The intention of the European Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings is to reduce carbon emissions of existing buildings. But who are the real beneficiaries?
AAssessing the energy efficiency of established buildings, large and small, is the key requirement included in a new European directive, called Energy Performance of Buildings. Final details were agreed last month in Brussels. It is the first ever Europe-wide initiative which directly addresses the single biggest sector of energy usage: buildings. Running 160 million of these causes over 40% of Europe's energy consumption.

The intention is to improve Europe's existing buildings sufficiently to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 45 million tonnes by 2010. If you are moving into a different building, whether for work or to live in, you will now automatically receive information on how energy efficient it is – and guidance on how that can be improved. If as an occupant you are substantially upgrading a commercial building bigger than 1000 m2, you will need to ensure you are following contemporary energy saving criteria. Regular inspections will be required to check efficiency of boilers or air conditioning units.

Swallowing up more fuel
That 40% energy consumption proportion is expanding. Between 1985 and 1997, the average size of a European home increased from 83 m2 to 87 m2. While the residential sector is responsible for two-thirds of energy consumption in buildings, the commercial sector is expanding even more rapidly, as service industries grow in importance across Europe. In Britain, energy demand in the services sector is leaping by 3·7% each year – proportionately much faster than the growth of energy consumption in transport. There is a net increase in the building stock of 1·5% every year.

How is all this fuel used? In both sectors, heating fuel is the most important end usage (57% in homes, 52% in commercial buildings). Water heating is next most important (25% in homes, just 9% in commerce). Appliances are responsible for 16% of commercial energy usage, 11% of domestic – but upgrading of energy standards for such appliances are deliberately not addressed in this directive.

How much of this fuel can be saved? According to Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio: "A savings potential of around 22% of present consumption can be realised by 2010." Savings potential is defined in terms of investments in energy efficient technologies which offer a payback period of eight years or less, thus "allowing a high rate of return compared to alternative investments, including energy production." Given that the lifetime of a building can be a century or more, such payback criteria can even be argued to be rather conservative.

Bearing in mind this substantial potential to save energy in existing buildings, how far does the new directive go in ensuring it is realised? Some would argue the directive is overly modest. Nowhere is there any requirement that the recommendations from the energy survey – the certification, in Eurospeak – are implemented.

Name and shame
But there is a requirement that the results of such certification are well publicised. In every building over 1000 m2 to which the public have regular access these results must be 'placed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public'. This will be mandatory for public buildings like hospitals, courts or social security offices. And also for private buildings like supermarkets, hotels or banks.

The aim is that the name and shame principle will kick in at this point. Which self-respecting bank chain will want to be seen to be running overtly gas-guzzling buildings, especially if their competitor further down the high street can flaunt a top energy rating?

But what of those running smaller buildings? So the energy saving advice is given. But will anyone act upon it? Getting advice implemented tends to work best when it has a grant scheme attached. Most homes in Britain now have some insulation in the loft (although few have more than one-quarter of the recommended thickness installed). In most cases, this insulation was paid for via a grant meeting 67% of the total cost. Since the general grant was abandoned in 1987, the number of people paying to install loft insulation has dropped away.

If the directive becomes a catalyst to stimulate other measures to suit local conditions, then this could just be the start of something very big.

Small grants have more recently been on offer for brief periods from the Energy Saving Trust, to assist with items like high efficiency gas boilers or cavity wall insulation. Whenever the grants have been around, installation levels have increased dramatically, only to decline when the grant scheme is terminated. Certainly there are strong hints in the directive about the need for judicious tax incentive or grant schemes to encourage improvements. But no more than that.

Nor will every country have to carry out the certification in an identical way. Recognising that several have existing measurement schemes – the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) scheme marking between 1 and 100, familiar to all new homebuyers in the UK is not unique – the requirement is only that certain key characteristics are included in the measurement procedure. That is sensible.

Only the most perverse Europhobe could portray this initiative as being the slightest bit dirigiste. Commissioner de Palacio has had to tread a very delicate line regarding subsidiarity. On the face of it, as by definition buildings do not cross national frontiers, what precise energy standards they meet is nothing to do with Brussels.

On the other hand, buildings are the biggest users of energy bar none. Compared with the 40% plus for buildings, just 31% of Europe's carbon dioxide emissions comes from transport. And the EU most certainly does have responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gases to meet international commitments. All of which makes the directive a priority, while at the same time restricting the amount of detailed change it can mandate.

What is now up for implementation into national law by each of the 15 member states, is essentially an enabling directive. Enabling each government to respond positively, if it is so minded.

If all a national government does is implement its proposals on a minimalist basis, issuing a pro forma computer disk and encouraging self-certification and little monitoring of performance, then nothing like the identified savings potential will be achieved. That would be a genuine missed opportunity.