REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 2020 assessment of the progress made by Member States towards the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU and towards the deployment of nearly zero-energy buildings and cost-optimal minimum energy performance requirements in the EU in accordance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU
Date: 2020-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU energy policy, application of EU law, building, building services, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, energy use, improvement of housing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.10.2020  COM(2020) 954 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 2020 assessment of the progress made by Member States towards the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU and towards the deployment of nearly zero-energy buildings and cost-optimal minimum energy performance requirements in the EU in accordance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU  
 
 
Introduction 

1. 
This  progress  report is  presented by the Commission  in  line with  Article 24(3) of  Directive 
2012/27/EU  on  energy  efficiency,  as  amended  by  Directive  (EU)  2018/2002  (the  ‘Energy 
Efficiency Directive’ or the ‘EED’), and in line with Article 35 of the Governance Regulation 
(EU) 2018/1999. This is the last report under the EED, as Article 24(3) will no longer apply 
as of 1 January 2021. All reporting on progress in various energy efficiency policy areas will 
be superseded by Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999. 

As  this  report  combines  two  reporting  obligations,  it  has  a  different  format  than  in  the 
previous  years.  In  addition,  it  contains:  (i)  new  reporting  on  the  buildings  sector,  i.e. 
information  on  the  uptake  of  the  number  of  nearly  zero-energy  buildings  (NZEBs)  in 
accordance with Article 9(5) of Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings 
(the ‘Energy Performance of Buildings Directive’ or the ‘EPBD’); and (ii) a short update on 
the  cost-optimal  levels  of  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  for  buildings,  in 
accordance with Article 5(4) of Directive 2010/31/EU.  

The  report  therefore  builds  mainly  on:  (i)  the  information  provided  in  the  annual  reports 
submitted by Member States in  20201;  (ii) the cost-optimal calculation reports submitted by 
Member States in 2018 and 20192; and (iii) further relevant information related to the building 
sector.  

The 2019 energy efficiency report3 adopted earlier this  year covered the Eurostat data up to 
2018  and  no  new  data  were  available4  at  the  time  of  publication  of  this  report.  For  these 
reasons,  the  analysis  of  progress  towards  the  2020  targets  has  not  changed  in  this  report 
compared to the previous report and has not been repeated. Instead, a more forward-looking 
perspective has been added by looking at the progress towards the 2030 targets. 

Summary of the findings 

2. 
The  report  looks  at  the  EU-28  and  covers  data  and  supplementary  information  up  to  2018. 
The analysis of progress towards the 2030 targets looks at the EU-27. 

The main findings are as follows. 

  Primary  energy  consumption  declined  by  0.6%  in  2018  compared  to  2017.  Final 
energy  consumption  increased  by  0.1%  year-on-year.  Even  so,  both  indicators  are 
above the fixed trajectory for the 2020 targets. 
In 2018 energy consumption continued to be driven by economic growth. 

 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/targets-directive-and-rules/national-energy-efficiency-

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-of-buildings/energy-performance-

1 
action-plans_en 
2 
buildings-directive/eu-countries-2018-cost-optimal-reports_en?redir=1 
3 COM(2020) 326 final 
4  The  revised  figures  by  Eurostat  (latest  extraction  in  July  2020)  show  small  changes  compared  to  the  figures 
used in the 2019 report and do not change the analysis presented in that report. 

1 

 
                                                 
  Energy  efficiency  obligation  schemes  remain  an  effective  tool  to  achieve  energy 
savings. Although the aggregated progress towards cumulative savings under Article 7 
of the EED in 2018 seems to be sufficient, twelve Member States are unlikely to reach 
their targets. 

  The partial and preliminary data for 2020 indicate that the impact  of the COVID-19 
crisis has significantly affected energy demand. As a result, the 2020 energy efficiency 
targets may be met even though there were insufficient measures in place before the 
crisis. However, this is expected to be a temporary situation, because the reduction of 
energy  consumption  has  not  been  driven  by  structural  measures.  Without  targeted 
climate-measures,  the  economic  recovery  is  likely  bring  energy  consumption  back 
towards pre-COVID-19 crisis levels.  

  Most  Member  States  adopted  the  cost-optimal  approach  in  an  appropriate  way  and 
used it to set minimum requirements for the energy performance of new and existing 
buildings and NZEBs.  

  The  share  of  NZEBs  in  the  total  construction  market  has  increased,  but  NZEB 
requirements  in  most  countries  are  still  less  ambitious  than  the  Commission’s 
benchmarks  of  2016.  However,  almost  half  of  the  Member  States  set  significantly 
more  ambitious  NZEB  requirements  compared  to  cost-optimal  levels  for  new 
buildings. 

3. 

Progress towards the EU’s energy efficiency target 
3.1. 

The EU-28’s 2020 targets 

The revised Eurostat figures for 20185 indicate that final energy consumption6 in the EU-28 
fell by 5.9%, from 1194  Millions  of  tons  of oil  equivalent  (Mtoe) in  2005  to  1124 Mtoe in 
2018.  This  is  still  3.5%  above  the  2020  final  energy  consumption  target  of  1086  Mtoe.  In 
2018, it increased by 0.1% compared to  the previous  year. Primary  energy  consumption7 in 
the EU-28 dropped by 9.8%, from 1721 Mtoe in  2005 to  1552 Mtoe in  2018. This  is  4.6% 
above the 2020 target of 1483 Mtoe. Following three years of increase, a year-on-year drop in 
primary energy consumption of 0.6 % was recorded in 2018. For both indicators, the trend in 
2018 was above a linear trajectory to the 2020 targets. 

In  2018,  higher  energy  consumption  was  mainly  observed  in  the  transport  (+1.0%  year-on-
year  increase  compared  to  2017)  and  industry  sectors  (+0.8%).  By  contrast,  energy 
consumption declined in the residential (-1.7%) and services sector (-1.4%).8 

3.2. 

The EU-27’s 2030 targets 

The insufficient progress towards the 2020 targets until 2018 also has negative consequences 
on the level of efforts needed to reach the 2030 targets9. Due to the present delivery gap the 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/38154/4956218/Energy-Balances-April-2020-edition.zip/69da6e9f-

5 
bf8f-cd8e-f4ad-50b52f8ce616 
6 Indicators from Eurostat’s energy balances in line with the methodology up to 2018 (FEC 2020-2030 and PEC 
2020-2030) are used to monitor progress towards achieving the Europe 2020 energy efficiency targets. 
7 Idem 6 
8 The developments in specific sectors did not change compared to the last report. For additional information see 
chapter 5 of the 2019 Progress Report COM(2020) 326 final 

2 

 
                                                 
distance  to  the  2030  targets  is  bigger  than  expected  and  stands  at  22%  for  primary  energy 
consumption  and  17%  for  final  energy  consumption  (Figure  1).  In  addition,  the  EU  wide 
assessment  of  the  national  energy  and  climate  plans  (NECPs)10  identifies  a  collective 
ambition gap of national contributions. As a result Member States will need to significantly 
increase  their  efforts  in  the  next  decade  to  reach  the  2030  targets  of  at  least  32.5%.  This  is 
particularly important if the post-COVID-19 recovery leads to a return to the previous levels 
in energy consumption. In addition, the increased climate ambition, as announced in the 2020 
Climate  Target  Plan11,  will  also  require  significantly  higher  energy  efficiency  efforts  going 
beyond the current level of targets for 2030 (36-37% reduction in final energy consumption 
and 39-41% reduction in primary energy consumption). 

Figure 1: Progress towards 2030 targets at EU27 level 

Source: Eurostat data, DG ENER’s own calculations 

3.3. 

 Impact of COVID-19 on energy consumption so far  

The  impact  of  COVID-19  on  energy  consumption  in  2020  will  be  significant.  In  the  first 
quarter of 2020 EU gas consumption decreased by 5% compared to Q1 2019, mainly due to 
limited heating needs because of: (i) the mild winter weather; (ii) decreasing gas use in power 
generation; and (iii) the introduction of lockdown measures in March, leading to a decrease in 

9 Following Brexit the 2030 energy efficiency targets will cover 27 Member States. 
10 COM(2020) 564 final  
11 COM(2020) 562 final 

3 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
GDP  and  less  industrial  demand  for  gas.12  Electricity  consumption  in  the  EU  fell  by  3.2% 
year-on-year in Q1 2020, similarly driven by warm weather in the first half of the reference 
period and the onset of COVID-19 related restrictions. As large populations spent more time 
at home household electricity consumption increased. However, this increase did not offset a 
considerable  fall  in  demand  from  the  commercial  and  industrial  sectors.13  As  a  result, 
electricity  consumption  during  the  months  when  the  lockdown  measures  were  in  place  was 
significantly  lower  than  the  same  months  in  the  year  before  (by  4.3%  in  March,  11.8%  in 
April, 10.5% in May and 7.6% in June).14  

Similarly, energy consumption in transport also decreased to unprecedented levels as a result 
of the lockdown measures. According to the IEA, road transport in Europe fell to 38% of its 
2019 level by the end of March 2020. The overall drop in global road transport activity led to 
a reduction in global oil demand of 57%.15 The International Transport Forum estimates that 
the mobility restrictions to contain COVID-19 could reduce global freight transport by up to 
36%  by  the  end  of  202016.  Air  travel  in  certain  regions  has  almost  come  to  a  halt,  with 
aviation activity in some European countries declining more than 90%. By the end of August, 
air traffic in Europe was more than 50% below levels of the previous year.17 

Progress towards national energy efficiency targets 

4. 
Some Member States communicated upward revisions (lowering of ambition) of their national 
2020  targets  (Denmark,  Spain,  Hungary).  After  these  updates  the  sum  of  national  2020 
absolute  consumption  targets  is  1536.8  Mtoe  in  primary  energy  consumption  and  1084.3 
Mtoe in final energy consumption. In 2018 progress towards the indicative targets (assuming 
a  linear  trajectory)  was  insufficient  in  twelve  countries  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark, 
Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Cyprus, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden) for 
primary  energy  consumption  and  in  fifteen  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland, 
France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom) for final energy consumption (see Table 3). 

Member  States  indicated  that  stable  and  growing  final  energy  consumption  in  2018  was 
driven  by  economic  growth  and  an  increase  in:  (i)  production/  value  added  (industry);  (ii) 
transport of passengers and goods (transport); (iii) the number of households and disposable 
income (residential); and (iv) value added and employment (services). 

12 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/quarterly_report_on_european_gas_markets_q1_2020.pdf 
13 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/qr_electricity_q1_2020.pdf 
14 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200907-
1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=/eurostat/en/news/whats-new  
15 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/oil#abstract 
16 https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/global-freight-covid-19.pdf  
17 https://www.eurocontrol.int/covid19  

4 

 
                                                 
5. 

EED – current situation 
5.1. 

Updates on transposition of the revised EED 

Following  the  amendment  of  the  EED  in  December  201818,  Member  States  are  obliged  to 
transpose new rules on energy efficiency obligation schemes (i.e. the new Articles 7, 7(a) and 
7(b) by 25 June 2020. By 31 August 2020, the Commission received notifications from only 
thirteen Member States (Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden) and the United Kingdom. In addition, 
most of these notifications are partial, meaning that some provisions of the Directive have not 
yet been transposed or notified.  

By 25 October 2020, Member States must also transpose new rules on metering and billing (i. 
e., new Articles 9, 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c), 10 and 10(a) and finally 11 and 11(a) and a new Annex 
VII(a). By 31 August, five countries have also notified their transposition of these new rules 
(Denmark, Spain, France, Italy and Lithuania). 

By the time of publication of this report, all Member States, except for Latvia, submitted their 
2020  annual  reports  as  required  under  Article  24  of  the  EED19.  The  Joint  Research  Centre 
(JRC) will analyse these annual reports in a separate document20. 

5.2. 

Progress under Article 7 (the energy savings obligation) 

Under Article 7, Member States reported achieving energy savings for 2014-2018 as part of 
their commitments to deliver their national energy savings obligation for 2014-2020. Table 5 
shows  the  current  state  of  Member  States’  progress  towards  the  cumulative  energy  savings 
required by 31 December 2020. Aggregated at EU-level, Member States achieved by the end 
of  2018  about  58%  (133.83  Mtoe21)  of  the  sum  of  the  cumulative  end-use  energy  savings 
obligations for 2014-2020 (230.17 Mtoe). 

To forecast  the likelihood of achieving the required cumulative energy savings per Member 
State  by  31  December  2020,  the  basic  assumption  is  that  all  implemented  policy  measures 
continue delivering new annual savings in 2019 and 2020 as they did in 2018. The cumulative 
energy savings are then compared to the required energy savings by 31 December 2020 per 
Member State.  

Table  6  shows  the  projections  for  how  likely  it  is  that  each  Member  State  will  achieve  the 
required  cumulative  energy  savings  per  Member  State  by  31  December  2020.  This  analysis 
does not consider potential concerns about eligibility, additionality and materiality. Besides, 
the possible impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on the amount of new annual savings achieved in 
2020 are difficult to assess.  All energy savings that have been reported by the Member States 
are considered. 

18 Directive 2018/2002 
19 The reports of Croatia and Portugal were submitted too late to be included in this analysis. 
20  Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki,  S.,  Paci,  D.  et  al.  (2020),  Analysis  of  the  annual  reports  2020  under  the  Energy 
Efficiency Directive, JRC Technical Report. 
21  This  figure  might  be  revised  once  data  about  new  savings  achieved  in  2018  by  Latvia  and  Portugal  are 
available. 

5 

 
                                                 
There  are  seven  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg, 
Portugal, Romania) that will very likely not achieve the required amount of energy savings by 
31  December  2020,  if  they  do  not  take  additional  actions.  Another  five  (Estonia,  Greece, 
Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden)  are  unlikely  to  achieve  the  required  amount  of  energy  savings 
without additional actions. And the remaining sixteen Member States will likely or very likely 
achieve the required amount of cumulative energy savings.  

On  the  energy  savings  achieved  by  each  type  of  implemented  policy  measures,  energy 
efficiency  obligation  systems  contribute  to  around  35%  of  the  savings,  whereas  financing 
schemes contribute only around 13% of the energy savings. Taxes on energy and CO2 taxes 
account for 16% of total achieved energy savings. 

Figure 2: 

Share of reported energy savings by type of policy measure at EU-level 

Source: DG ENER’s own calculations based on the 2020 national annual reports. 

On  the  sectors  targeted  by  the  implemented  policy  measures,  the  largest  share  of  energy 
savings  reported  by  Member  States  results  from  cross-cutting  measures,  which  cannot  be 
attributed to a single sector (Figure 3). Most measures (by count of reported measures) target 
services and industry, which cover most companies (except for transport companies) and the 
public  sector  (except  for  housing  owned  by  public  bodies,  which  is  included  in  the  private 
households sector).  

Figure 3: Share of reported savings by sector 

6 

 
 
 
Source: DG ENER’s own calculations based on the 2020 national annual reports. 

There  are  36  new  measures  reported  for  the  year  2018  under  Article  7.  Of  these,  10  were 
implemented by both Romania and Spain, 4 by Belgium and 3 by Romania. Almost half of 
the new measures under Article 7 fell under the category ‘Funds, financial & fiscal incentives’ 
(47.2%), followed by ‘Other measures’ (transport sector measures, voluntary agreements etc.)  
(27.8%), ‘Regulations’ (16.7%), ‘Information, education and training’ (5.6%) and ‘Taxation’ 
(2.8%).22 

5.3. 

Progress under Article 5 (exemplary role of buildings used by public bodies) 

Compared  to  2019,  there  was  a  similar  level  of  compliance  with  reporting  obligations.  Six 
Member States did not provide the requested update on Article 5 progress in 2019: Belgium, 
Romania,  Denmark,  France,  Croatia  and  the  Netherlands  (the  last  four  notified  their 
achievements for 2018 but not for 2019). 
Among the Member States with available reports that chose the default approach23, only three 
Member  States  achieved  their  annual  targets  for  renovated  floor  area.  These  are  Bulgaria, 
Lithuania  and  Luxemburg.  In  addition,  based  on  the  provided  data,  four  countries  have 
fulfilled their total targets for the period 2014-2019. These are Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and 
Lithuania.  Among the  Member States  that implemented the  alternative  approach, only three 
Member  States  achieved  their  annual  energy  saving  targets  in  2019.  These  are  the  Austria, 
Poland and Slovakia. Croatia and France achieved their targets for 2018. At the same time, six 
countries  provided  data  allowing  establishing  that  they  fulfilled  their  total  target  for  2014-
2019. These are Austria, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, Poland and UK. France, Belgium, Croatia 
and Netherlands fulfilled their total target for the period 2014-2018. 

22 Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki, S., Paci, D. et al. (2020), op. cit. 
23 The default approach refers to measures taken to renovate 3% of the total floor area of heated and/or cooled 
buildings  over  250 m2  owned  and  occupied  by  central  government  which  do  not  meet  minimum  energy 
requirements. The alternative approach refers to other cost-effective measures taken to achieve equivalent energy 
savings.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
Nearly zero-energy buildings 

6. 
Following the adoption of the EPBD in 2010, under which all new public buildings must be  
NZEB from 31 December 2018 and all new buildings from 31 December 2020, the number of 
NZEBs and highly performing buildings in Europe increased significantly from 2012 to 2016. 
Almost 1.25 million buildings were built or renovated to NZEB (or similar) standards during 
this  period,  most  of  which  were  residential.  The  share  of  NZEB  in  the  total  construction 
market  increased  during  2012-2016  in  the  EU  from  14%  in  2012  to  20%  in  2016,  on 
average24.  

The  NZEB  requirements  are  currently  70%  more  ambitious  than  the  national  cost-optimal 
minimum  energy  performance  requirements.  This  was  obtained  through  progressive 
legislative steps over the last 10 years. 

Based  on  the  latest  information  available25,  23  Member  States  currently  have  a  completed 
national NZEB definition in force. For the remaining Member States, the definition of what 
constitutes  an  NZEB  is  still  under  development  or  under  review.  Most  of  the  provided 
definitions  include  an  energy  indicator  of  primary  energy  use,  and  twelve  of  the  definitions 
include the obligation to cover a minimum share of energy demand from renewable sources. 
Almost half of the Member States have drawn up an energy class or energy label equivalent 
for NZEB requirements. Also half of Member States have provided the required u-values for 
walls, roofs, floors, windows and doors.  

On the level of ambition for the NZEB definition, the NZEB primary energy values for most 
Member States have less demanding requirements than the benchmarks recommended by the 
Commission26 in both residential and non-residential buildings27.  

Figure  4:  Indicative  comparison  of  NZEB  definitions  for  single  family  houses  to  the 
Commission’s recommended benchmarks  

24 Based on the comprehensive study of building energy renovation activities  and the  uptake of NZEBs in  the 
EU.  
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/comprehensive-study-building-energy-renovation-activities-and-uptake-
nearly-zero-energy_en?redir=1 
25 Information provided by MS, the JRC assessment and the ‘Concerted Action EPBD’ reports 
26 In 2016 the Commission published recommendations for the promotion of NZEBs and best practices to ensure 
that, by 2020, all new buildings are NZEBs (C/2016/4392). 
27 It is important to note that heterogeneity in climatic zones and national conditions of the building stock and 
different approaches in calculation  methodologies across Member States prevent a  full direct comparison. The 
comparison in Figures 4 and 5 is indicative and based on relevant assumptions to facilitate Commission’s own 
calculations. 

8 

 
                                                 
Source: JRC’s own calculations based on Member States reporting 

Figure  5:  Indicative  comparison  of  NZEB  definitions  for  offices  to  the  Commission’s 
recommended benchmarks 

Source: JRC’s own calculations based on Member States reporting  

Most  of  Member  States  also  reported  a  number  of  measures  to  increase  the  number  of 
NZEBs.  These  measures  are  mainly:  (i)  regulatory  (energy  standards,  setting  NZEB 
requirements,  regulations  and  laws);  (ii)  financial  (subsidies,  renovation  grants,  operational 
programmes,  fiscal  incentives);  (iii)  informative  (information  campaigns,  leaflets  and 
websites);  and  (iv)  educational  (training  for  engineers  and  architects,  publication  of  NZEB 
guidelines). Several Member States also set long-term milestones for NZEB implementation. 

There are some positive signs in the market for key NZEB technologies. For instance, some 
Member States have set targets – or have adopted financial or fiscal measures – to favour the 
use  of  heat  pumps.  This  may  lead  to  an  increase  in  heat  pump  installations  in  the  coming 
years, and this will in turn result in a significant reduction (10-40%) in the cost of heat pumps 

9 

 
 
 
in Europe between now and 2050. Some Member States also give incentives for the wider use 
of  biomass  boilers,  which  could  potentially  reduce  their  cost  by  10-20%  between  now  and 
2050.  The  cost  of  heat  recovery  systems  is  also  expected  to  decrease  significantly  (by  35-
60%) between now and 2050. Moreover, it is expected that the cost of solar thermal collectors 
cost  will  fall  by  20-50%,  and  that  the  cost  of  photovoltaics  will  decrease  by  40-60%  in  the 
same period. Energy storage will be more important in the near future and projections indicate 
that the cost of stationary batteries will drop around 65%. 

It also appears clear that NZEB will play a strong role in alleviating environmental and social 
issues, such as energy poverty, affordability of housing and accessibility.28  

7. 
Cost-optimal levels of minimum requirements for buildings  
The  EPBD  requires  Member  States  to  develop  cost-optimal  calculations  every  five  years  to 
verify  and  update  the  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  in  force.  Member  States 
submitted the first cost-optimal reports in 2013 and the second round of reports in 201829. The 
overall  picture  for  these  reports  is  that  for  both  new  and  existing  buildings,  the  choice  of  a 
cost-optimal methodology has been an efficient approach for steering existing national energy 
performance requirements towards cost-efficient levels.  

For new building types, most of cost-optimal points fell between 50 and 100 kWh/m2/year, 
with  an  average  of  80  kWh/m2/year  for  the  residential  sector  and  140  kWh/m2/year  for  the 
non-residential sector. The associated global costs to reach these levels are often lower than 
EUR 1 500/m2, with an average of EUR 925/m2 for the residential sector and EUR 800/m2 for 
the non-residential sector. 

For  existing  building  types,  most  of  cost-optimal  points  fell  between  75  and  175 
kWh/m2/year,  with  an  average  of  130  kWh/m2/year  for  the  residential  sector  and  180 
kWh/m2/year for the non-residential sector. Here the global costs are usually lower than EUR 
600/m2,  with  an  average  of  EUR  500/m2  for  the  residential  sector  and  EUR  385/m2  for  the 
non-residential sector. 

Table  1:  Average  cost-optimal  levels  for  new  and  existing  buildings  per  climatic 
condition 

Climate 

New single-family 
house 

New multi-family 
house 

New office 

New other non-
residential 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2y] 
77 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
1882 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2y] 
62 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
2 076 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2y] 
66 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
1 681 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2y] 
120 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
2481 

Cold 

28  Since  poor  energy  efficiency  of  dwellings  is  a  major  risk  factor  for  energy  poverty,  NZEB  can  play  a 
beneficial role, particularly in social  housing and in  segments of  the private  housing  market occupied by low-
income or lower middle-income households – provided they can (still) afford to live in these dwellings. 
29 In 2016 the Commission published a report on the progress by Member States in reaching cost-optimal levels 
of minimum energy performance requirements (COM/2016/0464 final). DG ENERGY with the assistance of the 
JRC analysed and assessed the 2018 calculations. The summary report is under publication: Zangheri, P. et Al., 
Assessment of 2nd cost optimal calculations in the context of the EPBD, JRC 2020. 

10 

 
                                                 
Mid 
Warm  

Climate 

83 
81 

590 
887 

80 
105 

551 
698 

130 
221 

591 
648 

176 
423 

558 
607 

Existing single-family 
house 

Existing multi-family 
house 

Existing office 

Cold 
Mid 
Warm  
Source: JRC’s own calculations based on Member States reporting 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2/y] 
77 
124 
148 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
303 
460 
467 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2/y] 
78 
136 
175 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2/y] 
183 
112 
161 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
643 
524 
500 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
336 
412 
396 

Existing other non-
residential 

Primary 
energy 
[kWh/m2/y] 
122 
268 
775 

Global 
costs 
[EUR/m2] 
236 
392 
808 

From this comparison, it is interesting to observe that in almost all cases, the primary energy 
consumptions associated with cost-optimal levels are lower in the cold regions. Global costs 
are  usually  lower  in  warm  and  mid  regions,  but  there  are  some  exceptions  (existing  multi-
family buildings and offices). That implies that in colder regions the requirements are stricter, 
while more investments are associated with the higher level of energy performance. 

The comparison of the cost-optimal levels between the two calculation rounds in 2013 and in 
2018  shows  that  Member  States  set  more  ambitious  values  in  2018  for  almost  all  building 
types.   

Table  2:  Average  reduction  of  cost-optimal  levels  obtained  from  the  calculations  of 
Member State reports in 2013 and 2018 for new and existing buildings  

Member 
States’ 
average 

New 
multi-
family 
house 
-23% 
Source: JRC’s own calculations based on Member States reporting 

Existing 
single-family 
house 

New 
single-
family 
house 
-23% 

New 
office 

-17% 

-17% 

Existing 
multi-family 
house 

Existing 
office 

-21% 

-9% 

Depending  on  the  building  type  or  the  component  under  discussion,  gaps  greater  than  15% 
were observed in only three or four Member States30.  

Figure 6: Identified gap between the calculated cost-optimal levels and the requirements 
in force 

30 The evaluation of the gaps between the calculated cost-optimal levels and the requirements in force is the most 
important  step  of  the  whole  calculation,  since  it  should  provide  useful  indications  for  the  update  of  existing 
energy performance regulations. National minimum energy performance requirements should not be more than 
15% higher than the outcome of the cost-optimal levels and a plan should be drawn up to reduce the gaps that 
cannot be strongly justified. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source: JRC’s own calculations based on Member States reporting 

The results presented in  the figures above are not fully comparable, because Member States 
are free to choose different options that reflect national market conditions (e.g. takin different 
macroeconomic or financial perspective). 

On  the  comparison  between  the  cost-optimal  levels  and  the  latest  NZEB  definitions,  the 
overall  picture  is  quite  positive.  In  fact,  almost  half  of  Member  States  introduced  NZEB 
requirements  which  are  significantly  more  ambitious  than  cost-optimal  references,  which 
implies  that  the  construction  market  is  ready  to  take  steps  towards  the  improvement  of  the 
energy performance of the future building stock.  

Conclusion 

8. 
The  findings  of  this  2020  progress  report  do  not  differ  much  from  the  previous  report.  The 
level of energy-saving effort made in 2018, when not considering the impacts of COVID-19, 
would most likely not be enough to reach the 2020 targets. Although the external factors of a 
warm winter and a substantial drop in energy demand in 2020 due to COVID-19 may lead to 
the  achievement  of  the  2020  targets,  the  insufficient  policies  in  place  will  have  to  be 
compensated  for  to  reach  the  2030  targets.  In  addition,  the  subsequent  recovery  from  the 
pandemic  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  rebound  in  energy  demand,  and  there  is  a  risk  that  the 
implementation of new policies and policies announced in the NECPs and the national long-
term renovation strategies could be delayed as a result of the current crisis.  

For this reason, it is of vital importance that new energy efficiency measures are part of the 
recovery plans and are implemented without delays.  In addition,  the increased 2030 climate 
target  for  GHG  emissions  reduction  of  at  least  55%  compared  to  1990  would  require  even 
higher energy efficiency ambition. There will also need to be more widespread uptake of the 
‘energy efficiency first’ principle, so that the full potential and benefits of energy savings are 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  recovery  investments.  Furthermore,  the  upcoming  review  of 
the EED will also look at ways to promote energy efficiency efforts at EU level, given that the 
collective  ambition  of  Member  States  presented  in  their  integrated  plans  falls  short  of  the 
necessary level of effort. The review will be supported by the sustainable product legislative 
initiative,  which  will  look  into  widening  the  eco-design  approach  to  include  other  product 
categories. 

The NZEB requirements in the most Member States are less ambitious than the benchmarks 
recommended by the Commission in both residential and non-residential buildings. However, 
before  the  implementation  of  new  NZEB  standards,  a  significant  reduction  of  relevant 

12 

 
 
technology  costs  is  expected,  which  could  make  it  possible  to  further  increase  the  level  of 
ambition  for  NZEBs.  With  the  forthcoming  introduction  of  NZEB  requirements  for  all  new 
buildings as of 2021, the main challenge for the decarbonisation of the building stock by 2050 
is  to  increase  the  current  low  renovation  rates  and  the  application  of  ambitious  minimum 
requirements  for  existing  buildings.  Member  States  present  a  wide  range  of  building  types, 
climatic  and  financial  conditions,  and  therefore  targeted  measures  are  needed  to  stimulate  a 
large  scale  diffusion  of  NZEBs  retrofit.  Future  generations  of  NZEBs  will  integrate  smart 
technologies and digitalization solutions and could also be scaled-up and integrated at district 
level,  shifting  the  focus  and  scale  from  the  single  building  to  the  district.31  The  Renovation 
Wave initiative of the European Green deal and the national long-term renovation strategies 
are key tools to steer public and private funding towards renovation projects, facilitating the 
cost-effective transformation of existing buildings into NZEBs.   

The Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to express their views on 
this progress report. 

31  Saheb,  Shnapp,.and  Paci  (2019),    From  nearly-zero  energy  buildings  to  net-zero  energy  districts-Lessons 
learned from existing EU projects, EUR 29734 EN, Publications Office  of the  European Union,  Luxembourg;  
Shnapp, Paci, and Bertoldi, (2020), Enabling Positive Energy Districts across Europe: energy efficiency couples 
renewable energy, EUR 30325 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Overview of variations of main energy indicators (part 1)  32 

The + symbol is used if Member States decreased their primary and final energy consumption between 2005 and 
2018 at a rate  which is  greater than the  rate  of decrease that  would be needed in 2005-2020 to meet the 2020 
targets for primary and final energy consumption. The - symbol is used for the other cases. FEC stands for final 
energy consumption, PEC for primary energy consumption. 

32 The energy intensity for the whole economy is the ratio between PEC2020-2030 and GDP2010. For industry 
and  services  it  is  the  ratio  between  final  energy  consumption  and  gross  value  added  in  chain-linked  volumes 
(2010). Due to data limitations, the denominator of gross value added at current prices has been used for Malta. 

14 

Energy Intensity whole economyIndustryPEC 2005-2018 trend compared to PEC 2005-2020 trend to reach the 2020 targetFEC 2005-2018 trend compared to FEC 2005-2020 trend to reach the 2020 targetChange of PEC 2018 compared to PEC 2017 [%]Change of FEC 2018 compared to FEC 2017 [%]2005-2018 average annual change of PEC energy intensity [%]2005-2018 average change of FEC energy intensity in industry [%] 2005-2018 average annual change of FEC in residential per capita with climatic corrections [%]2005-2018 average annual change of FEC in residential per m2 with climatic corrections [%]EU28---0.6%0.1%-2.0%-1.8%-0.3%-1.6%BE---4.6%0.6%-2.2%-0.3%-1.7%-1.7%BG--0.1%0.2%-2.8%-4.1%2.3%-0.9%CZ++0.1%-0.7%-3.1%-4.6%1.5%-0.2%DK-+0.4%0.6%-2.0%-2.0%0.3%-1.2%DE---2.1%-1.5%-2.2%-1.4%0.1%-0.6%EE+-9.6%3.4%-1.0%-5.5%1.4%0.5%IE--1.1%4.7%-4.1%-4.1%-2.0%-3.1%EL++-2.8%-2.9%-0.6%0.4%-0.7%-0.3%ES-+-0.5%2.4%-1.6%-1.6%0.7%-1.2%FR---0.1%-1.3%-1.7%-1.2%0.0%-1.0%HR++-1.8%-1.1%-1.7%-1.3%0.6%-1.8%IT++-1.1%1.1%-1.3%-2.3%0.9%0.3%CY-+0.5%-0.3%-1.4%-0.7%5.2%-1.3%LV++5.1%4.1%-1.8%2.2%0.5%-1.9%LT+-2.8%3.8%-4.7%-1.9%2.2%-1.5%LU+-4.0%4.0%-3.0%-1.9%-1.1%-2.8%HU+--0.1%0.1%-1.8%2.2%0.5%-0.5%MT+-1.8%6.1%-4.9%-0.4%11.8%1.6%NL-+-0.6%-0.1%-2.1%-1.8%-0.7%-2.1%AT---3.1%-2.5%-1.3%-0.8%0.8%-0.1%PL--1.9%1.4%-2.7%-3.7%1.0%-0.2%PT++-0.7%2.1%-1.0%-1.2%0.6%-2.4%RO++0.4%1.1%-4.3%-4.6%1.9%-3.0%SI++-0.8%0.6%-2.0%-2.7%0.7%-0.6%SK+--2.2%-0.1%-4.0%-4.0%-0.1%-1.2%FI++2.0%2.3%-1.7%-0.1%0.5%-0.9%SE--1.3%-0.6%-2.5%-1.1%-1.0%-1.1%UK+--0.3%0.7%-3.0%-2.8%-1.9%-2.3%Source and extraction dataEurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020Odyssee07/2020MSResidentialShort-term trendTrend to reach the 2020 target 
 
                                                 
Table 4: Overview of variations of main energy indicators (part 2) 

Source: Eurostat (old methodology for energy balances), JRC, Odyssee. 

15 

Services2005-2018 average change of FEC energy intensity in the service sector [%]2005-2018 average change of FEC in the transport sector [%]2017 vs. 2005 change of share of trains, motor coaches, buses and trolley buses for passenger transport [%]2017 vs. 2005 change of share of railway and inland waterways for freight transport [%]2005-2018 average annual change of heat generation from CHP [%]2005-2018 average annual change of ratio Transformation output/Fuel input of thermal power generation [%]EU28-1.0%0.1%-0.4%-0.5%-0.8%1.7%BE-0.4%0.2%-2.2%7.0%4.1%2.5%BG-0.3%1.8%-14.2%-8.2%-2.3%0.9%CZ-2.2%1.2%1.6%0.8%-1.0%0.6%DK-1.4%0.0%-2.5%NA-1.0%2.9%DE-2.2%0.1%0.1%0.8%0.0%2.4%EE0.1%1.2%-3.5%NA3.3%0.1%IE-4.0%-0.2%-0.5%NANA3.8%EL2.0%-1.5%-4.2%NA1.3%2.3%ES0.6%-0.9%-3.3%NANA2.0%FR-0.5%0.2%1.6%0.6%-3.5%0.8%HR-0.2%1.2%-0.5%-1.4%1.1%4.4%IT1.8%-1.2%-0.9%5.4%1.0%2.6%CY2.2%0.1%NANA67.4%1.6%LV-1.8%1.0%-7.9%NA1.7%-0.7%LT-1.8%3.5%-1.4%-9.9%-3.9%9.2%LU-0.5%-0.7%2.6%NA2.2%7.7%HU-5.3%1.5%-5.8%-2.0%-6.6%0.4%MT-0.1%2.8%NANANA4.8%NL-1.6%-0.3%2.4%8.2%-2.5%0.5%AT-2.5%0.4%1.7%9.8%2.0%3.0%PL-2.1%4.9%-8.9%-13.5%-0.9%0.7%PT-0.2%-0.7%0.7%NA3.8%5.2%RO-1.4%3.4%-4.2%0.3%-4.9%0.5%SI-2.1%2.6%-0.8%NA0.8%1.9%SK-4.4%1.6%-3.6%-7.8%-0.6%0.3%FI0.3%0.1%0.7%NA-0.7%1.3%SE-2.2%-0.3%2.2%NA2.2%0.7%UK-1.0%-0.2%2.1%-1.6%NA3.7%Source and extraction dataEurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020DG MOVE Pocketbook 2019DG MOVE Pocketbook 2019Eurostat06/2020Eurostat06/2020MSTransportGeneration 
 
 
 
Table 5: 2018 reported energy savings overview under Article 7 (ktoe)  

New 
savings 

2018 
Total 
annual 
savings 

Progress towards the target 

Cumulati
ve 
savings 
in 2014-
2018 

Total 
cumulative 
savings 
required by 
2020 
(target) 

Progress 
towards 
total 
cumulative 
savings 
required by 
2020 

Estimated 
annual 
savings 
required for 
2014- 2018 

2014-2018 
compared to 
estimated 
annual 
savings 

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

372 
234 
32 
3 
77 
176 
173 
88 
543 
1413 
2950 
211 
131 
87 
3998 

79 
9 
5 
611 
331 

59 
106 
38 
539 
1436 
1032 
14634 

1307 
1176 
175 
73 
83 
577 
1045 
99 
1377 
5698 
13695 
474 
1731 
466 
3998 

152 
44 
17 
2274 
2977 

366 
466 
133 
2296 
1436 
5056 
80692 

4032 
3879 
496 
248 
162 
1634 
3187 
370 
4701 
17429 
28953 
1355 
1731 
1408 
12729 
436 
511 
113 
47 
7777 
8891 
453 
1343 
1420 
447 
6958 
4654 
18469 
134068 

5200 
6911 
1942 
1296 
242 
4565 
3841 
610 
4213 
31384 
41989 
3333 
3680 
2164 
25502 
851 
1004 
515 
67 
11512 
14818 
2532 
5817 
2284 
945 
15979 
9114 
27859 
230169 

78% 
56% 
26% 
19% 
67% 
36% 
83% 
61% 
112% 
56% 
69% 
41% 
47% 
65% 
50% 
51% 
51% 
22% 
71% 
68% 
60% 
18% 
23% 
62% 
47% 
44% 
51% 
66% 
58% 

2786 
3702 
1040 
694 
130 
2446 
2058 
327 
2257 
16813 
22494 
1786 
1971 
1159 
13662 
456 
538 
276 
36 
6167 
7938 
1356 
3116 
1224 
506 
8560 
4883 
14924 
123305 

145% 
105% 
48% 
36% 
125% 
67% 
155% 
113% 
208% 
104% 
129% 
76% 
88% 
121% 
93% 
96% 
95% 
41% 
132% 
126% 
112% 
33% 
43% 
116% 
88% 
81% 
95% 
124% 
109% 

Source: Information reported by Member States and complemented by the Commission’s calculations 
and estimates where necessary.  

*  Data  on  energy  savings  achieved  in  2018  were  not  available  for  analysis  for  Croatia,  Latvia  and  Portugal. 
Cumulative savings over 2014-2018 are based on energy savings achieved in previous years up to 2017, but do 
not include new savings for 2018. 

16 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6: Projections and likelihood of achieving Article 7 target per Member State by 31 
December 2020* 

Scenario 1 (when ratio of new vs total annual savings < 40%) 

Member 
State 

Austria  

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Croatia  

Czechia 

Denmark  

France  

Hungary  

Ireland  

Italy  

Luxembourg  

Netherlands  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovakia  

Slovenia  

Spain  

UK  

Member 
State 

Relative target achievement 
in 2020 (projected savings 
compared to savings target) 

Likelihood of target 
achievement 

Projected savings in ktoe 
with total annual savings 
from 2018 continuing to 
deliver until 2020 and new 
savings as in 2018 until 2020 
7391 
6700 
909 
399 
3140 
5624 
31651 
5455 
2513 
28721 
218 
13547 
15506 
846 
2192 
2564 
788 
12628 
30645 

very likely 
likely 
very unlikely 
very unlikely 
very unlikely 
very likely 
likely 
very likely 
very likely 
very likely 
very unlikely 
very likely 
likely 
very unlikely 
very unlikely 
very likely 
unlikely 
unlikely 
likely 
Scenario 2 (when ratio of new vs total annual savings > 90%) 

142% 
97% 
47% 
31% 
69% 
146% 
101% 
148% 
116% 
113% 
42% 
118% 
105% 
33% 
38% 
112% 
83% 
79% 
110% 

Projected savings in ktoe 
with new annual savings 
until 2020 as in 2017 
(lifetime =1 year) 

Relative target achievement 
in 2020 (projected savings 
compared to savings target) 

Likelihood of target 
achievement 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Lithuania 

Sweden 

316 
546 

669 

7526 

131% 
90% 

67% 

83% 

very likely 
unlikely 

very unlikely 

unlikely 

Member 
State 

Scenario 3 (when ratio of new vs total annual savings > 40% but < 90%) 
Projected savings in ktoe 
with new annual savings 
until 2020 as in 2018 (75% 
lifetime > 7 years; 25% 
lifetime = 1 year) 

Relative target achievement 
in 2020 (projected savings 
compared to savings target) 

Likelihood of target 
achievement 

Finland 

Germany 

Greece 

Malta 

8260 
57608 
2647 
87 

very likely 
very likely 
unlikely 
very likely 

196% 
137% 
79% 
129% 

17 

 
 
 
 
* All Member States have been classified according to the estimated lifetime of the implemented measures. This 
assessment  was based on a comparison of the  rate  of  new energy savings compared to total annual  savings to 
identify the  expected lifetimes of implemented policy  measures. The assessment led to three scenarios. Where 
the ratio of new savings compared to total annual savings is ~1, the assumed lifetime of an implemented measure 
is 1 year (scenario 1). If the ratio is <40 % (for the year 2017), the assumed lifetime of an implemented measures 
is longer than 7 years (scenario 2). For a ratio in between, a mixed scenario is used (scenario 3).  The following 
ruleset for assessing the likelihood of achieving the target was applied 

Relative target achievement in 2020 
> 105% 
>95% 
>75% 
<75% 

Assessment of likelihood 
very likely 
likely 
unlikely 
very unlikely 

18