EPBD – The EU’s buildings platform; Stakeholders want to move on quicker despite the slow start in many Member States

Last week I was in Brussels for the European Union's Sustainable Energy Week 2008. It is the central event for the EU's sustainable energy campaign in Europe , offering stakeholders a forum on sustainable energy. My focus was on the session evaluating the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) which came into force in Jan 2003.

We start from the fact that buildings consume 40% of total energy in the EU. By cutting the energy use in buildings by about 30 %, Europe's energy consumption would fall by 11%, more than half of the 20-20-20 target (20% less carbon dioxide by 2020, with 20% renewables in the energy mix). What's more, it saves money. No wonder that the EPBD is the centerpiece of the EU's energy strategy, with these five themes:

1. Certification of buildings' energy performance
2. Regular inspection of boilers and air conditioning
3. Training of experts and inspectors
4. Calculation procedures
5. Minimum Energy Performance in Buildings

It wont be easy, though. The building stock in the EU amounts to 21 billion m2. The annual production of new buildings is 1%, demolition rate about 0.5% and retrofit about 1.8 %. At that rate it will take a very long time to improve energy efficiency. A comprehensive and aggressive approach will be needed to reach the 30% target.

Smaller buildings are particularly problematic. In France only 25% of commercial buildings are bigger than the EPBD's threshold of 1000m2. In Germany, 80 % of the building stock consists of small buildings, individually owned, and they are less energy efficient than bigger buildings. To upgrade a small house would cost around 20-30.000 Euros – a big investment. The barrier is not really to show that it makes economic sense, but more how to make it happen. There is a clear resistance.

But, how is EPBD going? Several speakers point to a lack of implementation by countries. They referred to the difficulty of technical implementation, a lack of proper national administration, a shortage of qualified experts. It has taken more time than anticipated to revise national building regulations, set up the certification schemes and train experts. In short, EPBD is behind schedule.

Governments want to keep costs down, supporting systems were not in place, experts need guidance and there are not enough incentives to spur stakeholders to act. Last but not least, there is no monitoring of the impact of the EPBD on actual energy savings.

Despite the drawbacks, people were convinced that the EU should move forward and try to recast the EPBD during 2008 in these ways:

• Abolish or lower the 1000m2 threshold
• Display certificates in public buildings
• Make certificates mandatory for building permits, sales and leasing contracts.
• Specify minimum energy performance requirements for new buildings and buildings' subsystems
• Require an evolving improvement scheme for buildings
• Strengthen the content and role of auditing/inspections

Personally, I think this will not be enough to reach the 30% reduction goal in 2020. Much more needs to be done. The building sector is hard to move. Countries need to:

• Promote more passive solutions
• Develop effective financial support systems
• Attack the “first costs” syndrome
• Launch aggressive nationwide information and awareness campaigns
• Conduct massive skills training along the value chain
• Develop mandatory refurbishing schemes and feedback information to tenants
• Develop mini standards on subsystems and components including renewables
• Develop support system for experts and inspectors
• Monitor the impact

That's quite a list! It will cost money and enough funds need to be set aside in government budgets. The national administrations must develop their capacities to manage these policies. Stakeholders' participation will be crucial and a national environmental “grenelle” (forum) as in France , would help to mobilize wide support. A special program for investors, developers and owners will be needed in most countries to speed up market penetration.

Constant van Aerschot, Head of Sustainable Buildings at Lafarge and Co-chair of the EEB project, had the opportunity to present the EEB project and make a status report. In the audience there were representatives from all EU Member States and all key stakeholders from the building sector. I would guess that it were more than 100 selected participants in this event.

I had the honor to chair the last session on fiscal and financial incentives. Alexander Wiedow, from DG Taxation and Customs Union, described various options on how to use fiscal measures to change or promote behavior to correct market failures. Their effectiveness will depend on the alignment of taxes and subsides as well as how they are combined with other measures to save energy or promote clean technologies.

As regards the EEB project, it is trying to drill further down on the policy issue seen from a business perspective. We are also building quantitative models, which should allow testing the impact of different policies or policy packages on various building submarkets in different climate zones in six key markets, covered by the project. (Brazil, US, EU, India, China and Japan). More of that later.

Comments

[Greg]

I enjoy your web site and agree with the intent and the direction of the EEB project. But I have a question regarding your statement:

"We start from the fact that buildings consume 40% of total energy in the EU. By cutting the energy use in buildings by about 30 %"

I have read different statistics about building energy (and electrical) use. It was my impression that building consume close to 70% of the electricity, which I know may be different from your comment about "energy." Could you site your reference and explain this a little more?

Thanks.

[EPC]

I have direct experience with the EPBD legislation within the UK.

Energy Performance Certificates (http://hip-consultant.co.uk/blog/) are instigating home owners, landlords and commercial property owners to name just a few to look at their energy consumption and related efficiency.

It is great that many are taking positive action and are implementing recommendations within the certification. Some are motivated by cost saving some in reducing CO2 emmisions. In my mind whatever the motivation it can only be welcomed.

As the EPBD legislation continues to be rolled out, more change and benefits will follow for years and future generations to come.

[Paneles Solares]

Hello Fron Spain:

My question is: Is Solar Energy included in The Efficiency in Buildings?. We are a Solar Energy company and we are very interested in this.

Regards.