ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES Where do we stand in

ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES Where do we stand in Europe today? PERFORMANCE ÉNERGÉTIQUE DESB TIMENTS LA PRATIQUE À LʼINTERNATIONAL 12 May 2011 Dr Marina Economidou Expert in Energy Efficiency BPIE Buildings Performance Institute Europe

Overview • A few words about BPIE • EU Legal Framework • Energy Performance Certificates • Implementation status • success factors • barriers and failures BPIE • Recommendations/Conclusions

Overview • A few words about BPIE • EU Legal Framework • Energy Performance Certificates • Implementation status • success factors • barriers and failures BPIE • Recommendations/Conclusions

BPIE • Non-profit association in Brussels; operational since Feb 10 • Founding partners: eceee, European Climate Foundation, Climate Works • Focus on energy efficiency in buildings throughout Europe • Centre of expertise in buildings • Targeted independent research, policy implementation analysis & evaluation BPIE • European centre for a global best practice network

Our mission & work • Support the development of ambitious – but pragmatic buildings related policies and programs at EU and Member State Level • Drive timely and efficient implementation of these policies • Provide the knowledge and team up with local authorities, communities, industrial players, research organisations and consumers at EU and MS levels BPIE • Conference, publications, local task forces

Overview • A few words about BPIE • EU Legal Framework • Energy Performance Certificates • Implementation status • success factors • barriers and failures BPIE • Recommendations/Conclusions

EU framework EPBD (2002/91/EC) • • Definition of requirements for the energy performance of buildings Methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings Scheme of assessing the energy performance of a building (EPC) Mechanism of regular inspections of heating & air conditioning systems EPBD (2010/31/EC) – EPBD recast BPIE • New nearly-zero-energy buildings constructed after 2020 (public sector buildings in 2018) • A harmonised calculation methodology to push MS minimum energy performance requirements towards cost-optimal levels • For major retrofits the 1000 m² threshold is eliminated. • Existing building stock shall be renovated to very low-energy standards (no specific target be set for the renovation of existing building). • A more detailed and rigorous procedure for issuing EPCs

BPIE EU 20 -20 -20 targets

Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 Non-binding targets 1) 2) MS to set their own indicative targets EC to review progress in 2013 and propose binding targets for all MSs if it appears the 20% target will not be achieved. Public Sector • • Set an example Renovation rate to be doubled to at least 3 % per year Renovation should bring buildings up to level of the best 10% of national building stock Energy efficiency standards to be incorporated more fully into public procurement. ESCOs • Both the private and public sectors • Legislative proposals to increase their role Training BPIE • Improving training for architects, engineers, auditors etc. to meet implementation of technically demanding building solutions.

Overview • A few words about BPIE • EU Legal Framework • Energy Performance Certificates • Implementation status • success factors • barriers and failures BPIE • Recommendations/Conclusions

Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) In French: Certificat de performance énergétique (CPE) Member States shall ensure that, when buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner or by the owner to the prospective buyer or tenant, as the case might be. BPIE DEFINITION: A certificate recognised by the Member State or a legal person designated by it, which includes the energy performance of a building calculated according to a methodology based on the general framework set out in the Annex;

Czech Republic Denmark France Germany Hungary Ireland Netherlands Poland Portugal Spain Basic implementation approach The use of certificates Public acceptance by consumers and professional stakeholders The cost of certificates Administration/registrati on; Quality control Promotion Compliance and enforcement Market barriers; Future anticipated changes. BPIE Austria Belgium Topics of concentration Survey developed between March and September 2010 within 12 selected Member States, Member States Method Energy Performance Certificates

Design of the scheme Assessment method EPCs issued since AT Partly national ®ional responsibilities Calculated rating January 2008, January 2009 (public buildings) BE Regional Combination of calculated and measured rating (public buildings) Flanders Region: November 2008 (sale), January 2009 (rent), January 2009 (public buildings). Non-residential expected in 2011 CZ National Calculated rating January 2009 (new buildings and existing renovated buildings) DK National Calculated rating 2006 FR National Combination of calculated and measured rating November 2006 (sale res and non-res), July 2007 (rent), July 2007 (new buildings), January 2008 (public buildings) DE National Combination of calculated and measured rating 2002 (new buildings), July 2008 (existing buildings) HU National Combination of calculated and measured rating January 2009 (new and public buildings), January 2012 (existing buildings) IE National Calculated rating January 2007 (new res buildings), July 2008 (new non-res and public buildings), January 2009 (existing buildings) NL National Calculated rating January 2008 (sale and rent), January 2009 (public buildings, and social housing) PL National Calculated rating January 2009 (new buildings, renovations, existing buildings for sale/rent and public buildings) PT National Calculated rating July 2001 (new res and non-res buildings >1000 m 2), July 2008 (new buildings), january 2009 (existing and public buildings) ES Partly national and regional responsibilities Calculated rating 2007 (new buildings), after 2010 (existing buildings) BPIE National/regional implementation

EPC Presentation EPC certificates in Denmark, Ireland Austria

Content of the EPC BE DK A A++ A+ CZ A FR Res A Label classes Energy units Label present situation Label after taking measures indicated Recommendations sliding scale B B C D E F G B C D E F G k. Wh/m 2 a GJ/year Yes Yes HU IE NL A+ Non-res A B C D E F G DE A 1 A 2 A 3 A++ A+ A A sliding scale A B 1 B 2 B 3 B C D E F G H I B C D E F G C 1 C 2 C 3 D 1 D 2 E 1 E 2 F G k. Wh/m 2 a Yes Yes No No Yes No, but new indicator is calculated for each recommendation (calculated rating) No Yes Yes k. Wh/m 2 a Yes PL PT ES A+ A A B sliding scale B, B- B C D E F G C D E F G Energy index k. Wh/m 2 a Yes Yes No specific informa- tion No No specific informatio n Yes No specific informa- tion Yes Yes No specific informa- tion No BPIE AT

EPC Usage Nr. of EPCs (*1000) Estimation % of existing buildings Average energy performance rating which have EPC BE (Flanders) 141, 3 4, 10% No specific information available CZ 25 -30 each year (= number of new buildings constructed each year, EPCs since January 2009 obligated) 1, 50% No specific information available DK 45 -50 each year 50% Label class D (detached houses) FR No specific information available 90 % of social housing, 14 % of private houses DE No specific information available Single family home: 235 k. Wh/m 2 a Multi family home: 211 k. Wh/m 2 a IE 75 No specific information available New buildings: label class B 2 -B 3 Existing buildings: label class D 1 -D 2 NL 1287 (of which 83% rental homes) 18% PL 80 -100 0, 75% PT 100 No specific information available Key indicators for residential buildings Label class ABC: 35% Label class CD: 50% Label class EFG: 39% New buildings: 140 k. Wh/m 2 a Label class A+ A: 4% Label class B- B: 36% Label class C: 33% Label class D: 14% Label class EFG: 13% BPIE Label class C: 18% Label class D: 31% Label class E: 22%

EPC price 1000 900 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 IE L N AT K D BE E D ES Member State BPIE FR Z C PT H U 0 PL Price per certificate 800

Public acceptance Use of certificates at sale/rent Perception of usefulness by the public AT ** * BE (Flanders) **** CZ * * Perception of general public as new expression of bureaucracy. Information on EPC not very useful. Only EPC for new buildings and major renovations. Main group of existing buildings not effected. DK *** ** For new buildings EPCs are issued more than for transaction moments for existing buildings. FR ** Use of EPCs high in social renting market, but low in private rental market. EPC still often only regarded as an 'informative instrument'. DE ** * The quality of the cheaper version based on measured rating. Registration and practical enforcement. HU * * The costs of the certificate and mandatory character are a discussion point for the general public. EPCs not mandatory yet for existing buildings. IE **** NL ** Actual use of EPCs high for social housing, but low for private market. A public discussion on the transparency, reliability and reproducibility of the certificates lead to adaptations in the scheme. PL ** * The EPC provides little useful information for the building owner for improvements. In practice EPCs are only issued at transactions when demanded by both parties. PT **** ** Use of EPCs is lower in the rental market than in the sale market. ES * * EPCs are only in practice for new buildings, public awareness is low. Transparency of the certificate, not showing total energy performance, recommendations not always presented (clearly). Non-residential stil under development. Recommendations for energy saving measures not in actual EPC but in advisory report. Room for improvement Good Very good BPIE Improvement desirable Main "discussion points"

Promotion, Administration, Compliance Promotion Administration/registration system Compliance/enforcement Regional promotion Regional databases No practical/functional enforcement system BE (Flanders) Regional promotion Regional database Strict enforcement system with penalties CZ Low attention on promotion No database No practical/functional enforcement system DK Promotion aimed at professionals Central database No practical/functional enforcement system FR Low attention on promotion, but professionals informed No database No practical/functional enforcement system DE National promotion campaign by energy agency No database No practical/functional enforcement system HU National promotion campaign No database No practical/functional enforcement system IE National promotion campaign by energy agency Central database Strict enforcement system with penalties NL National promotion campaign Central database No practical/functional enforcement system PL Low attention on promotion No database No practical/functional enforcement system PT Promotion by energy agency dedicated to stakeholders Central database Strict enforcement system with penalties ES Low attention on promotion No database No practical/functional enforcement system Improvement desirable Room for improvement Good BPIE AT

Barriers • Country-specific circumstances such as: • Spain: slow administrative procedures due to the delegation of responsibilities to a regional level; • Hungary: Public can, in principle, reject a regulation via a referendum, making it difficult to impose financial obligations • Czech Republic: Some interference by market players/stakeholders with political choices of EPC implementation • Reliability, transparency and usability of the EPCs for consumers and the choices (e. g. assessment method, administrative and enforcement system and involvement of relevant stakeholders); BPIE • Lack of awareness regarding the EPC obligations.

Recommendations/conclusions • Exchange of experience, knowledge development and continuous consulation with stakeholders • A clear legislative and administrative framework • An effective registration and quality control system • An appropriate level of consideration given by the implementation authorities BPIE • Clear and appropriate enforcement

Thank you BPIE marina. economidou@bpie. eu