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 ........................................................................................................................................