BMVBS-Online-Publikation, No. 03/2010

Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice with focus on central European states

Imprint

Published by

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS)

Scientific Support

Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) within Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR)

Editing ARGE Energieausweise Mitteleuropa (Contractor) Dr. Roland Kopetzky Ingo Therburg with contributions from Graz Energy Agency, Austria; Belgien Gebäude Research Institute (BBRI), Belgium SEVEn, The Energy Efficiency Center, Czech Republic; Esbensen Colsulting Engineers A/S, Denmark; Rhönalpénergie-Environment, France; Energy for Sustainable Development (ESD Ltd.), Great Britain; Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxemburg, Luxembourg; TREDCODOME, Netherlands; National Energy Conservation Agency (NAPE), Poland; CIT Energy Management, Sweden Federal Office for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, Bonn (Contractor) Horst-Peter Schettler-Köhler (Project management) Hans-Peter Lawrenz

Reprint and Copying All rights reserved

Quotation BMVBS (Ed.): Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice with focus on central European states. BMVBS-Online-Publikation 03/2010. The views expressed in this report by the author are not necessarily identical with those of the publisher. ISSN 1869-9324 © BMVBS February 2010

A project within the research programme “Zukunft Bau“ conducted by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS), supervised by the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) within the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR). Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 1 with focus on central European states

Content Summary ...... 6 1. Introduction...... 8 1.1. Task...... 8 1.2. Approach...... 8 2. Lessons learned ...... 9 2.1. European Community: The commonality in the diversity...... 9 2.2. Methodology: To bring complex facts to a point is a skilled art...... 9 2.3. EPBD: A compromise between scientific precision and pragmatic application must be established...... 9 2.4. Layout: There’s no accounting for tastes ...... 9 2.5. Money and environment: The choice of indicators...... 9 2.6. Too many cooks spoil the broth ...... 9 2.7. Scientific princedoms...... 9 2.8. Challenge of certification of existing buildings underestimated ...... 10 2.9. Beside a common methodology, a common presentation of the results is required...... 10 2.10. Experience was always a valuable good...... 10 2.11. The political reality has its own rules ...... 10 2.12. Finally not the energy certificates but the building improvements count ...... 10 2.13. Quality comes from qualifications...... 10 2.14. Confidence is good, control is better ...... 10 3. Distinctions of the national implementation process...... 11 3.1. Austria ...... 11 3.2. Belgium...... 11 3.3. Czech Republic ...... 11 3.4. Denmark ...... 11 3.5. France...... 11 3.6. Germany ...... 12 3.7. Great Britain (England and Wales) ...... 12 3.8. Luxembourg ...... 12 3.9. Netherlands ...... 12 3.10. Poland...... 12 3.11. Sweden ...... 13 4. Good practice / interesting examples ...... 14 4.1. Legal framework / history...... 14 4.2. Methodology...... 14 4.3. Requirements ...... 14 4.4. Energy performance certificates ...... 15 4.5. Recommendations...... 15 4.6. Experts (Training, Accreditation, Tools) ...... 16 4.7. Quality assurance...... 16 4.8. Data collection ...... 16 4.9. Financing overheads ...... 16

Content BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 2 with focus on central European states

5. Comparison of national implementation ...... 17 5.1. Legal framework / history...... 17 5.1.1 History of implementation of general energy related requirements...... 17 5.1.2 Activities in the framework of implementation of energy certificates (independent of EPBD)...... 18 5.1.3 Time schedule of energy performance certificate ...... 19 5.2. Methodology...... 21 5.2.1 Level of integration, energy certificate evidence for building permission ...... 21 5.2.2 Level of integration, number of different methodologies...... 22 5.2.3 Asset or operational rating ...... 23 5.3. Requirements ...... 25 5.3.1 New buildings...... 25 5.3.2 Existing buildings...... 26 5.4. Energy performance certificates ...... 27 5.4.1 Overview on displayed information ...... 27 5.4.2 Asset or operational rating ...... 29 5.4.3 Classes or speedometer ...... 30 5.4.4 Amount of calculated or metered energy indicated on the certificate...... 31 5.4.5 Main indicator of the energy building performance on the certificate (graphical display)...... 33 5.4.6 Additional information on the certificate (in numbers) ...... 34 5.4.7 Validity of energy certificates...... 35 5.4.8 Onsite visit ...... 36 5.4.9 Building / building unit ...... 37 5.5. Recommendations...... 38 5.5.1 Volume of the certificates incl. recommendations / additional report ...... 38 5.5.2 How are the recommendations established? ...... 39 5.5.3 The quality (depth) of the recommendations ...... 40 5.6. Accreditation of experts...... 41 5.6.1 Training ...... 41 5.6.2 Procedure of accreditation...... 42 5.6.3 Organisational aspects of the accreditation...... 43 5.7. Quality assurance, data collection and overheads...... 44 5.7.1 Quality assurance of the certificates...... 44 5.7.2 Data collection...... 45 5.7.3 Financing overheads ...... 46 5.8. Cost estimation of energy certificates ...... 47 5.9. Acceptance of energy performance certificates ...... 49 6. Abbreviations...... 50

Content BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 3 with focus on central European states

ANNEX 1: ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES

Content: ...... 51 0. Comments to barrier-free design of annex 1...... 53 1. Austria ...... 54 1.1. General ...... 54 1.2. Abbreviations...... 55 1.3. Certificate for residential building (translated):...... 56 1.4. Example recommendation within the comments...... 59 1.5. Certificate for non-residential buildings (not translated)...... 60 1.6. Certificate for other buildings (not translated):...... 62 2. Belgium...... 64 2.1. Flemish Region – new buildings ...... 64 2.2. Flemish Region – existing dwellings when sold or rented ...... 66 2.3. Flemish Region – public buildings...... 69 2.4. Region of Brussels-Capital, new buildings ...... 70 2.5. 3 Regions – voluntary scheme EAP (not a certificate as required by EPBD)...... 71 3. Czech Republic...... 72 3.1. Display original ...... 72 3.2. Display with explanations (translated) ...... 73 3.3. Energy certificate, protocol and display (translated) ...... 74 4. Denmark ...... 85 4.1. Description of types and differences...... 85 4.2. Energy certificate for existing non residential buildings (translated)...... 86 5. France ...... 95 5.1. Application of asset and/or operational rating for the French certificates ...... 95 5.2. General description of the energy certificates in France ...... 96 5.3. Residential buildings for Sale with individual heating (asset rating) ...... 97 5.4. Residential buildings for Sale with central heating system (operational rating) ...... 101 5.5. Existing non residential buildings (always based on operational rating)...... 107 5.6. New non residential buildings (based on asset rating) ...... 111 5.7. Public buildings, office, administrative services, schools...... 115 5.8. Public buildings with permanent occupation (only differences) ...... 120 5.9. Public buildings, others...... 121 6. Germany ...... 122 6.1. General ...... 122 6.2. Residential buildings...... 123 6.3. Non residential buildings...... 128 6.4. Public buildings, calculated energy demand ...... 133 6.5. Public buildings, metered energy consumption...... 134

Content BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 4 with focus on central European states

7. Great Britain ...... 135 7.1. Energy certificate for dwellings (EPC) ...... 135 7.2. Energy certificate for non-domestic buildings (EPC)...... 143 7.3. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Poster for public display ...... 145 7.4. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Additional technical table...... 146 7.5. DEC: Advisory report (not displayed but available on request) ...... 147 8. Luxembourg...... 148 8.1. Description and translation ...... 148 8.2. Residential buildings...... 149 8.3. Non residential buildings...... 154 9. Netherlands ...... 155 9.1. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (translated) ...... 155 9.2. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (not translated) ...... 157 10. Sweden ...... 159 10.1. Energy declaration ...... 159

Content BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 5 with focus on central European states

ANNEX 2: FEEDBACK ACTION

Content: ...... 165 1. Questionaire ...... 166 2. Results overview ...... 167 2.1. Number of feedbacks ...... 167 2.2. Transparency of energy performance ...... 167 2.3. Cost and effort...... 168 3. Results national summaries ...... 169 3.1. Austria ...... 169 3.2. Belgium...... 170 3.3. Czech Republic ...... 171 3.4. Denmark ...... 172 3.5. France...... 174 3.6. Germany ...... 176 3.7. Great Britain ...... 179 3.8. Luxembourg ...... 184 3.9. Netherlands ...... 185 3.10. Sweden ...... 188

ANNEX 3: PROJECT PARTNERS Partner „ARGE Energieausweise Mitteleuropa“:...... 191 National Partner ...... 191

BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 6 with focus on central European states

Summary This study was commissioned by the German government to analyse the experiences with the EPBD implementation in the neighbouring countries. The German Government wishes to contemplate their further revision of the EPBD related legislation with the experiences of the neighbouring countries. The study reflects the situation until autumn 2008. The evaluated countries have been Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Due to the delay with the implementation in Poland, no practical experiences could be integrated. The section concerning Great Britain reflects the legislation for England and Wales only. In cooperation with one local partner in each country, the approach of the EPBD implementation was analysed. This was done in four steps: 1. Online Questionnaire 2. Detailed country reviews 3. Summarized country profile 4. Comparison in the final report In the framework of the project implementation, a working platform was installed in the internet (www.eu-energy- certificates.de) to organize the information exchange among the project partners. All relevant reviews, reports and profiles had been made available on this project page.

According to the variety of the political and legal systems in the European Community, there exists a brought variety of different approaches of the EPBD in den European Community. Beside that the rating of energy performance of buildings is a complicated approach; Different methodologies, indicators and displays can be used. The European Commission requires a “transparent” expression of energy building performance which is easily understandable for non-professionals. Thus, a lot of different solutions can be found. In detail, a lot of information required handling. An overview of main topics and experiences are given in chapter 2 “Lessons learned”. Each country has a special background and national distinctions which influenced the implementation process, which are summarized in chapter 3 “Distinctions of the national implementation process”. The chapter 4 “Good practice / interesting examples” is a collection of interesting and promising details in the implementation approach of the nations. The details of the general comparison of different national implementation approaches are summarized in chapter 5 “Comparison of national implementation”. In most of the European countries energy related legislations had been published in the sixties and seventies. But only Czech Republic, Denmark Great Britain and Netherlands had already started in the nineties an energy building certification approach on a legal basis. Only Denmark, France and Great Britain managed a timely national implementation according to the time guidelines of the commission. Definitely behind schedule are parts of the Regions in Belgium with some building types, Czech Republic with existing buildings (except major renovations), Luxembourg mainly with non residential buildings and Sweden with the new buildings due to the specialities of their methodology (operational rating). Austria, Czech Republic and Denmark are the only nations who have developed one methodology for all building types and use this methodology for the certificates as well as for building permit and energy related requirements, Austria with the distinction that the requirements focus on heat demand only. A methodology based on an estimated amount of energy is the most common among the nations. In Belgium and Great Britain the public buildings are analysed on the base of the metered amount of energy. Because this is easier to manage, in Great Britain the validity of the certificate for the public buildings is reduced from ten to one year. In France and Germany both methodologies are used in parallel and in Sweden operational rating is the only existing methodology. The energy requirements are based in all countries on a general main indicator. Most used is end energy, followed by primary energy and CO2. All nations use additional sub requirements for the building components. Most countries have requirements on existing buildings, some only in the case for major renovations others for all existing buildings. Some requirements are the same as for new buildings, others are slightly lower. The energy certificates of the evaluated nations differ also in meaning of the design and the content. Nearly all nations express the energy performance in energy classes. Only Germany and the Flemish Region in Belgium use a kind of speedometer instead of energy classes.

Summary BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 7 with focus on central European states

When the energy performance is evaluated on the base of estimated amount of energy, there are inherent to the system clear differences between the real consumption and the calculated amount of energy. This fact might lead to confusions for the target group. To avoid this Denmark, Great Britain (non residential buildings only) do not indicate the calculated amount of energy on the certificate, only the assessed energy class and/or rating. Furthermore Belgium and Netherlands use an artificial factor (ration between calculated amount of energy and the benchmark) to express energy performance and avoid confusions.

The energy performance on the certificate is expressed on the base on different indicators. Primary energy and CO2 gives high advantages for renewable energies. But it is not always desired, that bad efficiency in other parts can be covered by using renewable energy sources. To avoid this, different ratings on the base of different indicators have to be done. Luxembourg and Great Britain (residential buildings only) are an example for the use of multiple indicators. In addition to the energy performance rating most countries put additional information on the certificate. The validity of the certificates is in most cases ten years. Only in Denmark (five years (except summer cottages)) and in Great Britain (one year for public buildings) the validity differs. Most countries require an onsite visit for the issuance of the certificate. Only in Germany and Sweden is no visit necessary. In Great Britain, Czech Republic and Luxembourg the onsite visit is not mandatory by law, but is expected from these experts, that they go onsite. Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden allows the certificate only for a building as a whole, all other countries allows certification for building units or flats as well. The recommendations in the energy performance certificate vary among the nations. Only Belgium, Germany and Netherlands require descriptions of the improvement measures without any calculation. In all the other countries the measures have to be described in detail and energy and/or money savings calculated. Private training for the experts is available without any further regulation in France, Germany and Sweden. A mandatory training is needed for the experts in Great Britain, Austria, Belgium (partly), Denmark and Netherlands. An accreditation for the experts to issue the certificates is necessary in nearly each nation. In Austria only organisations are accredited and in Luxembourg only experts below a certain education level need an accreditation. Only in Germany an accreditation does not exist, only general education requirements. In all other nations each expert needs an accreditation before he is allowed to issue certificates. Denmark and Great Britain organize the accreditation on a private base. Actually, no quality assurance of the energy certificates is done in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden. In Austria the situation is still unclear regarding the regional responsibilities and in Luxembourg the quality assurance is implemented in the legislation but not actually used. In most countries the data are collected and evaluated centrally. Only Czech Republic, Germany and Luxembourg do not use the data from certificates. The overhead (accreditation, quality assurance) are paid by a private or governmental fee on each certificate or through governmental organisations which do the work. Austria and Germany don´t have the need to finance overheads. The estimated costs for one energy certificate differ from below 100 to more than 10.000 Euro depending on the nation and type of certificate. But looking on the results, it seems evident that detailed evaluation of the energy performance of a non residential building costs thousands of Euros.

Summary BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 8 with focus on central European states

1. Introduction 1.1. Task The directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD) obligates the European member states to implement the mandatory issuance of energy performance building certificates. This implementation has to be brought in to national law until 2006 but the EPBD gives the member states flexibility in the details of implementation. Especially according the methodology the member states may choose between a methodology based on metered or estimated amount of energy (operational or asset rating). Also in other issues, like the training and accreditation of the experts, the quality assurance and the layout of the certificates the member states has leeway in the interpretation of EPBD. If not enough experts are available, the nations will be allowed to extend the implementation process until the end of 2009. The implementation in Germany took place with the building regulation “Energiesparverordnung 2007 (EnEV), which was published July 24 2007. During the preparation of this legislation in Germany a serious discussion regarding the asset and operational rating took place. Also the effort which has to be spent to issue the certificates was topic of long discussions. It can be assumed, that in the neighbouring countries similar discussions took place. It is planned to update the German legislation 2009 and 2011/2012. In the framework with this revision, the EPBD implementation in the neighbouring countries should be analysed and compared in detail. The results should/would be used to influence the political discussion in Germany. 1.2. Approach To gather the national information, cooperation with national experts in every participating county was organised. The list of cooperation partners is listed in annex 4. In the beginning, the participation of Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden was planed. Due to the delay of the Polish implementation, not enough information for the evaluation was available and Poland couldn´t be integrated in this study as planned. On the other hand, Luxembourg as another neighbouring country could have been integrated during the project process. In Austria, Belgium and Great Britain regional authorities are responsible for the EPBD implementation. For Austria and Belgium the whole variation of regional differences are covered. In the case of Great Britain, this study reflects the legislation for England and Wales only, although the legislation in Northern Ireland is similar. Scotland uses totally different approaches in some respects. For the sampling and evaluation of the national information a four step approach was developed: 1. Online Questionnaire The national partner completed a detailed web based online questionnaire. Together with the online questionnaire all relevant legislation and documents in national language was collected. These results are available on the project web page. 2. Country review On the base of the results of the online questionnaire, the main topics of the national contribution had been specified and a detailed country review including an example of the energy certificates has been produced. 3. Country profile In a third step, the results of the online questionnaire and the country reviews had been “condensed” to a country profile, which are attached as an annex to this study. 4. Final report Finally the evaluated and compared results have been published in this final report. In the framework of the project implementation, a working platform was installed in the internet (www.eu-energy- certificates.de) to organize the information exchange among the project partner. All relevant reviews, reports and profiles had been made available on this project page. Additionally a so called “Feedback action” was launched in September 2008. The aim was to collect feedbacks from the target groups of the EPBD in the participating countries. A second multilingual online questionnaire with five short questions was published on the public part of the project web page. The results are summarized in annex 2.

Introduction BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 9 with focus on central European states

2. Lessons learned The fulfilment of the guidelines for energy performance of buildings in European nations should have taken place by 4. January 2006. The three year transition period given due to limited availability of experts in individual countries; has now ended. In the meantime, sufficient experiences with the implementation and use of the guidelines have occurred that the first comparisons can be made. 2.1. European Community: The commonality in the diversity The European Commission set the framework with its guidelines. The use of these guidelines in the individual countries follows the characteristics respective to the national legislation, political constellation and the technical/scientific background of the respective country. The multiplicity of the implementation of the EPBD in the member states reflects the diversity of the European Union. There are many areas of commonality but there are also various characteristics, interpretations and main points of emphasis. 2.2. Methodology: To bring complex facts to a point is a skilled art The European Commission wrote the European nations in their guideline book, to develop a methodology to assess energy performance in buildings. On the basis of this methodology an energy certificate is to be issued, that is transparent and comprehensible for non-professionals. Because of the complexity of the energy processes in buildings and the availability of various indicators of evaluation, it is a considerable challenge for the countries and nations. The evaluation method has to correspond with the physical legitimacy and has to reflect the specific situations of ownership and usage in each building. The chosen indicators must be politically concurring and for non- professionals comprehensible, interpretable and realistically applicable. Finally the evaluation should generate improvements in regards to energy efficiency. 2.3. EPBD: A compromise between scientific precision and pragmatic application must be established The evaluation must be plausible, comprehensible and sufficiently accurate. When calculated results move away from realistic values, the tool of evaluation will quickly lose recognition and significance. On the other hand, the expenditure of the evaluation process must be proportional to the results and should not be exaggerated. 2.4. Layout: There’s no accounting for tastes The layout is always a topic of discussion. As the saying is, “There’s no accounting for tastes.” The graphic display of the energy performance in the certificates is appropriately diverse. 2.5. Money and environment: The choice of indicators The EPBD is a basis for the aim of the European Commission of energy security and ecological optimization of energy use in buildings. From the ecological point of view, the use of renewable energy sources has little impact on the environment. This is reflected by the use of primary energy or CO2 as an indicator. But the buyer or renter expects from the energy certificate an indication regarding the amount of energy costs to be expected. Renewable energy sources, for example wood or thermal refuse utilization have to be paid anyhow, although globally seen they have a neutral effect on the CO2 balance. This contradiction is for non-professionals difficult to mediate and is only possible through the evaluation of the building with various indicators. Appropriate approaches have been established in various countries. 2.6. Too many cooks spoil the broth In each country, there are various interest groups involved in the implementation process, each attempting through lobbying to influence decisions in their interest. Next to the ecological interests of climate protection, the economical concerns of the construction industry in the implementation process have a large importance. Main points of emphasis are set dependent upon the political orientation of the government. In addition, there are sometimes diverse technical procedures and methodologies available in a country and it has struggled laboriously for the integration in the implementation process. 2.7. Scientific princedoms In such complex correlations as energy evaluation of buildings, it is normal that various procedures are developed. These are to be judged differently, having pros and cons, and should not be generally classified as “good” or “bad”. In order to assist the decision making process, an objective procedure and cooperation capabilities are needed. So called “scientific princedoms” that claim the knowledge /realization of the “absolute truth” in the way of building energy efficiency are for the implementation of high-quality national guidelines rather contra productive.

Lessons learned BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 10 with focus on central European states

2.8. Challenge of certification of existing buildings underestimated The calculation of the impact of a change (e.g. a new building or a refurbishment) is inherently easier to specify than the calculation of the performance of something that is not changing (eg an existing building). The challenges inherent in developing methodologies for the energy certification of existing buildings were under-estimated by many countries. 2.9. Beside a common methodology, a common presentation of the results is required Even before a common methodology is considered, it is at least equally important to impose a common presentation of the results. The A to G classification is an internationally recognised means to do this, others are available. However more detailed performance metrics also should be harmonised. In Great Britain there has been a spectacular failure to impose a common rating metric on the residential and non-residential sectors. For dwellings the rating is given on a logarithmic scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best achievable. For non-residential buildings for, both, asset or operational ratings, there is a linear non-dimensional scale where 0 is best, 100 is Typical and there is no limit on the worst rating. 2.10. Experience was always a valuable good In few countries are background experiences in the development of evaluation methods for energy performance and the issuance of energy certificates available. It seems that the experiences with previous energy certification programs results in clearer and more strategical approaches. 2.11. The political reality has its own rules Political implementation processes follow particular not always logical rules. So it is noticeable that the implementation of the EPBD occurs with the usual debatable discussion and processes which are particular to this political process. Due to political daily routines, there are in nearly every country irregularities and inaccessibility to be seen, causing the necessity of compromise. In the comparison of the implementation in the european neighbouring countries, it becomes clear that such political implementations do not occur on a “round table” as an “ideal” planning process. Rather it is extremely dependent upon political constellation and chance. If the implementations are situated on the basis of “ideal” implementation processes, in which the goals would be adapted to guidelines of national requirements, then alternative methods and strategies would be developed. Finally on this basis, decisions would be made and the implementation results of the european countries would resemble each other as is not the current case. 2.12. Finally not the energy certificates but the building improvements count One success factor of EPBD implementation seems to have the focus on practical recommendations. Only if the professionals are accordantly qualified, the certificates contain a detailed building analyse and the recommendations contain detailed calculations of investment and savings; can a high implementation impact of the certificate be expected. 2.13. Quality comes from qualifications The countries implementation clearly differs in the qualification and / or the professionals level of accreditation. Various countries used a great deal of time and energy on developing and establishing high quality qualification and accreditation systems to maintain usable results for energy certification. 2.14. Confidence is good, control is better A high qualification of the experts clearly appears to be a prerequisite for high quality certification. Many countries have managed to create an additional system to inspect individual certificates. The knowledge of the controls appears to have a large influence on the building owner.

Lessons learned BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 11 with focus on central European states

3. Distinctions of the national implementation process 3.1. Austria The Austrian implementation process is mainly determined by the regional responsibilities of the EPBD implementation. The Austrian Government started a harmonisation procedure and published a “guideline” for the implementation in the regions. With two exceptions, the regions followed this guideline. But still slight differences can be found from region to region. In contrary to the directive and the other nations, Austria defined “energy performance” only on the base of the heat demand without the inclusion of the electricity demand of cooling, lighting and ventilation. The energy demand for lighting, cooling and ventilation is indicated on the second page of the certificate, but has no influence on the calculation of the energy class. 3.2. Belgium Also in Belgium, the implementation of the EPBD is in the hands of the three Belgian Regions. A harmonisation process has been started, but still huge differences in the way and the speed of implementation can be found between the Regions. To assess the energy performance of new building, a similar methodology has been developed in all regions. But in regards to public buildings or existing buildings totally different approaches can be found. 3.3. Czech Republic Czech Republic could look back on a huge amount of experiences, which has been gained with the “energy audit” scheme. On this base, a transparent methodology and certificate has been developed. In contrary to most of the other nations, Czech Republic bases the energy performance on a simple addition of heat and electricity without any conversion factor. Further on, the certification of existing buildings in the case of renting or selling has not been implemented. Energy certificates for existing buildings have been only issued in the case of major renovation and a building permission is needed. Due to the experiences with the energy audits, a strong focus was laid on the measurements in the energy certificates. 3.4. Denmark Denmark was the pioneer of the EPBD implementation in Europe. Only Denmark was able to implement the legislations before January 2006. Similar to Czech Republic Denmark has gained a huge amount of experience in assessing building energy performance and certifying buildings. With ELO (Energy Management Scheme) and EM (Energy Rating Scheme) scheme, thousands of buildings had been certified between 1997 and 2006. Regarding the methodology Denmark made from ELO/EM to EPBD a turnaround from operational to asset rating. Surprisingly nowadays it seems hard to find the reasons behind this turnaround. At least one reason might simply be a misunderstanding of the directive in the early times after their publication. In the beginning the EPBD was understood in a way that only asset rating was allowed. After it became clear that operational rating is a serious option, the process in Denmark has forwarded to much as a second turnaround had been possible. But due to the experiences with ELO/EM, Denmark held a strong focus on the measurements and the quality assurance of certificates and issuers. Actually this quality assurance procedure will be changed form a governmental to a private based system. 3.5. France France has implemented energy requirements for buildings since the seventeenth but still left a lot of holes open in the net of energy requirements. One reason for this might be relatively low energy costs. Especially electricity was cheap and France has compared with other European countries a high percentage of electric heated buildings. No experiences on energy certification on national level were available in France before EPBD. But France implemented the EPBD relatively quick. The issuance of the most of the certificates is mandatory in France since 2006 or 2007. Only for the rented non residential buildings no regulations has been developed till now. French Ministry of building and construction organized a “round table” with all relevant groups to ensure a high acceptance of the implementation. With nearly 20 different cases of energy certificates, the result is rather complicated. France implemented a system where depending on several conditions operational and / or asset rating is allowed. Except public building the same reference values are used for all buildings. A single family house is assessed with the same reference values as a private hospital or a shopping mall. Thus the French energy certificate does not really express the energy performance, but the range of the actual building within the whole building stock. That is important information, but from an expression in energy classes the public might expect information on the efficiency of the building. Further

Distinctions of the national implementation process BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 12 with focus on central European states the same reference values are used for operational and asset rating, although the calculated energy demand (asset rating) do respect only to the building, not to the user related energy consumption. Thus the value of calculated and metered energy consumption normally has big differences. 3.6. Germany Germany has a relatively detailed history in energy requirements for buildings. Regarding residential buildings the requirements of the EPBD had been more or less implemented on the base of the already existing legislation. Regarding non residential buildings and the use of electricity new methodologies had to be developed. Sometimes it seemed that the huge amount of different “scientific princedoms” regarding energy efficiency in buildings in Germany has made the implementation process much more complicated. In Germany the building owner has, beside some small exceptions the free choice to use asset or operational rating. Beside this, in comparison to other European countries the quality assurance is on a poor level in Germany. Neither an accreditation scheme for the experts nor a quality assurance system for the issued certificates exists. The experts must fulfil a certain level of education and/or experience. 3.7. Great Britain (England and Wales) In the past Great Britain has developed huge knowledge and different instruments regarding energy efficiency in buildings. The implementation process shows also the existence of different “scientific princedoms”, like in Germany. As a result in Great Britain exists different well developed methodologies for different building types. Thus Great Britain demonstrates in parts of the implementation process exemplary solution for the expression of building energy performance, but between the different methodologies a kind of homogeneous solution or strategy is missing. Whilst all other building has to be assessed by asset rating, for public building a methodology on the base of the consumed energy was chosen. This advantage in terms of effort and costs for the public buildings was used to reduce the validity of the certificate from ten to one year and the integration of the consumption of the last two years in the certificate. 3.8. Luxembourg Luxembourg started relatively late with the implementation. The legislation regarding the residential buildings is ready, while the instruments for the non residential buildings are still under development. Nevertheless, the energy certificates of Luxembourg found huge interest in the framework of this project. With different types of energy performance expressions, different aspects of the building energy performance are covered in Luxembourg. This might be a result of the late implementation and the relatively “calm” surrounding during the implementation process which might gave the developing team in Luxembourg the possibility to concentrate to a high extend on technical and scientific issues. 3.9. Netherlands The Netherlands had already very advanced instruments and methodologies available, when the EPBD came in force. But although the implementation was already nearly done, the Dutch government decided first no to implement the EPBD regarding to the deregulation strategy of the government. But nevertheless at the end this directive was implemented. In the Netherlands the energy performance has to be calculated (asset rating) and is expressed with an artificial factor. This avoids the discussion on the differences between the calculated energy demand and the metered energy, consumed by the user later on. 3.10. Poland Poland has planned to finalize the implementation in 2008. But due to several reasons, the legislation in autumn 2008 was still not published an therefore it is still not clear in detail, which way Poland will choose.

Distinctions of the national implementation process BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 13 with focus on central European states

3.11. Sweden Sweden has a strong history on energy efficiency in buildings. The origin of the low energy houses might be located in Sweden. But it seems that Sweden has gambled away the pioneer role in this matter. Sweden is the only nation, which chooses only operational rating for the certificates, even for new buildings. Because with new buildings of course no energy consumption is available, the energy certificate respectively the building permission has to be made on a base of a consumption period of two years. That means that the energy certificate can be issued at the earliest in the third year after completion. Regarding to the legislation the user related energy consumption has to be deducted from the total energy consumption. Under a scientific view on building energy certification this makes sense, but during the duration of this project no detailed

Distinctions of the national implementation process BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 14 with focus on central European states

4. Good practice / interesting examples

4.1. Legal framework / history

Topic Nation Description

Experiences Czech Republic With the EPBD implementation Czech Republic could use a large amount of experience gained with the “energy audit” program. Beginning in the late nineties, thousands of detailed energy audits based on metered amount of energy had been issued, partly on a voluntary and partly on a mandatory basis.

Experiences Denmark Beginning in 1996, Denmark gained a large amount of experience with the ELO and EM scheme, where thousands of energy certificates had been issued and a system of well trained experts had been erected.

Round table France Organisation of a „round table“ with all relevant groups, such as building owners, real estate companies, associations of architects and engineers, etc. to accompany the EPBD implementation process.

Privatisation Denmark Denmark is just changing the accreditation and quality control form a governmental to a private based system

Privatisation Great Britain UK Government fixed methodologies and process, but leaves their implementation as much as possible to the market

4.2. Methodology

Topic Nation Description

Indicator Netherlands Energy performance is expressed as a so called E-Level which is the ratio between the estimated annual primary energy consumption and the typical reference value to avoid irritations due to the differences of the estimated and the actual energy consumption

Integration Czech Republic Only on methodology for all types of buildings, for building permissions Denmark and for energy certification

Penalty cooling Denmark If the calculation finds that due to a low summer heat protection the (overheating) Netherlands summer indoor temperature will be too high; a fictive cooling demand is Belgium added to the energy balance independent if a cooling system exists or not (penalty cooling).

4.3. Requirements

Topic Nation Description

Min. temperature France The indoor air temperature in cooled buildings is restricted by law to a (Cooling minimum of 26°C to avoid high summer energy consumption due to low indoor temperature in cooled buildings. (Other European countries restrict the indoor temperature in cooled buildings to a maximum of 26 °C!) Existing buildings Belgium Same requirement for new buildings and major renovations Czech Republic Luxembourg

Building Denmark The energy calculation according to the common methodology has to permission be done by the planning team to receive the building permission. After completion of construction the calculation has to be replicated and the

Good practice / interesting examples BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 15 with focus on central European states

energy certificated issued by the independent expert (usage permission)

4.4. Energy performance certificates

Topic Nation Description

Estimated amount Denmark To avoid confusions due to the difference between estimated and actual of energy Great Britain energy consumption, only the energy class is indicated on the certificate (NonRes) and not the amount of estimated energy consumption

Metered energy Czech Republic The energy building performance is assessed on the base of estimated Denmark amount of energy. As a additional information the metered amount of energy is indicated in the certificate (DK: Heat consumption for single and multi family buildings and heat and electricity consumption for non residential buildings)

Validity Denmark The energy certificate should not be older than five years (summer cottages below 120 m² ten years)

Validity, public Great Britain The energy certificates for public buildings are based in contrary to all buildings other building on metered energy. Because these certificates are so simple to produce, they must be renewed every year and show the energy performance for the previous two years side by side with the current year

Multiple rating Great Britain The energy certificate for residential buildings shows two ratings: - the base of CO2 - base of energy costs

Multiple rating Luxembourg The energy certificate for residential buildings shows three ratings: - the base of primary energy (building energy performance) - the base of the heat demand (thermal performance of envelope) - the base of CO2 (ecological performance)

4.5. Recommendations

Topic Nation Description

Focus on Czech Republic High focus is given to the recommendations. Detailed description of the recommendations Denmark measurements in the certificate or in an additional report. Energy and France money savings are calculated for each measure (France only for Great Britain residential buildings, asset rating) Luxembourg Sweden Detailed Czech Republic The certificate contains a detailed description of the building and the description in the Denmark recommendations (GB only for residential) certificate Great Britain Sweden Energy plan Denmark In addition to the certificate a detailed energy plan is drawn up for the Additional report Great Britain building (DK). A detailed recommendations report is a mandatory part of an asset rating based energy certificate (for all building types) and a rather generic advisory report is a mandatory part of the operational rating based energy certificate (only for public buildings) (GB) Recommendation Austria A recommendation has to be given how a better classification may be obtained and how new building standard may be reached

Good practice / interesting examples BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 16 with focus on central European states

4.6. Experts (Training, Accreditation, Tools)

Topic Nation Description

Handbook Denmark A detailed handbook for the experts exists on how to check buildings and the issuance of the energy plan and certificate

Privatisation Denmark From ELO/EM DK has many well trained energy experts, but in the future, only companies which have carried out an ISO 9001 quality assessment are able to apply for accreditation. These companies are responsible for the quality of their staff. No individual accreditation will be allowed

Privatisation Great Britain All certificates have to be produced by accredited assessors who must belong to one of about twelve Accreditation Schemes which are commercial organisations approved by the government. Assessors must be trained and assessed for their competence before they can be accredited. Training and assessment are also all done by the private sector under government regulation.

4.7. Quality assurance

Topic Nation Description

Samples Belgium Samples of the energy performance certificates are approved within the Czech Republic quality assurance Denmark France

Privatisation Denmark Accreditation Schemes are responsible for the quality assurance of Great Britain energy certificates. As part of their approval by government, they must submit their quality assurance plans and procedures. Government sets down minimum quality assurance standards eg the number of certificates that must be checked by the Accreditation Scheme.

4.8. Data collection

Topic Nation Description

Data collection Belgium Data is centrally collected which creates the potential for statistical Denmark evaluation and evidence based policy making. In GB the central register Great Britain is operated by a private company contracted to the government and is Netherlands financed by a fee on every certificate which was fixed after negotiation Sweden with the government.

4.9. Financing overheads

Topic Nation Description

Public fee Denmark A public fee is collected from the government for each energy performance certificate to finance the overheads

Private fee Great Britain A commercially set fee is collected by each of the twelve private Accreditation Schemes for each certificate in order to finance their operations.

Good practice / interesting examples BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 17 with focus on central European states

5. Comparison of national implementation 5.1. Legal framework / history 5.1.1 History of implementation of general energy related requirements The European countries have different experiences with the legal energy related requirements. On the one hand, the long experience with energy related requirements should have increased the amount of knowhow and should help to implement EPBD. On the other hand, a long history of energy related requirements might have produced a set of legislation which needs to be adapted to the EPBD. To implement a new legislation might be easier. Table 1 History of implementation of general energy related requirements Explanation: X: Yes

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X Luxembourg X Netherlands Sweden X

Most countries started with requirements on the envelope of the buildings between 1960 and 1975. Only Belgium and Luxembourg have later implemented similar regulations.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 18 with focus on central European states

5.1.2 Activities in the framework of implementation of energy certificates (independent of EPBD) Independent of the energy related requirements, some countries have already started with the implementation of energy certificates on a national base. Energy certification programs on a regional base are not taken into account in this table. Table 2 Date of the first implementation of energy certificates on a national base (independent of EPBD) 1 Explanation: x = Implementation on a base of a national program 2 x = Implementation on a base of a national legislation

1990 1995 2000 2005

Austria Belgium X2 Czech Republic X1 Denmark X1 France Germany X1 Great Britain X1 Luxembourg Netherlands X1 Sweden

Comments: Belgium: Energy Advice Procedure (EAP), Flemish and Walloon Region Czech Republic Energy Audit Denmark ELO (Energy Management Scheme) / EM (Energy Audit Scheme) Germany New buildings only Great Britain New dwellings only Netherland 1995 new buildings, 2000 existing buildings Including Czech Republic, Denmark, Great Britain and Netherlands, four out of the analysed countries have significant experiences with energy performance certificates on a base of a national legislation. It might be useful to have a deeper look into these countries to see what they have learned and how they have implemented EPBD on the base of these experiences.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 19 with focus on central European states

5.1.3 Time schedule of energy performance certificate As described in chapter 2 the EPBD was to be implemented until 4th January 2006, with an extension period to 4th January 2009. In the table below it is asked for the time, when the issuance of energy performance certificates was/is mandatory and not when the legislation has been implemented, which might not be the same. Table 3 Since when is / When will be the issuance of energy certificates mandatory Explanation: X = Yes X1 = Yes, see comments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X

Austria Existing building, NonRes X Public building X New building, Res X1 New building, NonRes X1 Existing building, Res X1 X1 X1

Belgium Existing building, NonRes Public building X1 X1

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X1 X1 Republic Existing building, NonRes X1 X1 1 1

Czech Public building X X New building, Res X

New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X Denmark Public building X New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X1 X1

France Existing building, NonRes X Public building X New building, Res X

New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X1 X1 Existing building, NonRes X Germany Public building X New building, Res X New building, NonRes X1 X1 X1 1 1 1 1

Britain Existing building, Res X X X X Existing building, NonRes X1 X1 X1

Great Public building X

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X1 Existing building, Res X1 X1 Existing building, NonRes X X1 1 Luxembourg Public building X

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X

Netherlands Public building X New building, Res X1 X1 New building, NonRes X1 X1 Existing building, Res X

Sweden Existing building, NonRes X Public building X 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 20 with focus on central European states

Comments: General: In general, most energy certificates will be mandatory between January 2006 and January 2009. Some nations are delayed with some energy certificates. None of the nations (except Poland) will have no energy certificate mandatory after January 2009. Belgium New buildings residential Flemish Region May 2007 (but the requirement is applicable since January 2006) Walloon Region September 2009 Region of Brussels-Capital July 2008 New building non residential Flemish Region May 2007 (but the requirement is applicable since January 2006) Walloon Region September 2009 Region of Brussels-Capital July 2008 Existing buildings residential Flemish Region (sold) Nov 2008 Flemish Region (rented) Jan 2009 Walloon Region expected Sept 2009 Region of Brussels-Capital unknown Existing building non residential Flemish Region unknown Walloon Region unknown Region of Brussels-Capital unknown Public buildings Flemish Region Jan 2009 Walloon Region unknown Region of Brussels-Capital expected 2009 Czech Republic An energy certificate is only necessary in relation with a building permit. This restricts the mandatory issuance in the case of major renovation (over 1000 m²) and new buildings. The energy certificate for selling and renting and for the public display is planned probably for 2010. France Existing buildings residential For sale Nov 2006 Existing buildings residential For rent July 2007 For existing buildings non residential actually energy certificates are only mandatory in the case of sale. For the case of renting no legislation is published till now. Germany Existing building residential built before 1966 July 2008 Existing building residential built after 1965 Jan 2009 Great Britain

New buildings non residential area > 10,000 m² April 2008 New buildings non residential area > 2,500 m² Jun 2008 New buildings non residential all other Oct 2008 Existing buildings non residential area > 10,000 m² April 2008 Existing buildings non residential area > 2,500 m² Jun 2008 Existing buildings non residential all other Oct 2008 Existing residential for sale > 4 bedrooms June 2007 Existing residential for sale > 3 bedrooms Sept 2007 Existing residential for sale all Dec 2007 Existing residential for let all Oct 2008 Luxembourg The legislation for residential building is in force. But energy certificates for existing residential buildings are only mandatory if a building permit in case renovation is required. The mandatory issuance of energy certificates in the case of selling or renting is expected in 2010. Sweden Regarding new buildings a consumption period of at least two years is required. The regulation is to come in force in Jan 2009. Thus the first energy certificate for new buildings will be issued 2011

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 21 with focus on central European states

5.2. Methodology 5.2.1 Level of integration, energy certificate evidence for building permission Due to the EPBD, the nations need to develop a methodology for both, the requirements for new and existing buildings and the energy building certificates. It is not explicitly written in the EPBD, that the energy certificates and the requirement have to be based on the same methodology, but some countries used the EPBD implementation to harmonize the national legislation Different cases are possible: Integrated Methodology • The methodology is used for the energy related requirements for new and existing buildings • The requirements for new and existing buildings are used as benchmarks in the energy certificates • The energy certificate used as evidence for the building permit Non-integrated Methodologies • Different methodologies are used for requirements and energy certificates • The building permit is not given on the base of the energy certificate

Table 4 Energy certificate evidence for building permission Explanation: X = Yes X1 = Yes, see comments

Integrated methodology Non‐integrated methodology Energy certificate evidence for Energy certificate not evidence buiding permission for buiding permission

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X Luxembourg X Netherlands X1 Sweden X

Netherlands The energy calculation is since 1996 a legal requirement for getting a building permission. The energy certificate is used for existing buildings. The legal energy calculation does replace the energy certificate for buildings younger than 10 years. So there is a relation between energy calculation and building permission in Netherlands

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 22 with focus on central European states

5.2.2 Level of integration, number of different methodologies Due to the EPBD, the nations have to develop a methodology for the energy requirements for new and existing buildings and the energy building certificates. It is not explicitly written in the EPBD, that the energy certificates and the requirement have to be based on the same methodology, but in the sense of transparency and simplification it seems that an integrated methodology has advantages. Different building types and building usages require different aspects regarding the methodology. Some countries were able to cover all aspects with one methodology, which of course is an advantage with respect on the transparency of the methodologies. But on the other hand, some countries have traditionally separate methodologies and a integration might produce confusion as well. Table 5 Number of different methodologies

Number of different methodologies

per nation

Austria 1 Belgium 3 Czech Republic 1 Denmark 1 France 3 Germany 4 Great Britain 4 Luxembourg 3 Netherlands 4 Sweden 1

Comments Germany With the next revision of the German legislation the integration of residential and non residential buildings is planned. This will reduce the amount of methodologies to two.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 23 with focus on central European states

5.2.3 Asset or operational rating As described in chapter 2, in general the methodology can be based on the metered amount of energy (operational rating) or on the estimated amount of energy (asset rating). Table 6 Asset rating or operational rating Explanation: X = Yes X1 = Yes, see comments

Asset rating Operational rating New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X

Austria Existing building, NonRes X Public building X New building, Res X

New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X

Belgium Existing building, NonRes X Public building X New building, Res X

New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Czech

Republic Existing building, NonRes X Public building X

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X Denmark Public building X New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X1 X1

France Existing building, NonRes X Public building X

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X1 X1 Existing building, NonRes X1 X1 Germany Public building X1 X1 New building, Res X New building, NonRes X

Britain Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X

Great Public building X New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X

Luxembourg Public building New building, Res X New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X

Netherlands Public building X New building, Res X

New building, NonRes X Existing building, Res X

Sweden Existing building, NonRes X Public building X

Asset rating Operational rating

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 24 with focus on central European states

Comments: With the view of the two different methodologies, four different implementation groups can be identified: 1. Constant asset rating Without any exception only asset rating is used Austria Czech Republic Denmark Luxembourg Netherlands 2. Operational rating for public buildings only Asset rating is always used, except the public buildings where only Belgium operational rating is used Great Britain 3. Choice of methodologies Under certain exceptions free choice of the methodologies France Germany 4. operational rating only Only operational rating, even for new buildings Sweden

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 25 with focus on central European states

5.3. Requirements 5.3.1 New buildings As described in EPBD the nations developed indicators to assess the energy building performance. Different indicators are in use. Additional to the main indicator most countries implemented sub requirements for the building components. Table 7 Indicator of main requirement and sub requirements for building components Explanation: X = Yes X1 = Nonresidential only

Indicator Sub requirements

main requirement building components

factor energy weighted envelope water

energy

CO2 Boiler factor Others Cooling Lighting Hot End Ventilation value Artificial Primary U ‐ Political

Austria X X X X X1 X1 X Belgium X X X X Czech Republic X X X X X X X Denmark X X X X X1 X X X France X X X X X X X X Germany X X X X X1 X1 X1 X Great Britain X X X X X1 X X Luxembourg X X X X X X1 X1 X X1 Netherlands X Sweden X X

Austria Main indicator is not end energy but the thermal quality of the building envelope Belgium Other: Limitation of the overheating risk (residential buildings only) Luxembourg Main indicator is not end energy but the thermal quality of the building envelope

Great Britain Main indicators for residential buildings are based on energy cost and CO2

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 26 with focus on central European states

5.3.2 Existing buildings According to the EPBD most countries have requirements on major renovations for existing buildings. In addition some countries have general requirements on existing buildings independent of major renovation. Table 8 Requirements on existing buildings Explanation: X = Yes X1 = Yes, see comments

Major renovation Existing buildings general

for for

new new

for

for as as

lower

renovation

renovations

but building building of

buildings buildings

requirements requirements buildings

major methodology

requirements requirement requirement

existing existing existing existing buildings, no Own General General Beside Same Same independent Austria X X Belgium X1 X1 X Czech Republic X X Denmark X1 X France X X Germany X X Great Britain X X Luxembourg X Netherlands X1 X Sweden

Comments Belgium Flemish Region same requirement as new buildings Walloon Region and Region of Brussels-Capital different methodology Denmark In general, the sub requirements for new buildings have to always be fulfilled as far as they are cost effective. The main requirement (global energy demand) must not to be fulfilled. In the case of major renovation, additionally any other cost effective measures that can be identified have to be carried out. France General requirements on every type of renovation, for small buildings holistic requirement Germany Requirement for major renovation is 40 % below new buildings. General exchange requirement for old boilers. Great Britain Requirements for replacement of old boilers and windows independent of any other renovation (and for replacement of lighting and air conditioning plant in non-residential buildings). Luxembourg Any renovation which has an effect on the energy demand requires a new energy certificate. Netherlands Major renovation: Not the main requirements but the sub requirements according to the new buildings have to be fulfilled. Sweden No general requirements but recommendations exist for renovations.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 27 with focus on central European states

5.4. Energy performance certificates 5.4.1 Overview on displayed information Table 9 Overview on displayed information Comments: X = Yes X1 = Yes, see comments

Metho‐ Primary energy performance display Type of certificate Additional information dology Type Indicator Amount

of

demand factor demand

status

calsses demand

or

heat pages renewables electricity certificate

energy electricity envelope envelope building eter energy

ears energy electricity factor factor building

of of of y weighted

costs consumption costs

of rating

building end Residential

energy energy last ality of mber mber lculated Type CO2 Political Artificial Energy of Quality heating Quality Amount Metered Metered Energy the Ca Calculated demand Primary energy CO2 Artificial Energy Nation Nu Residential Non Public New Existing Basset Operational rating Nu Speedom status and Actual recommendationsincl. Qu End End Sum Primary energy 1 Wohnen X X X X 2 A++‐G X X X X1 X1

1 1

A 2 Nichtwohnen X X X X 2 A++‐G X X X X X 3 Sonstige X X X 2 A++‐G X X X X1 X1 1 Fl/Wohnen neu X X X 2 Tacho X X 2 FL/Wohnen Bes. X X X 3 Tacho X X X X X

BE 3 FL/Öffentlich X X X 1 Tacho X 4 RBC: Wohnen X X X 1 A+‐G X X X X

CZ 1 Alle Gebäude X X X X X X 10 A‐G X X X X X X X X 1 1 1

1 Wohnen EFH X X X X >8 A1‐G X X X X X 1 1 1

DK 2 Wohnen MFH X X X X >8 A1‐G X X X X X 3 Nicht Wohnen X X X X X >8 A1‐G X X1 X1 X X X1 1 Wohnen X X X X1 X1 4 A‐G X X X X1 X1 X1 X1 X 1 1 1 1 F 2 Nichtwohnen X X X X 4 A‐I X X X X X X X X 3 Öffentlich X X X 4 A‐G X X X X1 X1 X1 X1 X 1 Wohnen X X X X1 X1 4 Tacho X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 2 Nichtwohnen X X X X X X 5 Tacho X X X X X X X X

1 Wohnen X X X X 8 A‐G X X X X X X

GB 2 Nichtwohnen X X X X 2 A‐G X 3 Öffentlich X X X 1+20 A‐G X X X X Lux 1 Wohnen X X X X 5 A‐I X X X X

NL 1 Alle Gebäude X X X X 2 A++‐G X

SE 1 Alle Gebäude X X X X X X 5 8 Klassen X X X

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 28 with focus on central European states

Comments Austria The energy performance is based on head demand only. As information, the amount of calculated energy, the amount for heat and electricity is given on the second page. The amount of primary energy and CO2 can be indicated on a preliminary base. France Due to a complicated system, it is organized whether metered or calculated energy can be used. In general the certificates are very similar. The main differences are the extension of the classes from G to I for Non Residential private buildings. For public buildings, reference values have been adopted. Germany In Germany the certificate includes the certificate for metered as well as the certificate for calculated energy amounts. Only one of them has to be completed, the other may stay vacant.

Great Britain Public buildings main indicator is (non-dimensional) CO2

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 29 with focus on central European states

5.4.2 Asset or operational rating Table 10 Metered or calculated amount of energy (asset or operational rating) Comments: X = Yes X1 = Only public buildings operational, all others asset rating X2 = Under some restrictions free choice between asset and operational rating

Asset rating Operational rating

Austria X Belgium X1 X1 Czech Republic X Denmark X France X2 X2 Germany X2 X2 Great Britain X1 X1 Luxembourg X Netherlands X Sweden X

Comments Belgium Flemish Region uses operational rating for public buildings only France For non residential buildings only operational rating is used For public buildings only operational rating is used For residential buildings depending on the age and heating system, operational and/or asset rating is used (see national review) Germany In Germany the owner of existing buildings has the free choice between operational and asset rating, except for residential buildings with less than five flats, which has to be analysed with asset rating. Great Britain Great Britain uses operational rating for public buildings only Sweden Sweden uses operational rating only, including for new buildings

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 30 with focus on central European states

5.4.3 Classes or speedometer In general two different approaches are used to express the energy building performance. One is the expression in energy classes according to the European energy classes for the household appliances. The other approach is the so called speedometer, where the actual value and the benchmark is shown graphically on a linear scale. Table 11 Display of energy performance: Classes or “speedometer” Comments: X = Yes

Classes Speedometer

Austria A++ A+ A B C D E F G Belgium A+ A B C D E F G X Czech Republic A B C D E F G Denmark A1 A2 A B C D E F G France A B C D E F G H I Germany X Great Britain A B C D E F G Luxembourg A B C D E F G H I Netherlands A++ A+ A B D E F G Sweden 8 classes without letter

Comments Belgium Flemish Region uses speedometer Walloon Region and Region of Brussels-Capital use classes Denmark New buildings needs to reach class B. Class A is divided into A1 and A2 to distinguish between low energy and high performance buildings France The classes are extended for non residential buildings to “I”. The reference value is for residential and non residential the same and the non residential buildings use normally much more energy and need therefore higher Classes. The EPC for public building remains the same as the residential buildings but the reference value for public buildings has been changed and is much higher than for residential and non residential buildings. Netherlands New residential buildings meeting the old 2000-building regulations equal class A Sweden Sweden expresses energy performance with classes. But no letters are used, the classes are expressed only through a graphical display

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 31 with focus on central European states

5.4.4 Amount of calculated or metered energy indicated on the certificate Description of the problem: The energy consumption of buildings differs according to the usage of the building. If asset rating (calculated energy amount) is used to assess the energy building performance, the energy consumption is calculated on a base of an assumed standard usage (standard profile). This makes the energy consumption of the building comparable with other buildings, calculated with the same methodology. The energy consumption which has been calculated is an artificial result which might have large differences to the real consumption. These differences are not specifically a result of an “inaccurate” calculation but are implied in the methodology. First the standard usage, which is used for the calculation can differ to the real usage, secondly the calculation does not cover user related energy consumption for example office equipment. Experts should know the difference between metered energy consumption and calculated energy consumption on a base of standard use. But for the public, this difference between the calculation and the real consumption is very confusing. To avoid this confusion, some countries assess the energy building performance on the base of calculated energy consumption, but indicate only the rating and not the amount of calculated energy consumption in the certificate. Table 12 Asset rating: Which amount of energy consumption is indicated on the certificate? Comments: X = Yes X1= See comments

Which energy amount or consumption is indicated on the certificate?

Calculated energy demand Metered energy consumption

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X X Denmark X France X1 X1 Germany X1 X1 Great Britain X1 X1 Luxembourg X X Netherlands Sweden X1

Two main approaches can be identified in regarding this topic:

1. Calculated energy building performance but no calculated energy Denmark consumption indicated Netherlands

2. Although the energy performance is based on calculated energy Czech Republic consumption the actual consumed or metered energy consumption is Denmark indicated in the certificate Operational rating for public buildings only Luxembourg

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 32 with focus on central European states

Comments Germany If asset rating is used, the calculated amount of energy consumption is written in the certificate, if operational rating is used the metered amount of energy. both can be noted in the same certificate but that is preliminary. Great Britain Res: The calculated amount of energy is indicated NonRes No amount of energy is indicated, only the classes Public: Operational rating Netherlands The energy building performance is expressed in an artificial factor to avoid the above written confusion. Sweden operational rating only

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 33 with focus on central European states

5.4.5 Main indicator of the energy building performance on the certificate (graphical display) The following table shows the indicators which are used to express the energy performance on the energy performance certificate. The expression of the energy building performance is done with classes or the “speedometer”. Table 13 Main indicator of the energy building performance on the certificate (graphical display) Comments: X = Always given on the certificate X1= Depending of the type of certificate X2= See comments

Political Quality of End‐ Primary Artificial Energy CO2 weighted envelope energy energy factor costs factor Austria X2 Belgium X1 X1 Czech Republic X Denmark X France X X Germany X1 X1 Great Britain X1 X1 Luxembourg X X X Netherlands X Sweden X2

Comments Austria Energy building performance is assessed only on the base of the thermal quality of the envelope Belgium Depending of the Region and type of certificate different indicators are used Czech Republic Energy building performance is based on the sum of end energy (electricity and heat) Germany Asset rating is based on primary energy, operational rating is based on end energy (electricity and heat separately)

Great Britain Energy building performance is always based on CO2. For residential buildings additionally energy costs are included Sweden End energy does not include users/tenants energy

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 34 with focus on central European states

5.4.6 Additional information on the certificate (in numbers) Most certificates have additional information which are indicated on the certificate but do not influence the rating of the energy performance. Table 14 Additional information on the certificate (in numbers) Comments: X = Always on the certificate X1= Depending of the type of certificate X2= See comments

Political Quality of End‐ Primary Artificial Energy CO2 weighted envelope energie energy factor costs factor Austria X Belgium X1 X1 Czech Republic X Denmark X France X X 1 1 Germany X X Great Britain X1 X1 Luxembourg X X X Netherlands X Sweden X2

Comments Austria Calculated electricity only for NonRes Belgium Depending type of certificate and Region (see table 9) Denmark Metered electricity demand only for residential buildings France Metered or calculated amount of energy depending of type of methodology used Germany Depending on type of methodology used Sweden End energy does not include users/tenants energy

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 35 with focus on central European states

5.4.7 Validity of energy certificates Table 15 Validity of energy certificates

Years New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10

Austria Existing building, NonRes 10 Public building 10 New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10

Belgium Existing building, NonRes 10 Public building 10 New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10 Re Existingpublic building, NonRes 10

Czech Public building 10 New building, Res 5

New building, NonRes 5 Existing building, Res 5 5

Denmark Existing building, NonRes Public building 5 New building, Res 10

New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10

France Existing building, NonRes 10 Public building 10 New building, Res 10

New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10 10

Germany Existing building, NonRes Public building 10

New building, Res 10

‐ New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10 Groß Existing building, NonRes 10 britannien Public building 1 New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10 Existing building, NonRes 10

Luxembourg Public building 10

New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10 Existing building, NonRes 10 Netherlands Public building 10 New building, Res 10 New building, NonRes 10 Existing building, Res 10

Sweden Existing building, NonRes 10 Public building 10

Comments: Due to the directive, the validity of the certificates should not extend 10 years. Except for Denmark and Great Britain, each nation uses a validity of 10 years. In Denmark the validity is in general 5 years and in Great Britain the validity of the certificate for public buildings (based on metered energy) is only one year. But the detailed report, which belongs to the certificate, has a validity of 7 years. The validity for the other building types is also 10 years.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 36 with focus on central European states

5.4.8 Onsite visit Table 16 Onsite visit Comments: X = Yes X1= Yes, see comments

Onsite visit is not Onsite visit is mandatory mandatory

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X1 Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X1 Luxembourg X1 Netherlands X Sweden

Comments Czech Republic Onsite visit is not mandatory by law but usually the experts do an onsite visit to the buildings Great Britain Onsite visit is not mandatory by law but usually the experts do an onsite visit to the buildings Luxembourg The onsite visit is not explicitly written in the legislation but it is expected that the experts do onsite evaluations of the buildings Sweden The process of interpretation of the legislation is not yet finalized for this topic

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 37 with focus on central European states

5.4.9 Building / building unit Table 17 Certificate for building or building units Comments: X = Yes

Certificate is issued:

Only for the building as a For buildings and/or whole building units

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X Luxembourg X Netherlands X Sweden X

Comments Belgium Certificate only for the apartment (unit) not for the building Netherlands Certificate for a multi family building can be issued on the basis of a one flat calculation

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 38 with focus on central European states

5.5. Recommendations 5.5.1 Volume of the certificates incl. recommendations / additional report Table 18 Volume of the certificates incl. recommendations / additional report Comments: X = Yes

Number of Additional

pages report

Austria 2 X Belgium 1‐2 Czech Republic 10 Denmark <9 France 4 Germany 5 Great Britain 1‐8 X Luxembourg 5 Netherlands 2 Sweden <7

Comments Whereas other nations concentrate on the basic information Czech Republic, Denmark, Great Britain (Residential buildings only) and Sweden includes detailed building information and descriptions on recommended measures within the energy performance certificate. Thus the volume of these certificates differs according to the recommendations. Additionally Austria and Great Britain (non-residential and public buildings) ask for an additional report for the building information. Netherlands In the Netherlands, in addition to the certificate a structured Energy Performance Advice is recommended, which can be executed at cost by the same assessor

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 39 with focus on central European states

5.5.2 How are the recommendations established? The recommendations are not always an individual result of the evaluation of the expert. There are certificates, where the recommendations are selected automatically according to building information; others are tick boxes, where the expert is required to choose out of a given range of recommendations. Table 19 How are the recommendations worked out? Comments: X = Yes X1= Yes, see comments

Recommendations are created by

Automatic by software Tickbox information expert

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X1 X1 Luxembourg X Netherlands X Sweden X

Comments Great Britain Residential buildings by expert individually Non residential buildings tick box (separate report) Public buildings tick box (separate report)

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 40 with focus on central European states

5.5.3 The quality (depth) of the recommendations The quality of the recommendations differs greatly in the different nations. The significance of the quality of the recommendations is the fact whether the energy and/or the cost savings are calculated for the recommendations or if the recommendations are only described. The expenditure of time is much higher and the expert has to go much deeper into the building performance if savings have to be calculated. Table 20 The quality (depth) of the recommendations Comments: X = Yes X1= Yes, see comments

Only description of Savings are calculated for Calulation for Calulation of recommendaton no each measure sum of measures calculation energy cost

Austria X X Belgium X Czech Republic X X X Denmark X X X France X1 X1 X1 X1 Germany X1 Great Britain X1 X1 X1 Luxembourg X X X Netherlands X Sweden X X X

Comments France Detailed calculation only for residential houses or individual heated apartment for sell, all others certificates have only a description of the recommendation Germany The energy savings can be indicated on the certificate in Germany, but this information is preliminary. Great Britain Residential buildings energy and money savings are calculated for each measure automatically by the software. The overall impact of all measures is also calculated by the software. Non residential buildings energy and CO2 savings are calculated for each measure automatically by the software. The overall impact of all measures is also calculated by the software. Public buildings CO2 impact (low, medium or high) and payback (low, medium or high) are selected by the expert. The overall impact of all measures is NOT calculated. Netherlands In the Netherlands, in addition to the certificate a structured Energy Performance Advice is recommended. An EPA report contains in depth recommendations. In Belgium and Germany the recommendations are described without any calculation.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 41 with focus on central European states

5.6. Accreditation of experts 5.6.1 Training The main differences according to the training are the curriculum and organisational aspects: • There exists training organized by the government • There exists training organized by private organisations on the base of a governmental curriculum • There exists private training without a governmental requirement regarding content and duration of the training In some countries the training is a mandatory part of the accreditation in others not. Table 21 Training Comments: X = Yes n.sp.= Not specified

Training is organized by Private, Private, no Training is Duration of Government governmental further mandatory training (days) curriculum requirements Austria X X 1‐5 Belgium X X n. sp. Czech Republic X 1,5 Denmark X 5 France X 1‐3 Germany X n. sp. Great Britain X n. sp. Luxembourg X 1 Netherlands X X 2 Sweden X 1‐5

Comments Austria The organisations (issuer) are responsible for the duration training of their staff and therefore the training duration is determined by the organisations. Belgium The training is only mandatory for existing and public buildings Denmark The duration is in the responsibility of the organisation. With the old accreditation scheme, the duration was 5 days

In France, Germany and Sweden the experts do have preliminary possibilities to join a training, but without a governmental organized curriculum.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 42 with focus on central European states

5.6.2 Procedure of accreditation There are many different aspects regarding the accreditation in the nations: • No accreditation, but the allowance to issue certificates according to general requirements of the education • Whether the accreditation needs an exam or not • Whether individuals or organisation or both of them, needs an accreditation to issue energy certificates Table 22 Procedure of accreditation Comments: X = Yes X1 = See comments

No accreditation, but Accreditation general requirements Accreditation of Accreditation of on base of an on education or individuals organisations exam experience Austria X1 Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X X Luxembourg X1 X Netherlands X X1 X1 Sweden X X1 X1

Comments Austria In Austria organisations are accredited according to their membership to the chamber of architects or other associations. These organisations are responsible for the qualification of their staff. But no exam is required Luxembourg Members of chamber of architects or engineers are accredited per se (category 1). Other experts (category 2) are required to pass an exam. Condition for the application of an accreditation is among others 3 years study on a university in the field of architecture or engineering Netherlands Both the organisation and the expert needs an accreditation Sweden Both the organisation and the expert needs an accreditation

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 43 with focus on central European states

5.6.3 Organisational aspects of the accreditation The accreditations procedure is done by governments or in some countries; the government has made regulations to hand over the accreditation procedure to private organisations. This is usually done in combination with the responsibility of the quality assurance Table 23 Organisational aspects of the accreditation Comments: X = Yes

Different Validity of the Akkreditation done by accreditation levels accreditation exist (years)

Austria ‐ No restriction Belgium Government X No restriction Czech Republic Government No restriction Denmark Private organisation 3 France Government 5 Germany ‐ ‐ Great Britain Private organisation X No restriction Luxembourg Government X 3 Netherlands Private organisation X No restriction Sweden Private organisation X 5

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 44 with focus on central European states

5.7. Quality assurance, data collection and overheads 5.7.1 Quality assurance of the certificates The evaluation of the energy building performance is not an easy process and needs qualified experts. There might be several reasons for the incorrect issuance of certificates. The main two are incorrect issuance on the base of mistakes of the expert or incorrect issuance on the base of an intended attempt to improve the certificate. Both cases can be reduced by a quality assurance system. Table 24 Quality assurance of the certificates Comments: X = Yes X1 = See comments

Incorrect Quality Within the Quality issuing of The certificates The certificates assurance is quality assurance is certificates will not be will be quality done by assurance done by private causes quality assured assured governmental samples are organisations penalties for organisations collected the expert Austria X1 X1 Belgium X X X X Czech Republic X X X X Denmark X X X X France X X X X Germany X X1 Great Britain X X X Luxembourg X1 X1 X1 Netherlands X X Sweden X1

Comments Austria Due to regional responsibilities the procedure of the quality assurance is not yet clear Germany Incorrect issued certificates could cause a penalty. But this has to be done through legal action. Luxembourg Quality assurance is possible by law, but not actually done Sweden Not the energy certificate but the Swedish energy expert control bodies and the companies which issue certificates are visited and quality controlled by SWEDAC once or twice a year

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 45 with focus on central European states

5.7.2 Data collection The issuance of the energy certificate produces a large amount of data regarding energy efficiency of buildings. Some of the nations use this data for further development and statistical analyses, others not. Table 25 Data collection Comments: X = Yes

Central data collecting No data collecting Central data collecting is planned

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X Luxembourg X Netherlands X Sweden X

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 46 with focus on central European states

5.7.3 Financing overheads Accreditation, quality assurance and data collection costs money, if an accordant system has been built. Three ways to finance this process have been established: • The overheads are carried out by the government or governmental organisations and thus are paid by the government • Governmental fee: The Government collects a fee for each certificate and uses this money to pay private organisations for the overheads • Private fee: The overheads are given to private organisations and these organisations have to finance themselves by collecting a private fee from the experts. These fees may differ due to the market conditions. Table 26 Financing overheads Comments: X = Yes

Overheads are Governmental No financing Private fee per carried out by fee per needed certificate the government certificate

Austria X Belgium X Czech Republic X Denmark X France X Germany X Great Britain X Luxembourg X Netherlands X Sweden X

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 47 with focus on central European states

5.8. Cost estimation of energy certificates Cost estimation is difficult because the price for most of the energy certificates is based on the market. Therefore most of the figures given below are estimations, made by the local project partner. All of them are experienced organisations in the field of energy certification, but the result is still estimation and different figures may occur. Table 27 Costs estimation of energy certificates Comments: X = Range of costs

0 € 2.000 € 4.000 € 6.000 € 8.000 € 10.000 € New building, Res X X X New building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Existing building, Res X X X

Austria Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Public building X X X X X X X X X New building, Res No information available

New building, NonRes No information available Existing building, Res X

Belgium Existing building, NonRes No information available Public building No information available New building, Res X X X

New building, NonRes X X X X X Existing building, Res X X X Czech

Republic Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X Public building X X X X X

New building, Res X X X X X X X X X X New building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Existing building, Res X X X X X X X X X Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Denmark Public building X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X New building, Res X New building, NonRes X X Existing building, Res X

France Existing building, NonRes X X Public building X X

New building, Res X New building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Germany Public building X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X New building, Res No information available New building, NonRes No information available

Britain Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Great Public building X X New building, Res No information available New building, NonRes No information available Existing building, Res No information available Existing building, NonRes No information available

Luxembourg Public building No information available New building, Res X X New building, NonRes X X X X X X Existing building, Res X Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Netherlands Public building New building, Res X X X X X X X

New building, NonRes X X X X X X Existing building, Res X X X X X X X

Sweden Existing building, NonRes X X X X X X Public building X X X X X X 0 € 2.000 € 4.000 € 6.000 € 8.000 € 10.000 €

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 48 with focus on central European states

As far as the certificate is used as a building permission for new buildings, the total costs for the energy related permission procedure are estimated, not only for the issuing of the certificate. Comments Denmark Price for residential buildings with an area less than 300 m² are fixed by law (< 100 m² heated area ~690 €; 100-199 m² ~ 750 €; 200-300 m² ~ 820 €) Germany The lower price for non residential and public buildings is for the certificate on the base of operational rating, the upper one for asset rating. Regarding residential buildings the price for both methodologies is more or less the same Great Britain The energy certificate for new buildings is part of the design process; therefore no price exists. The energy certificate for an existing dwelling typically costs the home owner between €50 and €150, depending on size and location. Luxembourg There exists still too little background in Luxembourg with the issuance of the energy certificates to have a clear picture of the price Sweden Price depending of the size of the building

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 49 with focus on central European states

5.9. Acceptance of energy performance certificates The acceptance of the energy certificate has been analysed with a feedback program. Over a time period of three months, a short questionnaire with five fundamental questions has been published on the project platform in the web. The results are summarized in Annex 2.

Comparison of national implementation BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 50 with focus on central European states

6. Abbreviations

AR Asset rating (expressing energy performance on the base of estimated energy)

CO2 Carbon dioxide d Daily DEC Display energy certificate (Energy certificate for the public buildings (public display)) EC Energy certificate (general) EE End energy EPBD Energy Performance Building Directive EPC Energy Performance Certificate general (In UK energy performance certificate other than for public display) m Monthly NonRES Non residential buildings (other than dwellings) OR Operational rating (expressing energy performance on the base of actual metered energy) PE Primary energy REQ Requirement RES Residential buildings (dwellings)

Abbreviations BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 51 with focus on central European states

ANNEX 1: ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES

CONTENT: 0. Comments to barrier-free design of annex 1...... 53 1. Austria ...... 54 1.1. General ...... 54 1.2. Abbreviations...... 55 1.3. Certificate for residential building (translated):...... 56 1.4. Example recommendation within the comments...... 59 1.5. Certificate for non-residential buildings (not translated)...... 60 1.6. Certificate for other buildings (not translated):...... 62 2. Belgium...... 64 2.1. Flemish Region – new buildings ...... 64 2.2. Flemish Region – existing dwellings when sold or rented ...... 66 2.3. Flemish Region – public buildings...... 69 2.4. Region of Brussels-Capital, new buildings ...... 70 2.5. 3 Regions – voluntary scheme EAP (not a certificate as required by EPBD)...... 71 3. Czech Republic...... 72 3.1. Display original ...... 72 3.2. Display with explanations (translated) ...... 73 3.3. Energy certificate, protocol and display (translated) ...... 74 4. Denmark ...... 85 4.1. Description of types and differences...... 85 4.2. Energy certificate for existing non residential buildings (translated)...... 86 5. France ...... 95 5.1. Application of asset and/or operational rating for the French certificates ...... 95 5.2. General description of the energy certificates in France ...... 96 5.3. Residential buildings for Sale with individual heating (asset rating) ...... 97 5.4. Residential buildings for Sale with central heating system (operational rating) ...... 101 5.5. Existing non residential buildings (always based on operational rating)...... 107 5.6. New non residential buildings (based on asset rating) ...... 111 5.7. Public buildings, office, administrative services, schools...... 115 5.8. Public buildings with permanent occupation (only differences) ...... 120 5.9. Public buildings, others...... 121 6. Germany ...... 122 6.1. General ...... 122 6.2. Residential buildings...... 123 6.3. Non residential buildings...... 128 6.4. Public buildings, calculated energy demand ...... 133 6.5. Public buildings, metered energy consumption...... 134

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 52 with focus on central European states

7. Great Britain ...... 135 7.1. Energy certificate for dwellings (EPC) ...... 135 7.2. Energy certificate for non-domestic buildings (EPC)...... 143 7.3. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Poster for public display ...... 145 7.4. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Additional technical table...... 146 7.5. DEC: Advisory report (not displayed but available on request) ...... 147 8. Luxembourg...... 148 8.1. Description and translation ...... 148 8.2. Residential buildings...... 149 8.3. Non residential buildings...... 154 9. Netherlands ...... 155 9.1. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (translated) ...... 155 9.2. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (not translated) ...... 157 10. Sweden ...... 159 10.1. Energy declaration ...... 159

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 53 with focus on central European states

0. Comments to barrier-free design of annex 1 Due to the accessibility of this report for disabled (blind) persons, the text is designed barrier-free. Normally each graphic, which could not be understood by a reading machine, has to be described with an so called “additional text”. In the case of this annex it is considered as impossible, to describe each page of the energy certificates. In the case of the usage of a reading machine, the headlines of the graphics will be used as information.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 54 with focus on central European states

1. Austria 1.1. General Types of energy certificates: 1. Residential buildings 2. Non-residential buildings (office buildings; kindergarten and compulsory schools; secondary schools and colleges; hospitals; nursing homes; boarding houses; hotels, restaurants; event facilities; sports facilities ; shops) 3. Other conditioned buildings In the case of non-residential buildings several energy demands are calculated (e.g. ventilation, cooling, lighting etc.). Only the heat demand is influencing the scaling on page 1. The end energy demand and its requirements are mentioned on page 2. In the case of existing building, a several page mentioned measure suggestions to reach a lower class and suggestions to fulfil the requirements for new buildings (always only regarding the building construction and not the heating system) is given. Example: The existing class is D. To reach class B, 10 cm insulation of exterior wall and 20 cm insulation of ceiling are necessary. To fulfil the OIB-Guideline the exterior wall must be insulated with min. 8 cm insulation, the top ceiling with min. 20 cm insulation and the cellar ceiling with min. 6 cm insulation. The windows must be changed by new ones with U- Value of max. 1,4 W/m²K. The door must be changed by a new one with a max. U-Value of 1,7 W/m²K. Recommendations Recommendations have to be made on how to reach the next higher class and how to reach new building standard. But the recommendations are not included on the official form of the certificate and each issuer or software procucer uses their own solutions to show the recommendations. One example is attached in the annex.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 55 with focus on central European states

1.2. Abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning HWB Heat demand per year and m² WWWB Hot water heating demand per year and m² HTEB-RH Energy losses heating system per year and m² HTEB-WW Energy losses hot water system per year and m² HTEB Energy losses of heating and hot water system per year and m² HEB Heat demand and losses of heating system per year and m² EEB End energy demand per year and m² PEB Primary energy demand per year and m²

CO2 CO2 – emission per year and m² HWB* Heat demand per year and m³ by use of special using profile NERLT-h Effective energy demand ventilation system for heating per year and m² KB* Cooling demand per year and m³ KB Cooling demand per year and m² NERLT-k Effective energy demand ventilation system for cooling per year and m² NERLT-d Effective energy demand ventilation system for humidification per year and m² NE Effective energy demand per year and m² KTEB Energy losses cooling system per year and m² KEB Cooling energy demand per year and m² RLTEB Energy losses ventilation systems per year and m² BeIEB Lighting energy demand per year and m²

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 56 with focus on central European states

1.3. Certificate for residential building (translated):

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 57 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 58 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 59 with focus on central European states

1.4. Example of a recommendation within the comments

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 60 with focus on central European states

1.5. Certificate for non-residential buildings (not translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 61 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 62 with focus on central European states

1.6. Certificate for other buildings (not translated):

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 63 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 64 with focus on central European states

2. Belgium 2.1. Flemish Region – new buildings

Identification of building type

Identification of building

Identification of rapporteur

Software version

Message saying that thermal bridges are not included in the calculations.

Energy performance expressed as E-level ; currently should be < 100

Indication of the respect to the requirements

Declaration that the certificate reflects the reality

Date

Signature

Validity

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 65 with focus on central European states

Calculated primary energy consumption in kWh/year.

Remarks of the assessor

Message explaining why the calculate primary energy consumption may differ with the actual energy consumption

Simple recommendations for building occupants

Glossary

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 66 with focus on central European states

2.2. Flemish Region – existing dwellings when sold or rented Published in the law gazette on 27/06/2008.

Identification of building type

Certificate ID

Identification of building

Software version

Energy performance expressed in kWh/m² (primary energy)

Comparison of the performance with the requirements for new dwellings

Identification of rapporteur

Declaration that the certificate reflects the reality

Date

Signature

Validity

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 67 with focus on central European states

Certificated ID and identification of building

Performance of the building envelope and of the heating system (qualitative assessment only)

CO2 emissions (qualitative assessment only)

Simple recommendations

Additionnal recommendations from the assessor

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 68 with focus on central European states

Certificated ID and identification of building

Characteristics of the buildings (construction year, year of the heating plant, number of appartments, volume, surface, energy performance)

Further information about the simple recommendations (continued on fourth page)

More information about the energy performance indicator

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 69 with focus on central European states

2.3. Flemish Region – public buildings

Identification of building type

Identification of building

Measured primary energy consumption in kWh/m²

Reference value for this building type

Simple recommendations for building occupants

Simple recommendations for building owner

Identification of assessor

Declaration that the certificate reflects the reality

Date

Signature

Validity

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 70 with focus on central European states

2.4. Region of Brussels-Capital, new buildings Governemental Order of 19/06/2008, published in the National Gazette on 04/07/2008.

Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Bâtiment neuf Rue + n° + bte Identification of the building C od e po stal + lo ca li t é PHOTO DU Picture of the building part ie du bâtiment certifiée BATIME NT

Certificat valide jusqu'au : Validity

Niveau de performance énergétique Très écono me Energy performance expressed A + A A - as a class (A+ to G) B + B B -

C + C Reference value C -

D + D D - Consommation de référence E + E E - Calculated primary energy F consumption in kWh/m².year. G

Très énergivore Electrical consumption Consommation annuelle calculée [kWhEP/m²/an] dont consommation annuelle électrique [kWh/m²/an] et consommation annuelle en combustibles [kWh/m²/an] Fossil fuel consumption

Niveau E Niveau K Emissions annuelles de CO² par m² [kg CO2/ m2 ] Energy performance expressed Re spec t de s ex ige nc es éne rgé tiques et de la qualité du clima t intér ieur Le s exigen ces suivantes sont-elle s respecté es ? as E-level, K-level and CO2 emissions OUI | NON ? | ? Exig enc e ni veau E (no requirements on CO2 emissions) ? | ? Exig enc e ni veau K ? | ? Exig enc es Uma x-Rmi n mur sol toit vitrages autres ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? Indication of the respect ? | ? Exig enc es in sta lla tion s te chn iqu es brûl eur calo rifu geage partitionne ment programmateur comptage récupérate ur de chale ur of the requirements ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ? Certificat de Performance Energétique ? | ? Exig enc e Ven ti la ti on ? | ? Exig enc e surch au ffe Certifcate number, date, software version Cer tificat délivré le : Certificat n° : Logiciel utilis é : Version : Building type Affectation :

C o or do n n ée s du co n se il l er PE B Nom So ci été Adresse Tel Identification of rapporteur E- m ail

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 71 with focus on central European states

2.5. 3 Regions – voluntary scheme EAP (not a certificate as required by EPBD)

Identification of building

Identification of assessor

Performance of -building envelop - heating system - hot water production

Audit of summer comfort and of ventilation applied or not

Software version

Audit number The word SPECIMEN disappears once the audit is sent to the central database

This summary page is accompanied by a detailled report, which is actually the audit.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 72 with focus on central European states

3. Czech Republic 3.1. Display original

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 73 with focus on central European states

3.2. Display with explanations (translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 74 with focus on central European states

3.3. Energy certificate, protocol and display (translated) The protocol is a mandatory part of the certificate

Protocol Template of theCertificate of Energy Performance of Building1 a) Identification data of the building

Address of a building (place, street, number, ZIP code):

Building type: Town code: Land registry code: Building site number:

Owner or Owners association or Developer:

Address:

Registration number: Phone/E-mail:

Building operator:

Address:

Registration number: Phone/E-mail: New building Change of existing building Display obligation based on § 6a, article 6 of the Law 406/2000 Coll. b) Building type Family home Multi-family building Hotel and restaurant Office building Health-care building School Sport building Shopping, retail Other building type – describe:

1 All the data in a Protocol of the Certificate are originally in Czech language only. Translation not officially approved.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 75 with focus on central European states c) Energy use in the building

a. Brief description of energy and technical equipment of the building

b. Energy bearers - types used in the building Electricity Heat natural gas Brown coal Hard coal Coke Heavy furnace oil Light furnace oil Oil Other gasses Secondary energy Biomass Other renewable sources – describe: Other fuels – describe:

c. Evaluated partial energy performance of the building EP

Heating (EPH) Hot water heating (EPDHW)

Cooling (EPC) Lighting (EPLight)

Mechanical ventilation (incl. humidification) (EPAux;Fans) d) Technical data of the building

d. Brief description of the building

e. Geometric charakteristic of the building Building volume V – external volume of heated building (m3)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 76 with focus on central European states

Total area A – all envelope areas in contact with exterior (m2) 2 Total floor area Agross (m ) Building factor of the building A/V (-)

f. Climatic data and internal calculating temperature Climatic location

Exterior temperature in heating period θe (°C)

Dominant interior temperature in heating period θi (°C)

g. Characteristics of an envelope construction Specific heat Area U-value loss by Envelope - construction A (m2) U (W/m2K) transmission HT (W/K)

Thermal bridges addition Total

h. Thermally-technical properties of the building – connections, condensation etc Demand of the Law 406/2000 Coll., § 6a Unit Value Minimal heat resistance of all building constructions and their connections does not allow condensation on an internal surface of the construction.

Building constructions and their connections have at worst required U-value.

There is no water vapour condensation in building constructions or the condensation does not cause any damage during building construction lifetime..

The gap between casement and its frame has at worst a required low infiltration; other construction and their joints are mostly airtight. Total required low infiltration of building envelope is fulfilled.

Floors have at worst required contact-tepmerature decrease, based on internal surface temperature and thermal capacity.

Rooms (building) have required thermal stability in both winter and summer time.

Building has required low average U-value of building envelope. Notice: Values can be taken from building documentation.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 77 with focus on central European states

i. Heating Heating system Energy source type Fuel Nominal heat output of boiler (kW) Average year efficiency of a heat source (%) Calculation Measurement Estimation Time of use of a source per year (hours/year) Calculation Measurement Estimation Regulation of an energy source Maintenance of an energy source Regular Regular No contracted Dominant type of a heating system Dominant regulation of a heating system Division of heating system pipelines of a building Yes No based on cardinal points State of thermal insulation of heating system pipelines

j. Partial evaluation of energy performance of heating Asset Rating Value

Delivered energy for heating Qfuel,H (GJ/year)

Auxiliary energy consumption for heating QAux,H (GJ/year)

Energy performance of heating EPH = Qfuel,H + QAux,H (GJ/year)

Required energy performance of heating Rrq,H (GJ/year)

Energy performance of existing level of heating Rs,H (GJ/year)

Class index of Energy performance of heating CIH Classification of Energy performance of heating

k. Ventilation and air-conditioning Mechanical ventilation Ventilation system type Heat output (kW) Nominal electrical input of a ventilation system (kW) Nominal discharge capacity of air (m3/hour) Dominant regulation system of ventilation Maintenance of ventilation system Regular Regular No contracted Air humidification Humidification unit type Nominal electrical input of humidification system

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 78 with focus on central European states

(kW) Medium used for humidification Vapour Water Dominant regulation of humidification system Maintenance of air-conditioning unit Regular Regular No contracted State of thermal insulation of ventilation unit and its pipelines Cooling Cooling system type Nominal electrical input of cool-source drive (kW) Nominal cooling output (kW) Dominant regulation of cool-source Dominant regulation of cooled space Maintenance of cool-source Regular Regular No contracted State of thermal insulation of cooling system

l. Partial evaluation of energy performance of mechanical ventilation (incl. humidification) Asset Rating Value Auxiliary energy consumption for mechanical ventilation Q Aux;Fans (GJ/year)

Delivered energy for humidification Qfuel,Hum (GJ/year) Energy performance of mechanical ventilation (incl.humidification)

EPAux;Fans = QAux;Fans + Qfuel,Hum (GJ/year) Required energy performance of mechanical ventilation R rq,Fans (GJ/year) Energy performance of existing level of mechanical ventilation

Rs,Fans (GJ/year)

Class index of Energy performance of ventilation CIAux;Fans Classification of Energy performance of ventilation

m. Partial evaluation of energy performance of cooling Asset Vating value

Delivered energy for cooling Qfuel,C (GJ/year)

Auxiliary energy consumption for cooling QAux,C (GJ/year)

Energy performance of cooling EPC = Qfuel,C + QAux,C (GJ/year)

Required energy performance of cooling Rrq,C (GJ/year)

Energy performance of existing level of cooling Rs,C (GJ/year)

Class index of Energy performance of cooling CIC Classification of Energy performance of cooling

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 79 with focus on central European states

n. Hot water preparation (HW)

HW preparation system type HW preparation system in building Central Local Combined Energy used Nominal input for HW preparation (kW) Average year efficiency of HW preparation source (%) Calculation Measurement Estimation Volume of HW-accumulator (litres) Maintenance of HW preparation source Regular Regular No contracted State of thermal insulation of HW pipeline

o. Partial evaluation of energy performance of hot water preparation Asset Rating Value

Delivered energy for HW preparation Qfuel,DHW (GJ/year)

Auxiliary energy consumption of HW preparation QAux,DHW (GJ/year) Energy performance of HW preparation EP = Q + Q DHW fuel,DHW Aux,DHW (GJ/year)

Required energy performance of HW preparation Rrq,DHW (GJ/year)

Energy performance of existing level of HW preparation Rs,DHW (GJ/year)

Class index of Energy performance of HW preparation CIDHW Classification of Energy performance of HW preparation

p. Lighting

Dominant lighting type Total electrical input of lighting The way of operating of lighting system

q. Partial evaluation of energy performance of lighting Asset Rating Value

Delivered energy for lighting Qfuel,Light,E (GJ/year)

Energy performance of lighting EPLight = Qfuel,Light,E (GJ/year)

Required energy performance of lighting Rrq,Light (GJ/year)

Energy performance of existing level of lighting Rs,Light (GJ/year)

Class index of Energy performance of lighting CILight Classification of Energy performance of lighting

r. Index of total energy performance of the building Asset Rating Value

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 80 with focus on central European states

Energy performance of the building EP (GJ/year)

Required energy performance of the building Rrq (GJ/year)

Energy performance of the building on existing level Rs (GJ/year) Class index of Energy performance of the building CI Classification of Energy performance of the building Word-description of EP-class of the building Specific energy consumption per floor area of the building

(kWh/m2) e) Energy balance of the building for standard use

a. Energy supplied from the external system limits of the building determined by the balance evaluation Energy really Calculated delivered delivered to the Price per unit energy Energy bearer building GJ/year GJ/year CZK/GJ

Total

b. Energy produced in the building Calculated produced energy Type of energy source GJ/year

Total

f) Ecological and economic feasibility of alternative systems and cogenerations for buildings with floor space over 1 000 m2 Local renewable sources Cogeneration District heating Block heating or cooling Heat pump Other

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 81 with focus on central European states

a. Method and results of ecological and economic feasibility evaluation of technically accessible and suitable alternative energy supply systems

Calculation, economical analysis

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 82 with focus on central European states

g) Recommended measures for technical and economic efficient lowering of energy performance of building Energy Costs Simple Description of measure savings (thous. pay-back (GJ) CZK) period

Total savings incl.synergy effect

a. Evaluation of the building after the implementation of recommended measures Asset Rating Value Energy performance of the building EP (GJ/year) Class index of Energy performance of the building CI Classification of Energy performance of the building Word-description of EP-class of the building Specific energy consumption per floor area of the building

(kWh/m2)

h) Further data

a. Additional data for the evaluated building

b. List of data used for the building evaluation

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 83 with focus on central European states

i) Certificate validity date and the identification of the processor Validity till Author of Certificate Accreditation Number: Date:

Chart of verbal expression of energy performance Classification of Word-description of EP-class of the Class Index CI Energy Performance building CI ≤ 0,30 A Very energy efficient 0,30 < CI ≤ 0,60 B Energy efficient 0,60 < CI ≤ 1,00 C Satisfactory 1,00 < CI ≤ 1,50 D Unsatisfactory 1,50 < CI ≤ 2,00 E Unefficient 2,00 < CI ≤ 3,00 F Very unefficient CI > 3,00 G Not energy efficient

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 84 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 85 with focus on central European states

4. Denmark 4.1. Description of types and differences Denmark has three different types of energy certificates: • single-family domestic buildings, • multi-family domestic buildings like block of flats • non-domestic buildings The three types of certificates are basically the same. The difference lies between new and existing buildings where existing buildings have the following additional information: • Metered energy consumption (“metered heat consumption for single and multifamily buildings and metered heat and electricity consumption for non-domestic buildings)” • Cost-effective saving recommendations • Savings and required investments • Savings through renovation • Building registrations made by the energy consultant are listed.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 86 with focus on central European states

4.2. Energy certificate for existing non residential buildings (translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 87 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 88 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 89 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 90 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 91 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 92 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 93 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 94 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 95 with focus on central European states

5. France 5.1. Application of asset and/or operational rating for the French certificates In France asset and operational rating is used as methodology. New non residential buildings are always assessed with asset rating, for existing non residential buildings operational rating is always used. Public buildings are always assessed with operational rating. For residential buildings depending on different conditions, asset or operational rating are allowed or both methods are applicable. The details are shown in the following table:

INDIVIDUAL HOUSES COLLECTIVE BUILDINGS FOR PRINCIPAL DWELLINGS

THE OWNER OF THE PROPOSED SALE IS NOT THE FOR SALE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING. GLOBALLY PROPOSED FOR SALE OR THE OWNER CARRIES OUT A CO-OWNERSHIP

Individual heating system Built before Built after Collective heating Built before Built after January Built before Built after January January 1948 January 1948 system January 1948 1948 January 1948 1948 Not allowed except if an Asset rating Allowed Allowed estimation on the Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed entire building is made Not allowed except Operational in the case of a Allowed Not Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Allowed rating collective heating system

INDIVIDUAL HOUSES COLLECTIVE BUILDINGS FOR PRINCIPAL DWELLINGS THE EPC RELIES ON THE BUILDING ENTIRE CONSUMPTION ALREADY FOR RENT THE EPC RELIES ON THE BUILDING CONSUMPTION DETERMINATED BY A PREVIOUS EPC Individual heating system Built before Built after Collective heating Built before Built after January Built before Built after January January 1948 January 1948 system January 1948 1948 January 1948 1948 Not allowed except if an Asset rating Not Allowed Allowed estimation on the Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Allowed entire building is made Operational Allowed Not Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Allowed Allowed Not Allowed rating

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 96 with focus on central European states

5.2. General description of the energy certificates in France In France, a lot of different certificates have been defined according to different conditions: • Type of building, residential, tertiary or public buildings • Event linked to the delivery: sold, rented, new or displaying in public buildings. All certificates are based on the same principles and have only slight differences: The general structure is: Page 1: data regarding the building (address, owner, surface...), energy consumption and costs, two scales one for primary energy and one CO2. Page 2: description of the building elements and heating or cooling equipments, and explanation on the certificate content, Page 3: recommendations regarding energy management (more or less always the same in every kind of certificates), Page 4: recommendations regarding works advised (insulation, change of boiler…).

According to the French legislation the following types of certificates exist in France: Building type Official No Description Residential SALE 6.1 Asset Residential SALE 6.2 Operational Residential RENT 6.A Asset Residential RENT 6.B Operational Residential RENT Seasonal 6.C Operational Residential NEW 6.1.neuf Asset Non Residential NEW 6.2.neuf Asset Non Residential SALE 6.3 Operational Public Public Offices, schools… 6.1.public Operational Public Permanent occupation 6.2.public Operational Public others 6.3.public Operational

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 97 with focus on central European states

5.3. Residential buildings for Sale with individual heating (asset rating)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 98 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 99 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 100 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 101 with focus on central European states

5.4. Residential buildings for Sale with central heating system (operational rating) Nearly the same certificate as for individual heating (5.3), mainly the recommendations in the last page differs. Only a description instead of a calculation is needed. (Only differences translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 102 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 103 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 104 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 105 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 106 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 107 with focus on central European states

5.5. Existing non residential buildings (always based on operational rating) A certificate is only necessary in the case of sale. For rented non residential buildings the legislation is not yet completedand no certificate is needed. The certificate is similar to the residential buildings. The main difference is the addition of H and I at the end of the scale. Only new topics are translated, for the others, see previous certificates.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 108 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 109 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 110 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 111 with focus on central European states

5.6. New non residential buildings (based on asset rating)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 112 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 113 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 114 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 115 with focus on central European states

5.7. Public buildings, office, administrative services, schools For public buildings, the first page (display) exists in two versions: a) detailed information on different energy uses (if available), b) based on energy sources, if no detailed information is available: Scale from 50 – 750 kWh/m²a like other non residential buildings.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 116 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 117 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 118 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 119 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 120 with focus on central European states

5.8. Public buildings with permanent occupation (only differences) For permanent occupation, the scale 100 – 1130 kWh/m²a instead of 50 – 750 kWh/m2a has been adopted

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 121 with focus on central European states

5.9. Public buildings, others For others, the scale 30 – 510 kWh/m²a instead of 50 – 750 kWh/m2a has been adopted.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 122 with focus on central European states

6. Germany 6.1. General In general the German energy performance certificate has the following structure: Page 1: General information of the building and the certificate Page 2: Energy performance on the base of calculated energy demand Page 3: Energy performance on the base of metered energy consumption Page 4: General explanations Page 5: Annex: Recommendations The energy performance can, with some exceptions, are expressed with calculated energy demand or metered energy consumption (page 2 or page 3). Preliminary both pages can be fulfilled, but normally one of these two pages are empty. Two different certificates exist for residential and non residential buildings. The public display is a one page summary of the certificate for non residential buildings. This summary exists for calculated energy demand or metered energy consumption.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 123 with focus on central European states

6.2. Residential buildings

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 124 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 125 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 126 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 127 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 128 with focus on central European states

6.3. Non residential buildings Only difference to 6.2 are translated

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 129 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 130 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 131 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 132 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 133 with focus on central European states

6.4. Public buildings, calculated energy demand Only difference to 6.2 and 6.3 are translated

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 134 with focus on central European states

6.5. Public buildings, metered energy consumption Only difference to 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 are translated

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 135 with focus on central European states

7. Great Britain 7.1. Energy certificate for dwellings (EPC)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 136 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 137 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 138 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 139 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 140 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 141 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 142 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 143 with focus on central European states

7.2. Energy certificate for non-domestic buildings (EPC)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 144 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 145 with focus on central European states

7.3. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Poster for public display

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 146 with focus on central European states

7.4. Energy certificate for public buildings (DEC): Additional technical table (not displayed but available on request)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 147 with focus on central European states

7.5. DEC: Advisory report (not displayed but available on request) Will be available on the web (www.eu-energy-certificates.de)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 148 with focus on central European states

8. Luxembourg 8.1. Description and translation Page 1: Energieeffizienzklasse: Rating of the energy performance of the building on the base of primary energy. This includes beside the thermal protection the building equipment and the environmental impact of the energy sources. A rating A-C is typical for new buildings, F-I is typical for existing buildings Wärmeschutzklasse: Rating of the thermal protection of the building. Beside the heat demand, this includes the insulation, the air tightness and the orientation. Klassen The rating is done from class A to I. Passive house <= A Low energy house <= B Energy saving house <= C Page 2 Effizienzklassen für die Energieeffizinez: Rating of the energy performance (primary energy) Effizinezklassen für den Wärmeschutz: Rating of the thermal protection (heat demand)

Effizienzklassen für die Umweltwirkung: Rating of the environmental impact (CO2 emission) Diese Gebäude erreicht: Actual value of the building

Jährlicher Energiebedarf und CO2 Emission: Annual end energy demand and CO2 emission

Additional description of primary energy, heat demand, CO2 emission and heated floor area Page 3 Description and end energy demand of the heating Description and end energy demand of the hot water production General descriptions Page 4 Metered end energy consumption for heating and hot water Included uses in the metered amount of energy, heating, hot water, cooking? Comparison of calculated energy demand and metered energy consumption General description of possible reasons for differences between metered and calculated amount of energy Page 5 Recommendations for the optimisation of the building (description, energy saving, money saving in the next 20 years, rating after optimisation Summary of all recommendations, (energy price, total annual energy saving, total money saving in the next 20 years, rating after optimisation General explanation, reasons why the total savings might be smaller than the sum of each single saving

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 149 with focus on central European states

8.2. Residential buildings

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 150 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 151 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 152 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 153 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 154 with focus on central European states

8.3. Non residential buildings The procedure for non residential buildings is actually in the final state of the implementation process. Details are not published yet.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 155 with focus on central European states

9. Netherlands 9.1. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 156 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 157 with focus on central European states

9.2. Energy Performance Certificate for all buildings (not translated)

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 158 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 159 with focus on central European states

10. Sweden 10.1. Energy declaration Energy declaration is a detailed building description with a certificate on the base of operational rating found on the last page.

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 160 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 161 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 162 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 163 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 164 with focus on central European states

Annex 1: Energy performance certificates BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 165 with focus on central European states

ANNEX 2: FEEDBACK ACTION CONTENT: 1. Questionaire ...... 166 2. Results overview ...... 167 2.1. Number of feedbacks ...... 167 2.2. Transparency of energy performance ...... 167 2.3. Cost and effort...... 168 3. Results national summaries ...... 169 3.1. Austria ...... 169 3.2. Belgium...... 170 3.3. Czech Republic ...... 171 3.4. Denmark ...... 172 3.5. France...... 174 3.6. Germany ...... 176 3.7. Great Britain ...... 179 3.8. Luxembourg ...... 184 3.9. Netherlands ...... 185 3.10. Sweden ...... 188

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 166 with focus on central European states

1. Questionaire Question 1: Transparency of energy performance Energy Performance Building Directive, Article 3: “The energy performance of a building shall be expressed in a transparent manner…” Do you think that your energy certificate expresses energy performance in a transparent manner? Please indicate with numbers from 1 to 10 (1 very transparent, 10 not transparent at all) Remarks: Suggestions for improvement: Question 2: Cost and effort The energy certificate of your country expresses according to EPBD energy performance in a more or less transparent manner. Do you think, that building owner and user become a good value for their money, which had to be spent on the certificate? Please indicate with numbers from 1 to 10 (1 very good value, 10 no value) Remarks: Suggestions for improvement: Question 3: Your highlights What are the three main points of satisfaction concerning your new energy certification scheme. Question 4: Your weak points What are the main three points, of disappointment / dissatisfaction concerning your new energy certification scheme Question 5: General remarks Do you have other remarks, comments or suggestions? Please use the box below to give any further feedback

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 167 with focus on central European states

2. Results overview 2.1. Number of feedbacks Nation Number of feedbacks Austria 10 Belgium 0 Czech Republic 21 Denmark 5 France 9 Germany 280 Great Britain 19 Luxembourg 0 Netherlands 8 Sweden 6 other 0 Total 358 2.2. Transparency of energy performance Do you think that your energy certificate expresses energy performance in a transparent manner? Please indicate with numbers from 1 to 10 (1 very transparent, 10 not transparent at all)

Transparancy of the energy certificate 10 = not transparent at all rs 01 =very transparent 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 f e o w o ns N a

Austria 10

Belgium 0

Czech Republic 21

Germany 280

Denmark 5

France 9

Great Britain 19

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 8

Sweden 6

12345678910 1 =very transparent 10 = not transparent at all

In UK normally 10 is the best. There might be confusions with the scoring system for UK

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 168 with focus on central European states

2.3. Cost and effort The energy certificate of your country expresses according to EPBD energy performance in a more or less transparent manner. Do you think that building owner and user become a good value for their money, which had to be spent on the certificate? Please indicate with numbers from 1 to 10 (1 very good value, 10 no value)

rs f e Cost and effort (value) of the energy certificates o sw o n 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 N a 1 =very good value 10 = no value at all

Austria 10

Belgium 0

Czech Republic 21

Germany 280

Denmark 5

France 9

Great Britain 19

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 8

Sweden 6

12345678910

1 =very good value 10 = no value at all

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 169 with focus on central European states

3. Results national summaries 3.1. Austria The evaluation indicates between 5 and 8 (out of ten) that the energy certificate hasn´t enough transparency. In Austria the diagram on the front page does n´t shows the whole energy performance, just the specific heat demand. Most of the information is too detailed and confusing for the consumer/user. Suggestion for improvements are to add more diagrams to demonstrate the different energy demands and add information about the infrastructure (supply of public transport, distance to the workplace, land consumption,...). Also to improve is the whole layout/diagrams of the energy certificate to show the whole energy performance of the building and create one European standard. One suggestion is to split the energy certificate into a detailed technical report and an elementary part for consumer/user which include more diagrams and explanations. Cost and efforts for the building owner and user indicate good value, because the Styrian energy agency's also provide energy consulting including suggestions for improvement and renovation concepts. Highlights of our new energy certificate are primarily the image presentation of the specific heat demand that helps the public see the energy efficiency of a building and the possibility to compare it with other buildings. Also seen as a highlight are the suggestions for energetic improvement and renovation added in the energy certificate. Weak points of the energy certificate are the lack of transparency, faults and deficits in calculation formulas and engineer standards, too detailed and confusing for issuer and user and the lack of diagrams to show the whole energy performance and infrastructure. General remarks from the feedback issuer: The energy certificate is an important tool that needs purposive further development.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 170 with focus on central European states

3.2. Belgium In Belgium not enough experiences are available. Therefore Belgium did not participate at the feedback action.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 171 with focus on central European states

3.3. Czech Republic In this short survey about 70 people were asked to answer 5 quite simple questions regarding Czech version of Energy Performance Certificate. 21 of them answered the questionnaire up to now, other 8 people answered that they do not know enough to be able to fill in the feedback form. The rest of asked people did not answer. Answer ratio of the survey is about 40 %. Because the feedback form should inform us about opinion of experts/public/other people in the field of Energy Performance Certificate, as implemented in the Czech Republic, only relevant answers will be used in following text. Those relevant answers came especially from EPC issuers and building designers (category Other). • From the feedback we can see, that the biggest positive of the Czech EPC is, that the document is quitesimple and easily understandable and is unified for all building types. This fact is underlined by the statistics which compares transparency of EPC in some European countries (Czech EPC is one of the most transparent certificates). Though there are several answers that say, that the graphic part of EPC (first list with color arrows) is transparent enough but not the Protocol, which consists of many numbers and values without simple explanation to non-specialists. Finally, in comparison to Energy Audit, EPC is shorter and easily readable. • Issuers and assessors very often speak about willful distortion of results due to,to many roughly estimated parameters that are used for calculation (i.e. efficiencies, other coefficients). The distortion depends on the profession of the issuer (issuer can be energy auditor, civil engineer, mechanical engineer, specialist in heating, designer etc). • For non-professionals (users, owners of building) would be useful to describe more precisely, how much money he can save (not only price per GJ, but real money saving including fixed payment etc). • In the EPC many parameters of calculation are missing – it makes the EPC less transparent and it is impossible to find any mistakes in it. • It is quite time consuming to issue an EPC. In case of smaller buildings (family houses) it is expensive. Many answers say that the EPC should be from this reason (right in case of small buildings) simplified. If not, low quality of EPC in case of small buildings is expected due to artificial will to decrease costs. • EPC is very good document for developers (some developers use the EPC in competition) and for decision- makers in housing associations and building owners associations. • EPC (which is necessary for building permit in case of new building or major renovation over 1000m2 of floor area) can be useful instrument for government – control of quality of building in the Czech Republic. Only one person suggested that national registry of EPC (at least its graphic part) should be made. • Uncertainty of the necessity of issuing the EPC has been mentioned in case of public buildings over 1000m2 of floor area. Overall reaction on EPC of people asked was: Positive 75% (especially transparency and easy understandable form) Neutral 10% Negative 15% (expensive and easily distortable document) (Includes only people that filled in the feedback form)

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 172 with focus on central European states

3.4. Denmark The questioner has been send to 15 key parties, cf. table 2, who in different ways have worked with the labeling scheme in Denmark. The distribution of questioners is illustrated in table 1. Table 1. Distribution of questioners for different Danish institutions and organizations Institution/organization Number of questioners Number of answered questioner’s Building owner/administrator 1 0 Users 0 0 Issuer/assessor 3 3 Governmental organization 3 0 Scientific organization 7 2 Software producer 1 0

Table 2. The 15 key parties who the questioners have been send to. Institution/organization Key parties: Building owner/administrator De Forenede Ejendomsselskaber A/S Users - Issuer/assessor Bolius Wormslev Dansk Energimanagement Governmental organization Energistyrelsen Fem Sekretariatet Slots og Ejendomsstyrelsen Scientific organization SBi Ramboll Cowi Naturgas Midt-Nord Cenergia Aktueal Byggerådgivning Teknologisk Institut Software producer EK-pro

As seen from table 1 most questioners were sent to scientific organizations. Three of these has had or has a significant role in drawing up the labeling scheme, administrating it and/or further developing it. Question 1: Transparency of energy performance The transparency of energy performance of buildings is evaluated from very transparent to very blurred or not transparent at all. The Danish energy labeling scheme uses well known labels A to G and it is easy to find the information needed on them. On the contrary not everybody understands how to use the certificate. The numbers/values on the scheme for heating can cause some confusion because calculated amount of heating is used for small buildings and measured values are used for the rest of buildings. Another point is that it can take years before the investment in additional insulation is paid back. This illustrates the need for very cheap loans when doing an energy renovation of a building in order for the energy labeling scheme to have an impact on the existing building stock. Question 2: Cost and effort The answers to question 2 illustrate that the users assess average to poor value for their money spent on the certificate. The worst rating is given for large buildings while small buildings receive an average rating. There are fixed prices for labeling small buildings and marked dependant prices for labeling large buildings. The complexity of rating large buildings are greater and it is often difficult to find data for the actual construction parts and systems which leaves little time to focus on the energy savings which is the most important part of the certificate.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 173 with focus on central European states

The use of asset rating instead of operational rating results in little resemblance with the actual consumption and therefore loses creditability. It is suggested to turn back to monitored energy consumption - for larger buildings. Question 3: Your highlights The top three points of satisfaction concerning the new energy certification scheme compared to the previous schemes is: 1. Standardization – same calculation method, 2. Larger transparency a. Improved structure of the report format b. A non-academic description of issues on the certificate c. Simplified and clearer energy label scale d. Highlighted energy saving proposals divided according to feasibility 3. Better opportunities to describe constructions and systems. Question 4: Your weak points The main three points, of disappointment / dissatisfaction concerning the new energy certification scheme are: 1. The certificate and method a. Poor explanation of the rating scale on the energy certification. b. An even better division of the energy certification items so that energy certification is even more manageable to issuer/assessors. c. Assert rating differs to much from actual consumption, 2. Programs a. More and better opportunities in programs for calculating the energy certification. E.g. not possible to calculate all possible saving opportunities 3. Price a. Marked dependant prices and sometimes very high prices for labeling large buildings b. Difficult to find the values for construction parts and system for large buildings c. Not enough focus on the energy savings measures.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 174 with focus on central European states

3.5. France Question 1: Transparency of energy performance Energy Performance Building Directive, Article 3: “The energy performance of a building shall be expressed in a transparent manner…” Do you think that your energy certificate expresses energy performance in a transparent manner? Remarks: On a general point of view one can say that most of users or building owners do not find the EPC accurate and transparent enough . It would be more honest to estimate the uncertainty on calculation results and to represent it on the certificate itself. More precision would be required in the data feeding the calculations. Asset rating should be compared to operational rating results. Asset rating methodology is not adapted for very efficient buildings. There is no climatic correction in the operational rating (neither from one area to an other, nor for one year to an other), implying difficulties of comparison from one building to another. The DPE in not transparent because it presents together heating energy and electricity mixed in one same scale, which is not easy to read for not specialised people. New buildings respecting the Thermal Regulation (RT2005) can appear in class D if they are heated by electricity (because of primary energy 2.58kWh/kWh). It is difficult to explain this to people. Suggestions for improvement: The calculation tools for asset rating should include “uncertainty spaces” for the input data. Climatic correction should be always included. Wood energy is not valorised. Coefficients used in the calculation tools for asset rating are very pessimistics concerning the efficiency of the devices. Question 2: Cost and effort The energy certificate of your country expresses according to EPBD energy performance in a more or less transparent manner. Do you think, that building owner and user become a good value for their money, which had to be spent on the certificate? Remarks: Building owners would need more explanation of the EPC, people do not know what is primary energy and sometimes do not understand the bad result of their EPC. EPC can be valuable if it is made correctly and completely. The fact is that nothing obliged issuers to work in a correct way, it is even the opposite. In most cases the market wants the best price for the EPC and do not have the understanding of what is a well made EPC, it is considered like an administrative obligation in case of renting or sale. Suggestions for improvement: Training for issuers should be developed and completed. Legislation should clearly establish that EPC made by internet or mail are forbidden and make the onsite visit compulsory (decrees are not clear on this point). Question 3: Your highlights What are the three main points of satisfaction concerning your new energy certification scheme. For big building owners (social housing for ex), EPC production give a better view of the energy performance of the whole patrimony. It can be used to plan a renovation strategy. It is a mean of information of the renters and it makes energy enter in the consumer culture. Its main advantage is to be common for everybody. The energy efficiency representation (energy classes) is well understandable. Recommendations are important, but not always well precise and organized. Question 4: Your weak points What are the main three points, of disappointment / dissatisfaction concerning your new energy certification scheme. The EPC is not precise enough, mainly because of the low quality of the data entered in the calculation tool for asset rating. It imply often a large gap between asset rating and measured consumptions.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 175 with focus on central European states

There is a need for actualization of the data in the calculation tool (energy prices, efficiency coefficient of certain devices…). This actualization should be made by decree but it is has not been done since the first period. On a general point of view not enough improvement of the tool which should be done on a national basis. There is a lack of energy culture and so of understanding of the EPC by most of people. Only the first page (with classes) is watched and understood even if the other pages contain interesting information. General remarks Do you have other remarks, comments or suggestions? Please use the box below to give any further feedback If the calculation evolve of the tools are improved, the validity of EPC is 10 years, so it could imply big differences between different generation of certificates.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 176 with focus on central European states

3.6. Germany In Germany, a total of 280 answers from various individuals has been collected. The answers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Building owner 16 Governmental organisation 5 Issuer 235 Scientific organisation 7 Software producer 3 User 1 Others 13 In comparison to other nations, the amount of feedbacks is impressive. But with respect to the original aim of the action, the results shows that the energy certificates hasn´t yet reached their target groups. The main target group of the EPBD, are the owner and user of buildings. The result shows, that the shoe pinches mainly for the issuers in Germany at the moment. With more than 80 % of the answers, the issuers were the most active target group. It seems much more difficult to activate owner or user to give a statement on the energy The following answers of the German results of the feedback action will be only an short extract of the results. A separate report with all answers will be available in German on the web site www.eu-energy-certificates.de. Question 1: Transparency of energy performance Rating

Transparenz der Energieausweise

en rt hl o a tw nz n A A 01 =sehr 100transparent 200 300 400 500 600 70010 = überhaupt 800 nicht 900 transparent 1000

Gebäudeeigentümer 16

Regierungsorganisation 5

Aussteller 235

Wissenschaftliche Organisation 7

Softwarehersteller 3

Nutzer 1

Andere 13

12345678910 1 =sehr transparent 10 = überhaupt nicht transparent

(1= very transparent, 10= not transparent at all) Building owner 4,5 Governmental organisation 6,5 Issuer 5,5 Scientific organisation 5,5 Software producer 4,5 User 3 Others 5

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 177 with focus on central European states

Selection of main remarks • Question not detailed enough, big differences for residential and non residential buildings in Germany • Qualification of issuer not transparent • Not sure, if the certificate is issued correctly • Confusion for the target groups with mix of asset and operational rating (end and primary energy) • Reference values non residential buildings are much too high • Residential buildings ok, non residential buildings are too complicated • For operational rating, no energy efficiency could be displayed • The colours are the only transparent thing on the certificate • Speedometer is well adopted • Results for the target group useless, because different calculation methods are used • Operational rating is the most relevant one in practice Selection of suggestions for improvement • Declaration of the sources and calculation methods • Indication of difference between actual and reference value in percent • Same area for both calculation methods • Only one methodology • Labelling with A, B, C… • No operational rating

Question 2: cost and effort Rating

Kosten und Aufwand der Energieausweise sind angemessen?

en l rt h o za tw n n 1 =angemessen 10 = ganz und gar nicht angemessen A A 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Gebäudeeigentümer 16

Regierungsorganisation 5

Aussteller 235

Wissenschaftliche Organisation 7

Softwarehersteller 3

Nutzer 1

Andere 13

12345678910 1 =angemessen 10 = ganz und gar nicht angemessen

(1= very good value, 10= no value at all) Building owner 5,5 Governmental organisation 6,5 Issuer 4 Scientific organisation 3,5 Software producer 1,5 User 1 Others 5

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 178 with focus on central European states

Selection of main remarks • Totally unreasonable costs • Effort for existing buildings much too high • Inefficient usage must be transparent • No comparison of metered and calculated consumption • Cheap certificates (internet) useless • Too cheap • Differences in cost and effort between asset and operational rating are so big, that no real answer is possible. • Effort for asset rating non residential buildings is totally inadequate Selection of suggestions for improvement • Simplification of asset rating, then only asset rating • More focus on recommendations • No operational rating • Calculation procedure and sources (bills etc) as an annex to the certificate • Minimum price for the certificates • Checking and controlling system for the certificates

Question 3 – Selection of quotes about highlights • The existence of an energy certificate • That I have 10 years time to renew this mandatory measure (building owner) • Publicity for energy efficiency • In principal big progress • Can´t find some • Growing business, new customers Question 4 Selection of quotes about weak points • Operational rating • DIN 18599 is not really ready for daily use • Confusion operational/asset rating • Parallel use of end and primary energy • Delivery of data through the owner • No check, no control • Low Qualification of experts General remarks • Simplification • Including of passive house certification program in calculation methodology • An energy certificate which allows comparison of the building in Europe is needed • Availability of public software free of charge

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 179 with focus on central European states

3.7. Great Britain The following email was sent to about 220 people involved in building energy certificates

Dear Building Professional The German government is planning to revise its laws on the implementation of the EPBD in Germany. To inform the process, it is collecting evidence about the success of building energy performance certification schemes in other countries. You are invited to help by spending literally a few minutes answering an online confidential questionnaire comprising 4 very simple questions (summarised below). Please visit http://www.eu-energy-certificates.de/eng/feedback.php?lang=eng Best wishes Robert Cohen ESD Ltd, UK partner for project eu-energy-certificates

Responses 19 responses (just under 10%) were received from a range of actors with different interests in energy certificates, as shown in the pie chart below.

1

5 Government adviser 5 Energy Certificate Assessor

Property owner

Legal adviser

Accreditation scheme

1 3 Software supplier

4

One person sent two responses, one relating to EPCs and the other to DECs, so a total of 20 responses were analysed. The average rating for the transparency of the certification process was 4.1 and for value it was 4.7. However, the responses demonstrated that some people had misinterpreted the scale ie thinking 10 was best. It is also apparent that there was little consistency for the responses ie the same person voted differently for each one, as shown in the following graph.

10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2 Transparencyhigh, (1 = 10low) = 1 1 Value of certificate (1 = high, 10 = low) of certificate10= Value high, (1 =

0 0 1234567891011121314151617181920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920

Figure 1: Respondent transparency Figure 2: Respondent number for value

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 180 with focus on central European states

Comments The comments made by respondents have been collated below. The positive comments are in blue and the negative ones in red. As long as it is placed in a prominent place - so often it is hidden, or even not displayed: Make sure it IS displayed properly How else do you factor in such concepts into the choice of leases, or even sales? It is transparent information regarding public sector buildings efficiency - of great importance to taxpayers It reduces the capacity for "greenwash" claims regarding buildings - it is objective Little control was taken as to which organisations accredit the energy surveyors ; some excellent, some poor Insufficient publicity Incorrect interpretation of Article 7.3 : all buildings visited by the public should display its certificate prominently, not just public sector buildings I wish that the UK government was less half-hearted about this directive, recognising the potential for delivering the government's ostensible goals. At present, it feels as though they simply are doing the minimum, just to comply with the law. Operational rating system for public buildings overly dependant upon site management information and sub- metering that often does not exist, leading to default ratings. The Advisory Reports that accompany the DECs have limited value themselves as they are based largely on a questionnaire rather than a full energy survey There has been no public awareness campaign from DCLG to explain to the nation what the certificates mean The National Health Service have taken advantage in many cases of the late dispensation for "campus" sites. Although this could be seen as a pragmatic view it will lead to confusion relating to enforcement of the original rules in year 2. The Display Energy Certificate and its renewal each year is a practical, and cost effective method of benchmarking buildings and drawing the publics attention to performance. Energy Managers in the UK are in favour of it and believe its a helpful tool. Extend DECs to the UK private sector and down to 250m sq. The Display Energy Certificates (DECs) are a good reflection of the energy performance of a building. The Energy Peformance Certificates (EPCs)are not. The latter are based on theoretical models that do not reflect the true energy use of a building. DECs are approximately a third or a quarter of the cost of an EPC. This will reduce even further to about an eighth in year 2. They are therefore far more cost effective than EPCs. We send DECs to sites and contact them a few days later to see if they are displaying them. We get instances where people say that they haven't received them , but on investigation they find that the poster is displayed in the entrance of the building and they have walked past it on a number of occasions and not noticed it. Some of our poor performing buildings are classed as poor, but the reason is simply that they are occupied longer than the norm, which in terms of community engagement is a success. We will be spending an awful lot of time producing individual DECs to sites with a central boiler plant and a number of separate buildings. Complexity of the process of producing an EPC. Extreme competition making the EPC under great pressure to be at very low cost. Poor government management of the roll out. There are a few texts causing confusions to building owner. Not clear to the layperson how an 'energy performance certificate' is drawn up - particularly that is based on design and not on use. not too expensive to do challenging rating - difficult to get an 'A'. (this is good!)

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 181 with focus on central European states timetable for implementation was messed up in the UK Benchmarks used are poor, buildings which are actually OK appear as very bad because of that, this discourages owners which may be putting good efforts in improving their buildings’ energy performance DEC - suggestions coming out of the report are very basic and of little value. The value of the certificate is in the fact that it rates the building, but because of poor benchmarks, at the moment this is not reflecting how the building is actually performing, thus being not much of value to the owner it forces owners/people to be reminded of the necessity of improving energy performance Difficult to demonstrate the renewables used within the building as they are not easily identifiable on the certificate If this is “do the building users believe they are getting value for the money spent on the certificate?” then yes, if it is that the certificates are of any value to the building users then also yes as they are informative. The Advisory reports are too generic The certificate needs to include more data and more performance indicators. There needs to be better transparency between what is covered in the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC, which is based on calculated energy use of the regulated building services in the base building only) and the Display Energy Certificate (DEC, which is based on annual measured energy use). Both the EPC and the DEC processes are more laborious and less informative than I had hoped they would be. The EPC process needs to be simpler for the user and more replicable, and it really needs a graphic user interface, if only to be sure that the data has been entered correctly. The DEC process could be streamlined if it incorporated automated data collection from the gas and electricity utilities. The Advisory Reports are disappointing. The DECs have to be updated annually, which motivates management to improve operational performance and allows these improvements to be tracked. The DECs allow the influences of renewable energy supplies and of unusual energy end-uses to be shown explicitly. The DEC scheme has not been integrated with other policy measures to report and improve energy and carbon performance, e.g. advanced utility metering and the Carbon Reduction Commitment carbon trading system. Insufficient funds have been dedicated to developing the benchmarking system, either before or after launch, or to improving the transparency of reporting and benchmarking between EPCs and DECs. A government consultation on extending DECs to a wider range of buildings was announced in 2006, but has not yet happened. The November 2008 draft of EPBD2 (the most recent one I have seen) is disappointing, as it does not recognise the vital role of DECs being based on actual energy use. We need to save energy and carbon in the real world, not just the virtual one. Better measures need to be adopted to integrate energy certificates within a national data collection framework and database for building and energy data. Got energy onto some peoples agendas for the first time Small errors made during the survey can lead to misleading output The information is all available but very difficult to find. The clients with good ratings are very pleased at any reasonable price. Government support for a central data base of energy performance information. Difficulty in getting data out of the government database. The lack of understanding by the EU of the UK scheme in order that EPBD2 is better Display Energy Certificates are clear and transparent as are Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) for non-domestic buildings. However, in the UK EPCs supplied to prospective purchasers or tenants of homes are VERY CONFUSING since they contain two A to G scales, one showing the Energy Efficiency Rating and one showing the Environmental Impact (CO2) Rating -this does not help transparency or understanding by non-expert domestic users The certificates do represent good value for money -however there are real concerns over poor quality control and very variable standards. Also, there are major concerns that the accompanying report is of little/no value since they are often based on generic recommendations.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 182 with focus on central European states

There is growing evidence that EPCs are starting to have an impact on asset value and in driving the up-take of energy efficiency measure The single greatest concern is the rapid emergence of a two-tier market for undertaking EPC and DEC assessments. This is typified by responsible/professional organisations and consultancies who have had staff trained and accredited so as to undertake EPC/DECs in a professional manner. This contrasts with the rapid (and growing) emergence of EPC/DEC provider “sweat –shops” which produce Certificates at very low cost with little or no regard for quality or validity. It is becoming increasingly difficult for professional service providers to compete with the low cost/low quality operators. Training and quality assurance standards are VERY VARIABLE with no random checking of the work of Energy Assessors in the UK. Many Assessors have joined Accreditation schemes through the Approved Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) route –the proof of competence and validity of the prior learning is highly subjective, very variable and highly inconsistent in its application. This has allowed a number of “cowboy” training providers to emerge and raises serious concerns regarding the quality and competence of some/many Assessors currently producing EPC’s and DEC’s. It is very disappointing that CLG did not involve the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) at a very early stage in assisting with the development (and auditing) of Common Scheme Standards for the EPC/DEC Assessor Accreditation Schemes Rigorous, transparent and robust quality assurance standards (and the introduction of transparent training/competence requirements for assessors) are desperately needed for all Assessor Accreditation Scheme and EPC/DEC assessor Training providers. UKAS should approve Common Scheme Standards and be appointed to undertake regular and detailed audits all Assessor Accreditation Schemes QA standards (and ideally EPC/DEC assessor Training providers, however, this may need to be undertaken in a more robust manner by Asset Skills). Part of the UKAS scheme standard should be a requirement that Assessor Accreditation Scheme providers should undertake regular/random checking of EPCs/DECs produced by their Registered Assessors –there is an URGENT REQUIREMENT for real sanctions/penalties to be introduced if Assessors are found to be consistently producing inaccurate (or fraudulent) EPC/DECs or poor quality Reports (including fines and/or termination of Accreditation to undertake assessments). If your building is very efficient, the certificate is good value - as it shows prospective tenants etc how energy efficient the building is - and hence may encourage/help the sale or letting of a building. If a building is not energy efficient the recommendations show what could be done to improve a rating - but for some buildings improvements may not be cost effective. Easy reference - can easily compare with benchmarks Provides recommendations for improvement Recommendations are prioritised according to short, medium or long payback periods There is no requirement to make improvements. In many cases it will be a money raising exercise for the government only. Occupiers etc will still continue to rent/purchase energy efficient buildings - as the main factors will remain rent, location, and in some cases appearance of buildings - as there is no disincentive at present. In the UK (at least) it's really the "carbon emissions performance" or "environmental impact" (whether predicted or actual) that is displayed on the certificate. A PR campaign to the public would be needed to explain this - before any change is considered. For new buildings, it is the theoretical (carbon) performance on the certificates. For these, a clear statement/warning about the significance of operational issues would be useful - and a clear statement to monitor the ongoing performance of buildings in USE (compared to the theoretical performance). National auditing of training providers and the overall assessment of energy assessors should be improved. National (and EU wide) conventions for the various types of assessment are needed. More information about what the rating means in practice. Whilst the certificates give the energy used and the carbon produced this means little without some context, so a comparison, say with car emissions would aid understanding For GB the certificate, particularly for commercial property, is expensive to produce and, as it is based on notional not actual energy data, it is only an indicator of possible energy usage. Buildings with both an EPC and a actual energy usage certificate (display energy certificate) show a wide divergence between notional and actual energy. The EPC for existing dwellings is produced using software which is too simplistic (it uses a lot of default settings) to provide an accurate rating for buildings which do not fit a standard type, this means that buildings older than 1900 or with energy saving measures already in pace often get a poorer rating than they should. Require an actual energy certificate (a relatively inexpensive process) as well as an notional EPC.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 183 with focus on central European states

Time to complete and cost of commercial EPCs. Over complication of accreditation scheme for assessors Lack of marketing of the importance of EPCs. It is disappointing that there is no consistency of EPCs across the EU Medium transparency, since they collect only limited information that could be important determinants of energy efficiency More information about the building, services and activities. Though that would also increase the cost of certification. That the information collected in the certification schemes is not available to professional and scientific organisations to carry out the research that would help to improve the efficiency of the stock. It can be transparent if the certificates are placed on the wall of a building. However transparency is only good if the people have confidence in the system, results and that the results are consistent. That is not yet achieved in the uk. UK should have completed DEC before EPC. Actual use is more important. No. Mainly due to over complication by the government. In UK you have to get an EPC for an empty box, what is the point in that. Then a tenant comes along and fits the space out how they please. How is that value. Also why do we do EPC first. Existing assets need to compare actual use not theoretical. Roll out DEC first, not EPC. If you have actual loads then you use this to develop benchmarks and therefore understand how buildings perform. Copy ABGR system in Australia. It works, its simple and they created a benchmark first. Labels are only as good as the information provided, the systems used here are not good enough. The systems are not transparent. The computer programmes used are not clear. Why do we compare against a fictional building. The air conditioning reports that come with an EPC are a waste of paper, they tell you nothing. what a wasted opportunity. DECs are important, EPCs have their place in helping designers, benchmarking is important to drive change, this system is too complicated, black box and not dealing with the real issue, existing assets (buildings). It will take time for a universal understanding of the grading structure to be recognised by the general public Too early. It took many years for the A-G grading on white goods to be recognised, understood, and used to influence the buying decision of the purchaser. It will be good value once the owner recognises that the DEC indicates their level of performance and the EPC demonstrates the potential of their existing building Insufficient public awareness raising Poor implementation / policing I would like to see better consultation between end users, deliverers and legislation.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 184 with focus on central European states

3.8. Luxembourg Not enough experience is available in Luxembourg.

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 185 with focus on central European states

3.9. Netherlands Question 1: Transparency of energy performance The Dutch method is based on a relative performance, which makes it difficult to understand for end-users. It is recommended to express the energy performance in kWh/m2 and to base the method on operational energy figures “The Dutch method is structured along a relative performance among similar buildings. This was done with the idea to generate more options . The drawback is that there is less relation with real energy performance. People expect a certain energy bill in general – related to the level of the energy label, but this is only related among similar houses.” “the label is not directed to the real use of energy, it would be more transparent if it indicates the energy use per m2 for example Like in the car industry the label A is not as transparent as the amount of liters fuel needed per 100 km” “The label as used in The Netherlands is too brief, and has no information by which the owner/user of the building can decide on the (financially) optimal measures. Furthermore, there is hardly any information on the energy consumption in user-understandable terms such as m3 gas or kWh electricity.” “The method has little meaning, and is rather sensitive for ‘political’ choices. Also the method is too sensitive to mistakes.” Building professionals can understand the relative performance, but they dislike that the absolute performance is not presented in a transparent manner. It is recommended to present the theoretical energy use figures, both for the current situation, and under improved conditions. Suggestions for improvement “An energy index expressed in kWh/m2 should create more relation with practice. It is necessary to get rid of the correction factors which are part of the current method” “Use absolute units, like in PHPP calculation method: Energy demand heating: kWh/(m2a) Primary energy demand (heating, hot water, electricity): kWh/(m2a) Use a method based on operational figures such as monitored energy performance, measured hot water consumption, and monitored real boiler efficiencies. Operational figures result into absolute figures immediately.” “Unfortunately the concept of a notional building (EN 15217) has not been used, which is well positioned for existing buildings, in particular to inform the end-user.” Question 2: cost and effort The Dutch energy label provides little information; the level of information does not challenge end-users, nor provide guidance on improvement. “Because of the minimal development of the Dutch label the consumer gets little information – for little money – and a non usable advice on possible energy efficiency measures” “The dilemma is that there is no acceptance of a requirement of a more detailed advice” “Considering what one has to pay for the energy label, this can hardly be qualified as useful information. A much more detailed report can be generated at little extra cost.” Suggestions for improvement “It is recommended to return to the Energy Performance Building Directive analysing the original goal. Apply the concept of a notional building, an indicator for the number of applied measures.” “add possible improvements standard tot the certificate”

“the value of the label would grow when there is a list added with possible improvements for a better performance. Maybe in the future the certificate gives value if better certificates increase the price of real estate” For owners of a portfolio of buildings, like housing associations the labels are relevant to generate an overview of the energetic quality of their stock, and this information is used as a basis for strategic decisions. “The label is not yet a relevant issue for tenants in selecting a new place to live. Housing associations are still seeking ways to address energy efficiency together with tenants, and make the issue a common interest. There is a

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 186 with focus on central European states need to combine investment in energy efficiency with rent and energy costs. The energy label is not of help in this process, because it is only an indication.” “It is recommended to extract the underlying building data from the current label calculations, so that they could be used to make better energy calculations for large number of houses.” Suggestions for improvement: “Improve communication in simple language. Provide tenants with CD ROM about their house, in a 3D model and compare reference with energy improvements – building data sourced from the inventory data of the label.” Question 3 - Quotes about highlights “The energy certificate may help create a situation in which increased real estate value, becomes a motivator for investments in energy efficiency.” “Without knowing the methods in other countries, the advantage of the Dutch system is the overview of the energy performance of a housing portfolio.” “The system can be handled in a reasonable manner, when tenants change property.” “The cost of the energy label is realistic.” “The good thing is that there is a system. And that is offers a reasonably good picture on what must be done to make our built environment energy efficient.” “It is recommended to introduce a new indicator: energy use per m2.” “strive for maximizing the objectivity of the method by limiting the freedom in input figures.” Question 4 Quotes about weak points In The Netherlands there are no sanctions or control on issuing the energy certificate. The market is massively ignoring the label. “Number 1: There is no control nor any sanction on using the label. It is massively and purposely ignored.” It is not known or common to have one although it is a duty to have one in case you sell your house, no one ask for it of even stronger everyone denies this duty.” The method is not able to calculate and value innovative energy concepts. “The calculation method cannot reflect innovation.” “Innovation such as passive houses do not fit within the classification and do therefore not achieve the status which they deserve.” [Note: the Dutch method cannot calculate U values lower than 0.24 W/m2K – or Rc values higher than 4,2 m2K/W); good airtightness and triple glazing] The relative indicator is not seen as an appropriate mean. “The used indicator for existing buildings has been taken from an indicator for new construction, which served a completely different purpose.” “The method is is not very reliable. There are better units for energy than relative indicators. One should use kWh, which is even understandable for non-professionals; or eventually GJ. “Household energy use is not included, which is a pity because large savings can be made here in a cost-neutral way.” “The validity period of 10 years makes the label even more relative than it currently is” “Because of the indicator there is no insight in the impact of user behavior on the energy consumption.” “It is not related to my energy use” “There is too little detail and no financial information on possible investments. Too costly for its information” General remarks “make it more simple en better to understand (like in de car industry: 5 liter/100 km) make it more attractive to have a certificate (you pay less tax if you have one) make it complete by adding an advise for improvement” “As long as the label remains a relative information it will not be attractive to non-professional people.”

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 187 with focus on central European states

“With little effort, The Netherlands could have continued the old 'EPA' work from 2004. (…) This would also have made it easily possible to start the labeling in 2006, as prescribed by the regulation, instead of 2008. The whole thing in The Netherlands now is a real 'farce'. The cost effectiveness would have been significantly better by using operational rating - either as pre-label, pre-selector, or as an alternative - in special occasions, such as in Belgium Finally comments addressed the development and implementation of the EPBD in The Netherlands “The chosen certification circus, which is not obligatory (see article 10 of the Energy Performance Building Directive) reduces the cost-effectiveness of the system.” “There has not been a sharp debate in The Netherlands about the development of the instruments and implementation process of the EPBD. This refers back to the original objectives of the EPBD and the conditions for acceptance; the clarity

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 188 with focus on central European states

3.10. Sweden Question 2: Building owner The energy performance number [kWh per year and m² Atemp) is clear. However, there is difficulty and probably also a large uncertainty, in this number since most building owners do not have a correct value of the floor area Atemp because this is a new non-standardised term. Consequently it is not found in any databases of the building owners. The error in the energy performance number due to an incorrect floor area is probably much larger than the uncertainties in the measured energy values from different energy meters. Additionally, the energy performance number does not clearly define what is the energy consumption of the building and what is the energy consumption due to the use of the building (users’/tenants’ energy). Building owner The energy certificate shows delivered (bought) energy, not the energy use of the building. The new term Atemp makes comparison hard of historical energy statistics based on “useful floor area” (BRA, defined in a Swedish Standard). Issuer/assessor That no consideration is taken to the energy consumption of the users makes the energy performance number blunt. This makes it hard to take into account the influence of the internal heat gains on the heating/cooling needs of the building, etc. Issuer/assessor The last page of the energy certificate (that must be displayed in the building) is extremely badly designed. The suggestion from the original Official Investigation (2004) with the “speedometer” design was much better, in my opinion. I have got many negative responses from clients (building owners) that the energy certificate is dull, hard to interpret, and all too big. The calculated (statistical) reference values (from the online system Gripen) are sometimes totally unusable. It is common that old masonry residential buildings, with really good energy performance numbers, instead are seen as “bad buildings” because the calculated reference values from Gripen are all too low. For many premises buildings the opposite often happes. Public or commercial buildings that are viewed as buildings with a “bad” energy performance are often seen as good buildings because of the funny reference values from Gripen. This is particularly true for premises building with high air flow rates [for new buildings the allowed energy performance according to the Building Code is depending on the “average ventilation air flow rate during the heating season”]. Issuer/assessor The energy performance number only deals with part of the delivered energy (users’/tenants’ energy is excluded), which may cover part of the energy use (losses) in the building. However, one of the main tasks of the suggested energy efficiency measures is to decrease the energy losses from the building! Issuer/assessor The problem is to reduce the total delivered energy with the energy consumption of the users’/tenants’. This often turns out to be an arbitrary number, particularly for hospitals and university buildings (laboratories). Question 3 Building owner Change the present last page of the certificate (that must be displayed in the building) to one more similar to what the public is used to, i.e. the one for domestic products (refrigerators, washing machines, etc.) with classes A-H and green to red staples. Issuer/assessor Include the users’/tenants’ energy consumption in the energy performance number. Issuer/assessor Include all delivered (bought) energy to the building in the energy performance number. Issuer/assessor Develop a new last page (for display in the building) with a distinct scale. Review the system for calculating the (statistical) reference values and adjust the correction factor for “average design ventilation air flow rate”.

Building owner Since several years many large building owners have a systematic energy efficiency work. This includes implementing energy efficiency measures in order to use the delivered energy as efficient as possible. Consequently, the cost for an energy certification varies with the energy status of the building depending on earlier energy audits and implemented measures. Buildings with energy management systems (BEMS or BAS) have additionally an advantage when it comes to analyse the operation of the building. That the suggested energy efficiency measures shall be cost effective for the building owner leads to that the measures are “lifted forward” and hopefully are put into the maintenance planning of the building owner. The measures may

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 189 with focus on central European states

not be implemented immediately, but they are in the planning. Today it is hard to see any real energy results of suggested and “implemented” measures since they hardly have been implemented yet. Consequently, it is hard to say if the measures will be cost effective in reality. Issuer/assessor All too short time available to analyse a building (make an energy audit). Sometimes too inexperienced people are involved in the energy certification process. Issuer/assessor The suggested cost effective energy efficiency measures may have a tendency to be to general. Issuer/assessor Good to get a number of the building’s energy performance compared to similar buildings. However, I think the suggested energy efficiency measures often get to standardised, since a more “serious energy audit” leads to costs that are outside the scope of an energy certification. Additionally, many large building owners already work daily to make their buildings more energy efficient, including carrying out “serious energy audits”. Issuer/assessor Many building owners get a good overview of the (energy) status of their buildings in practice. Building owner The last page of the energy certificate (that must be displayed in the building) is hard to interpret in its present design. Consequently, the value is doubtful of these certificates for the tenants (public). Issuer/assessor If there was requirements regarding implementation of the suggested energy efficiency measure, the value of the energy certificate would probably increase. Requierements on imoplementation would result in that the suggested measures are defined more in detail. Issuer/assessor Opposite to the above.

Building owner 1. That the energy performance of the building is reviewed by an independent third party (the energy expert) can result in identifying more energy efficiency measures compared to the day- to-day business of the “home blind” building owner. 2. That Boverket through review groups of “men of practice” listened to the opinions from the market (i.e. building owners). 3. --- Building owner Cannot point out anything special. Issuer/assessor Most building owners view the energy certificates positively and have started the planning for implementation of the suggested energy efficiency measures. Issuer/assessor The only positive thing is that it has been added the possibility to find the building identification (from the official register of property lots/buildings) in the Gripen online report system. Otherwise, there are rather many deficiencies in the Gripen system. Another positive thing is that it is now mandatory for building owners, at least, to document the energy performance of their buildings. Many do not care, or do not want to know. Now the building owners will get the numbers clearly on paper, which often works as an alarm clock. Issuer/assessor A simple way for inputting the data in Gripen with a good connection to the official register of property lots/buildings (run by the independent authority Lantmäteriet “Survey Sweden”). Works well for producing the (statistical) reference values. Results in a mandatory increased interest for energy questions in general from building owners.

Question 4: Building owner 1. That a new type of floor area (not in any Swedish Standard) was introduced for the energy performance number. This sub-issue has taken an enormous amount of force from the real work of implementation of the energy certification process. It also resulted in a lot of extra work for the building owners who do not have this new floor area in their databases. 2. The design of the energy certificate for display in the building, as well as the general use of the on-line database Gripen. Here rather many data, well known from other official sources, must be put in by hand again. However, over time a small improvement has taken place, but first after a large push from different groups. No direct help for using the web-interface. 3. The time aspect. Today (November 2008), one month before all existing buildings shall be certified, there is still indistinctness in some key issues. Many building owners will break the law after 1 January. 2009, without having any practical possibilities to avoid this through their own measures!

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 190 with focus on central European states

Issuer/assessor The functionality of the on-line database Gripen. It is super-bad and it is in-stabile. The calculation of the (statistical) reference values is also super-bad and the value gives a very misleading impression. The last page of the certificate (for display in the building) is very dull and colourless. Additionally it is all too big (A4 page). It is hard to separate the electrical energies in a correct way. This is also partly true regarding heating energy for domestic/service hot water use. Good “templates” are missing. The concept “Besparingskostnad” {(energy) saving cost}! What is this cryptic value? It does not say anything and for most people it is totally non-understandable. This list can be made much longer!!!! Issuer/assessor The requirement to state the nominal cooling power of the air-conditioning system is seen as meaningless and mainly as a necessary evil. Issuer/assessor The separation of domestic/tenants’/users’ electricity from the other delivered energies. That the energy performance number does not include all delivered energy. The point regarding recommended cost-effective energy efficiency measures. The quality of this point is clearly depending on the cost of the energy certification process. Since most building owners buy the energy declaration work according to the lowest price, the quality of this point is low, sometimes not even better than a list of measures from any housing magazine. Building owner Can not point on anything special. Question 5: Issuer/assessor It would be desirable too have a standardised on-line system were all building owners can deliver more detailed information of their buildings and energy system/performance. This system should be more comprehensive than the present energy-oriented system eNyckeln (eKey) run by the independent authority the Swedish Energy Agency (http://www.enyckeln.se/default.aspx?id=452)

Annex 2: Feedback action BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 191 with focus on central European states

ANNEX 3: PROJECT PARTNERS

Partner „ARGE Energieausweise Mitteleuropa“: ennovatis GmbH Dechwitzer Str. 11 D-04463 Großpösna GERMANY Fon ++49-6033-9242830 Fax ++49-6033-92428569 www.ennovatis.de Contact person: Dr. Ing. Roland Kopetzky e-mail: [email protected] Ingo Therburg Target Building Systems Ingenieurbüro für Nachhaltigkeit und Energieeffizienz Wörnergasse 14 35510 Butzbach Fon ++49-6033-9242830 Fax ++49-6033-9242856 email: [email protected] National Partner Austria (AT) Graz Energy Agency Martina Franke Fon +43-316-811848-27 Fax+43/316/811 848-9 Kaiserfeldgasse 13/I A-8010 Graz email [email protected]

Belgium (BE) Belgium Building Research Institute (BBRI) Nicolas Heijmans Fon ++32 2 6557711 Fax ++32 2 6530729 Poincare 79, 1060 Brussels email [email protected] Czech Republic (CZ) SEVEn (The Energy Efficiency Center) Petr Zahradník Fon ++420- 224 252 115 Fax ++420 224 247 597 Americká 17 120 00 Prague 2 email: [email protected] Denmark (DK) Esbensen Consulting Engineers A/S Niels-Ulrik Kofoed Per Haugaard Fon ++45 88 27 33 06 Fax ++45 3326 7301 GL KØGE LANDEVEJ 22 DK-2500 VALBY, COPENHAGEN email: [email protected] France (FR) Rhônalpénergie-Environnement Emmanuel Jeanjean Fon ++ 33 4 72 56 33 63 Fax ++33 4 78 37 64 91 10, rue des Archers F 69002 Lyon email: [email protected]

Annex 3: Project partners BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010 Monitoring and evaluation of energy certification in practice 192 with focus on central European states

Germany (DE) Target Building Systems Ingenieurbüro für Nachhaltigkeit und Energieeffizienz Wörnergasse 14 35510 Butzbach Fon ++49-6033-9242830 Fax ++49-6033-9242856 email: [email protected] Great Britain (GB) Energy for Sustainable Development (ESD Ltd.) Robert Cohen Fon ++44 1225 812102 Fax ++44 1225 812103 Overmoor, Neston, Wiltshire, SN13 9TZ email: [email protected] Luxembourg (LUX) Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Ministere de l'Économie et du Commerce extérieur Tom Eischen Fon ++352-247-84322 Fax ++352-247-84311 19.21, boulevard Royal L-2914 Luxembourg email: [email protected] Netherlands (NL) TRECODOME Chiel Boonstra Fon ++31 40 2509216 Fax ++31 40 2509201 Ludwigstraat 8 NL-4701 NG Roosendaal email: [email protected] Poland (PL) National Energy Conservation Agency (NAPE) Malgorzata Popiolek Fon ++48 22 50 54 738 ul. Filtrowa 1 00-611 Warszawa email: [email protected] Sweden (SE) CIT Energy Management Lennart Jagemar Fon +46 31 7721156 Fax +46 31 7724900 Vera Sandbergs allé 5B, SE-412 96 Göteborg [email protected]

Annex 3: Project partners BMVBS-Online-Publikation Nr. 03/2010