Energy Efficiency in Buildings Directive negotiations continue in Europe. What is at stake? Redesigning the various letters on energy performance certificates and the urgent need for compulsory improvement works on 15% of the Spanish building stock, the most inefficient in energy terms.
Following the agreement reached last May by the European Parliament to reform the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), the complex European legislative machinery was set in motion. During this trialogue phase, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council defend important implementation nuances.
"The European Union is to implement minimum energy efficiency standards for housing, but it is difficult to agree on how to do it. And that's where the debate is now," explains Raquel Díez, Project Manager at Green Building Council Spain (GBCe).
It is still too early to anticipate what the final wording will be. However, we must understand the institutions' positions on a Directive that, when transposed into Spanish law, could require owners of a property with the minimum rating to carry out improvement works up to the F label before selling or renting, just as the Energy Performance Certificate is now required.
On what percentage of housing is urgent action needed?
The biggest sticking point revolves around the so-called minimum energy performance standards, as Díez explains: "The aim is to harmonise energy certification in EU countries because until now, apart from common minimum standards, it has been very fragmented."
The EU wants to establish a rating system based on common objective criteria, but considering each climate's specific characteristics: the temperature on a Greek island or a northern Polish town naturally affects how energy is consumed in each.
"The problem arises in deciding how to implement this standardisation," Díez continues. The solution could be country-specific, self-regulatory grading of energy labels. Therefore, the letter G would group the worst 15% of the housing built in each country, and the letter A would be a Zero Emission Building, as defined by the Directive. Between the two, each country would have proportionate grading with the rest of the labels.
Facing this technical adjustment, the three European institutions are deciding on an initiative that will have a major impact on European housing. The urgent need for the EU to implement measures towards climate neutrality in residential buildings by 2050 is at stake.
To understand what is at stake, we need to examine the different positions in dispute on minimum energy efficiency standards:
- European Commission. The current text states that by 2030 the minimum rating for a European house should be F, and to achieve an E rating by 2033.
- Council of the European Union. The body that brings together the Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States favours relaxing measures. It proposes that each country (through directive transposition) decide what percentage of the housing built should be acted upon as a matter of urgency by 2030. Díez explains: "In this way, the G energy rating would remain the worst performing part of the housing stock, but it avoids setting an improvement percentage in housing, which leaves more discretion to each country".
- European Parliament. Its proposal for housing is for the E label by 2030 (instead of F) and the D label by 2033.
How will minimum standards be implemented?
In this scenario, Díez asks, "how will these minimum energy performance standards be applied? In her opinion, the Commission's current text is ambiguous:
"In one part, it says that by 2030, all residential buildings should be at least letter F, meaning that many homes need to be urgently refurbished. However, other parts of the text state that these homes should be rehabilitated when conditions prompt such, i.e. when they are to be put up for sale or rent."
Mandating a minimum rating of F by 2030 and E by 2033 for property purchase or rental is undoubtedly a major decision for a sector and one that observers, such as GBCe, feel is essential to clarify. This is not the only caveat to the proposed measures.
Díez detects an inconsistency in that "you are required to renovate a property when you want to sell it, when, on the other hand, comprehensive renovation of the building is being promoted as the most viable measure from an economic and technical point of view for homeowners' associations".
The timescale for action
The position adopted will determine whether improvements are more or less mandatory, but there is also a debate in Europe on the timescale for their implementation. Once again, the three institutions are at odds with each other.
- European Commission. It argues for standardised energy performance certificates, based on a common template, to be effective by 2025.
- Council of the European Union. It calls for this standardisation to be implemented by 2026, giving states more time to approve their renovation plans.
- European Parliament. It agrees with the Commission on approval by 2025, although linked to the re-grading of all energy certification letters.
The deadline for renewing the energy certification
Another point of conflict in the negotiation is that the energy performance certificates are valid for a limited period.
Certification is currently valid for ten years, regardless of the rating obtained by the property or home. If the Commission were to impose its decision, this period would be reduced to five years for those below C (from D to G), while for the first three, it would continue to be a decade.
Once again, the Council of the European Union defends a more conservative position, demanding that a ten-year time limit for renewal be maintained in all cases.
This is a new uncertainty in the EPBD trialogue procedure and another decision to be made by the EU to set the pace and requirements of this basic law to comply with Europe's decarbonisation objectives.
