Share this on social media
Columnists: Fiona Hall, Senior Adviser
Published on: 12 Feb 2009
Buildings are key to meeting our targets
Now that the 20-20-20 targets are enshrined in binding legislation, it is up to the European Community, Member States and local government to make it happen. Buildings, where 40% of the EU's final energy is consumed, are therefore paramount: reducing energy use in buildings by 30% would cut Europe's energy consumption by 11%, more than half the 2020 target. With energy use in buildings representing the equivalent of 6 million barrels of oil a day, improving energy efficiency is also the easiest way to increase Europe's energy independence, especially at a time of mounting tensions over security of supply. Furthermore, because boosting the construction sector would create thousands of jobs and because money not wasted on fuel bills can be productively spent elsewhere in the economy, energy efficient buildings are also a key answer to the economic crisis.
Therefore the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) comes at a critical moment. Key amongst the measures proposed by the Commission are the abolition of the 1000m2 threshold, the insistence on cost-optimum minimum requirements, the requirements on low and zero energy buildings and the exemplary role of public buildings. The draft proposal needs to be amplified and also made more specific in places. The name of the game will be a swift but rigorous first reading under the current mandate of the European Parliament so that a final text can be agreed by the end of the year at the latest.
The improved EPBD needs to take effect as early as possible because, if properly implemented, the recast will produce a reduction in EU final energy consumption of at least a further 5% by 2020, on top of the estimated 6% reduction foreseen in the 2002 Directive.
But it is proper implementation which may be the stumbling block. First there is the PR battle to win. This directive will affect ordinary homeowners undertaking major renovations so it is vital that the reasons for the tighter standards are well-publicised and understood. The fuss provoked by the ban of incandescent lightbulbs is a salutary reminder that, however sensible a proposal, it always runs the risk of a backlash at the hands of the vociferous minority opposed to any European legislation and particularly on actions to tackle climate change – the existence of which they deny!
But the more substantive challenge is financing. It does not matter how economically viable energy efficient measures will be over time if the individual does not have the initial capital to invest, especially in these difficult economic times. MEPs have recognised this challenge and financing has featured heavily in discussions on the EPBD recast.
At a European level, the latest developments on financing are positive: the European Investment Bank has announced it will increase its support for building refurbishments and all Member States will be able to use a (higher) percentage of money from structural funds to pay for energy efficiency and renewable investments in housing, as part of the EU economic recovery plan.
Much more, however, still needs to be done. Member States and local authorities need to think strategically and support “deep” whole-building energy efficiency measures going beyond the low hanging fruit of simple cavity and loft insulation. Although still highly cost-effective, such measures are more expensive and the payback period may therefore be longer than the seven-year average length of residency in a house. There is a need for methods of financing which provide money upfront and put a charge on the building rather than on its inhabitants. These include green mortgages, green council taxes, and schemes run by the energy network operator or regulator and by private ESCOs. Work is needed to compare, benchmark and advertise such innovative financing methods.
Even more important will be communication. The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) must come out of the shadows and into the limelight – the information on it needs to be one of the first things that people see when buying or renting a property. Information campaigns, not only on the role of EPCs, but also on the wider advantages of building a zero energy house or refurbishing one to the highest standards, will have to appeal to all implementation levels and all stakeholders, including the public.
Finally, training is important: all stakeholders will need to be able to get the advice of a properly trained specialist. I am keen to introduce in the directive a scheme on certification and training similar to the one we agreed upon in the Renewable Energy directive. Given that a good Energy Performance Certificate will develop high market value, it will be essential to have a rigorously reliable assessment system, possibly backed up by an appeals process.
Ultimately, what we have to achieve is an attitude change. We have to reach the point where, just as it is normal today to sort and recycle domestic waste, it will be normal to buy or rent a house which is low energy and has renewable devices on the roof or in the basement. Instead of thinking about rent and fuel bills in isolation, people will look at the single, integrated cost of living in a property, and landlords will know that only a top grade Energy Performance Certificate can command a top rent. I hope that the recast of the EPBD will a big step in that direction.
