REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the energy performance of buildings (recast)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
18.11.2021
SEC(2021) 430 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL on the energy performance of buildings
(recast)
{COM(2021) 802}
{SWD(2021) 453}
{SWD(2021) 454}
Offentligt
KOM (2021) 0802 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2021
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
Overall 2nd
opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Policy context
The decarbonisation of buildings is central to delivering the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate
and energy objectives. Buildings are responsible for 40% of total energy consumption and
36% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. The revision of the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is part of the ‘Fit for 55’ package. Energy
efficiency is an essential component and the building sector is one of the key sectors.
The 2020 Renovation Wave communication proposes an action plan with regulatory,
financing and enabling measures. These aim to foster deep renovations and (at least)
double the annual energy renovation rate of buildings by 2030. A revision of the EPBD is
part of this action plan.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the clarifications in the revised report on the need for energy
renovation of buildings while the power sector is being decarbonised, on the
embodied greenhouse gas emissions of renovation and on distributional effects and
possible capacity constraints.
However, the Board maintains its negative opinion, because the revised report still
contains the following significant shortcomings:
(1) The report is not clear which additional gap the EPBD needs to fill, taking into
account the strengthened obligations for Member States to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions of buildings in the proposed Effort Sharing Regulation.
(2) The report does not convincingly show that there is a need for harmonised
measures at EU level. The useful additional information on the characteristics of
the buildings sector in Member States rather demonstrates that barriers to
renovation are country-specific and should be tackled at that level.
(3) The report is not sufficiently clear why it chooses the preferred option over other
options. It also does not demonstrate that all proposed measures are necessary to
reach the objectives.
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The problem definition should clarify why the other measures in the Fit for 55 package
are not sufficient to address the greenhouse gas reduction objectives in the buildings sector.
It should specify the remaining gap that would be left for the EPBD to fill after the
combined effect of the inclusion of the building sector in the Emissions Trading System
and, in particular, the more ambitious targets for Member States in the Effort Sharing
Regulation, which also includes the buildings sector.
(2) The report should better justify why the drivers that are assumed to capture the
impacts of the EPBD to construct the new MIXwoEPBD modelling scenario can be fully
attributed to the EPBD. In particular, it should explain why increased renovations and
higher use of renewable heating and cooling equipment would not also or primarily result
from Member States’ actions under the Effort Sharing Regulation.
(3) The report should better analyse and demonstrate the respect of the subsidiarity
principle of this initiative. It should justify why it includes split incentives in the problem
drivers, even though the analysis shows that these are best tackled at Member State level
due to their heterogeneity. More generally, the report should systematically integrate into
its analysis that barriers to renovation are country-specific (as is demonstrated by the added
information on the European building stock) and that there are only limited (potential)
cross-border effects in the fragmented buildings sector.
(4) The options should be organised in a way that highlights political trade-offs and
relevant political choices. The construction of options should allow for assessment of
which measures are decisive for reaching the objectives and which ones should not be
selected because of proportionality concerns.
(5) The comparison of options should be more coherent with the analysis. It should
specify the differences across the options for proportionality and subsidiarity and integrate
these in the respective scores. The report should justify why it considers that the options
perform similar to the baseline on subsidiarity, even though they significantly reduce the
room for manoeuvre of Member States to deal with county-specific barriers to renovation.
It should more convincingly argue, based on available evidence, why the preferred option
performs better than other options.
(6) The report should further clarify how the initiative will be monitored and evaluated. It
should, in particular, specify what information Member States will have to provide in the
annexes to their building renovation action plans and how the Commission will use this
information. It should also stipulate how and when the Commission will evaluate the
overall performance of the EPBD.
(7) The report should find a better balance between its core messages in the main report
and the detailed discussion and analysis that should be part of the annexes.
(D) Conclusion
The Board’s opinion is in principle final. The DG should seek political guidance on
whether, and under which conditions, this initiative may proceed further.
Full title Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
3
Reference number PLAN/2020/8667
Submitted to RSB on 20 October 2021
Date of RSB meeting Written procedure
4
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive
Overall opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Policy context
The decarbonisation of buildings is vital to deliver the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate and
energy objectives. Buildings are responsible for 40% of total energy consumption and 36%
of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. The revision of the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is part of the ‘Fit for 55’ package. It
complements the other initiatives to cut net greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by at least
55% by 2030 compared to 1990. Energy efficiency is an essential component and the
building sector is one of the key sectors that needs additional effort.
The 2020 Renovation Wave communication contains an action plan with regulatory,
financing and enabling measures. These aim to foster deep renovations and (at least)
double the annual energy renovation rate of buildings by 2030. A revision of the EPBD is
part of this action plan.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the useful additional information provided in advance of the
meeting and commitments to make changes to the report.
However, the Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains the
following significant shortcomings:
(1) The problem definition does not explain why the other Fit for 55 initiatives are
not sufficient to address the objectives, and what this initiative will deliver to
complement them. The report does not clearly frame its options to reflect the
complementary role of the EPBD.
(2) The report does not sufficiently identify and analyse the possible bottlenecks and
supply-side constraints that may hamper the pathways towards the objectives.
(3) The report does not adequately balance the positive and negative impacts of this
initiative for different social groups, sectors and Member States. It does not
discuss how the different characteristics of Member States may determine the
success of this initiative.
5
(C) What to improve
(1) The problem definition should clarify why the initiative is needed with an increasingly
and progressively decarbonised energy sector, and why the Fit for 55 package is not
sufficient to address the objectives. The problem definition should develop the non-
economic barriers in sufficient detail in the problem drivers. It should demonstrate with
evidence the uniformity of the problems and problem drivers across Member States. The
scope of the problem definition should be limited to what this initiative addresses and
should exclude other building deficiencies.
(2) The report should justify why it does not include the already proposed Fit for 55
measures in the baseline. It should explain why there is no common approach on the
baseline between follow-up initiatives to the July Fit for 55 package. If the report uses the
same baseline as this package, the impact analysis should distinguish between the effects of
the EPBD and of the package.
(3) The report should clarify the link between the reformulated problem drivers and the
objectives and options. It should clarify which emission coverage (e.g. direct, operational,
indirect/embedded, full life cycle) corresponds to each of these dimensions and why. It
should reflect whether this may lead to regulatory overlap (e.g. with construction material
standards).
(4) The options should identify and highlight the main policy choices and relate them to
the reformulated problem drivers and identified gaps to be filled. The current approach
does not demonstrate that all measures are necessary, in particular the obligation to
renovate buildings. The report should make a clearer distinction between ‘main measures’
and ‘supporting measures’, and apply it more coherently. It should specify the precise
content and parameters of all measures.
(5) The report should demonstrate better the respect of the subsidiarity principle of this
initiative. It should be more explicit on the inter-play between the harmonised objectives at
EU level and the flexibility for Member States (e.g. the use of fiscal measures). To
demonstrate the need for EU intervention, it should explain clearly what would be the
cross-border effects of a lack of building renovation in some Member States.
(6) The report should assess the feasibility of the options, given the possible shortage of
(skilled) labour and materials. It should analyse the required capacity changes and assess
their feasibility and impacts in a realistic macroeconomic scenario. It should also be clear
about the emissions resulting from renovations themselves as compared to those from an
un-renovated building using decarbonised energy.
(7) The report should disaggregate the positive and negative impacts across different
stakeholders, e.g. income groups, renters/owners, sectors and Member States. It should not
simply assume that sufficient financing or mitigating measures would be available when
assessing distributional effects. It should take into account the heterogeneous
characteristics of individual Member States including in terms of building type and age,
property ownership and differing liabilities of owners, leaseholders and tenants; and how
these differences may lead to uneven impacts. The report should discuss the total
investment needs and identify possible funding mechanisms that may remove some of the
barriers.
(8) The report should better reflect the stakeholder views throughout the report, including
in the problem definition, option construction and the choice of preferred option. It should
explain how it took into account minority views.
(9) The report should identify the indicators and data sources needed for an adequate
6
monitoring framework. It should define from the outset what success would look like, and
when would be the most appropriate moment for an evaluation.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings and resubmit
it for a final RSB opinion.
Full title Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
Reference number PLAN/2020/8667
Submitted to RSB on 20 July 2021
Date of RSB meeting 15 September 2021
Electronically signed on 18/11/2021 14:05 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482