported also transition costs as they have to adapt existing M&V systems that were in 
force before the EED to fit the requirements of the EED.  

  Widely  different  strategies  for  stakeholder  interaction  are  put  in  place:   In  order  to 
reduce administrative burden, the interaction may be mostly/exclusively limited to few 
obligated parties (DK). Other Member States deal with a multitude of stakeholders of 
different  levels  (obligated  parties  and  supply  chain  –  installers,  ESCOs,  etc.)  for  the 
purpose  of  clarifying  responsibilities  and  rules,  including  education  and  awareness–
building,  which  may  include  specialised  websites,  regular  stakeholder  forums 
etc. (UK). 

  Reported strategies for reducing the complexity of the M+V:  

o  Reducing the costs and burden resulting from a high number of small obligated 
parties  by  imposing  obligations  on  associations  of  obligated  parties:  The 
association  carries  out  the  energy  efficiency  measures  and  the  projects  rather 
than many single obligated parties (DK). 

o  Not  linking  the  saving  obligations  with  specific mandatory  policy  measures  , 

e.g. renovation, energy poverty 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
o  Having a tailored on-line self-reporting system in the light of the complexity of 
instruments, namely the combination of EEOS and alternative measure for the 
purpose  of  reducing  costs,  administrative  burden  and  tackling  the  risk  of 
double counting (AT). 

o  Giving  obligated/participating  parties  a  safe  harbour  6  months  after  self-
reporting of savings (AT);  issuing white certificates allowing stakeholders to 
have  speedy  verification  (redemption  in  case  of  failure  within  3  years 
possible). 

o  Introducing  comparable  quantifiable  energy  credits  for  specific  savings  that 

can be passed from subcontractors up the chain to obligated parties (IE). 

 

Issues raised by Member States: 

o  Several  Member  States  asked  for  guidance  on  the  required  "statistically 

significant sample" for M+V.  

o  The benefit of introducing EU-wide default values for savings was discussed; 
but considered by most intervening Member States as impracticable to achieve 
in  the  light  of  varying  national  conditions  (e.g.  different  window  types, 
climatic conditions, etc.). 

  Stakeholder event on the review of the energy efficiency legislation  

A  dedicated  high-level  stakeholder  event  on  the  review  of  the  energy  efficiency  legislation 
took  place  on  14  March  2016.  Some  300  representatives  from  Member  States  and 
Stakeholders'  European  umbrella  organisations  gathered  on  14  March  2016  in  Brussels  to 
react  to  the  evaluations,  problem  definitions,  and  policy  options  raised  in  the  framework  of 
the  review  processes  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  and  of  the  Energy  Performance  of 
Buildings Directive. The event was organised as a consultation in the framework of the Better 
Regulation Initiative. 

68