Environmental Protection: Sustainable Energy

ANALYSIS OF UK RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSED EC DIRECTIVE ON THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS

SUMMARY

Background

On 11 May 2001, the European Commission published a proposal for a Directive to improve the energy performance of buildings across the Community, thus helping reduce carbon emissions and meet the European Union's Kyoto Protocol commitments.

The UK Government's Public Consultation on the proposed Directive was launched on the 6 August 2001, and closed on 26 October 2001.

Responses

The consultation generated 141 responses which are broken down thus;

The proposed Directive took the form of 14 Articles and 3 Technical Annexes. Comments were received with regard to most of the Articles and Annexes, although most comments specifically relate to three Articles:

Article 6 - Energy Performance Certificates,

Article 7 - Inspection of Boilers,

Article 8 - Inspection of Air Conditioning Systems

Conclusions

Comments were received from Members of Parliament in the form of letters, and from organisations such as technical research associations, local authorities, county councils, independent agencies, trade associations, professional bodies, private individuals and others with an interest in the energy performance of buildings. A large majority of respondents were in favour of the Directive and urged the Government to adopt the proposal as soon as possible.

In general the comments received were very encouraging on the aims of the proposed Directive. Two organisations were against the Directive and two other organisations were somewhat lukewarm. One organisation thought the Directive did not concern their interests and declined to comment. However, the remainder, some 136 responses, were mainly supportive, although many suggested modifications.

Although supportive, many comments were received on how the Directive would be implemented and the need for measures to be taken to make the Directive workable. Clarification was requested regarding which buildings should be included or excluded, the size of the buildings to be included and the minimum output of the plant to be regularly inspected. The question of funding was raised in terms of who would be liable to pay for the certification of buildings; this was of particular concern to the private sector. Furthermore, there were queries regarding the cost of training technicians to undertake the certification and inspection of boilers and air-conditioning systems.

There were questions concerning management and enforcement of the Directive. For example, who would ensure that boilers are to be inspected regularly. Other suggestions included reducing VAT on energy efficient products as an incentive to encourage their uptake., and that the gas utilities could insist on an annual certificate of inspection before connection to a supply is granted.

The draft Directive does not mention the speed of implementation, but obviously all existing buildings could not be issued with an energy certificate immediately following the introduction of the Directive. The UK is probably one of the better-placed Member States because certification schemes exist already for the domestic sector, although there is nothing similar for the non-domestic sector.

Overall, the majority of the responses supported the basic aims of the Directive, although there were many comments about implementation and concerns voiced regarding the key Articles, and several questions remain to be answered before it can be fully implemented.

ANALYSIS OF UK RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSED EU DIRECTIVE ON THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS

1. Background to Directive and Invitation to comment

1.1 On 15 May 2001 the European Commission published a draft Directive in the EC Official Journal, reference 2001/C 213 E/15, on the Energy Performance of Buildings. This was in response to the European Commission's Action Plan on Energy Efficiency (2000), which indicated the need for specific measures in the building sector.

1.2 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) invited comment on the Articles contained within the Directive and the Sustainable Energy Policy Division in Defra co-ordinated these responses.

1.3 The consultation period ran from 6 August - 26 October 2001. At the end of the consultation period 141 responses had been received. The majority of the responses supported the basic aims of the Directive although there were many comments about the timeframe for implementation and concerns raised regarding some of the Articles.

1.4 The European Commission issued a second draft of the Directive on 11 October 2001 that addressed the initial comments made by the Commission's Energy Working Group. This report analyses comments relating to the original draft.

1.5 In general the comments received were very encouraging on the aims of the proposed Directive. Two organisations were against the Directive and two other organisations were somewhat lukewarm. One organisation thought the Directive did not concern their interests and declined to comment. However, the remainder, some 136 responses, were mainly supportive, although many suggested modifications. The main comments and concerns are discussed separately under each Article of the Directive.

1.6 The analysis examines each of the Articles in turn, commencing with the pre-amble.

2. Analysis of comments

Pre-amble

The pre-amble sets the Directive in the context of EU policy and legislation and gives an estimate for the energy used by buildings throughout the Member States. The pre-amble continues with a summary of the aims of the proposed Directive.

2.1 Many of the comments that relate to the Pre-amble also relate to the main Articles of the Directive. There was general support for the commitment to co-operate in efforts to mitigate and reverse the effects of global warming but responses indicate there was a need for the embodiment of the principles of sustainability and whole life-cycle analysis as well as the other objectives of energy saving and emissions reduction. Energy performance in the UK is less stringent than in Denmark, for example, and falls short of minimum requirements due to lack of monitoring and enforcement activity.

2.2 Questions were raised about how the progress of the Directive, if implemented, would be monitored and reported, who would be the responsible organisation within the UK, and how it would be enforced. The consensus of opinion was that, if possible, embodiment within the Building Regulations was the way ahead.

2.3 Some concern was raised about the need to maintain health and safety as being of paramount importance, as no mention of health and safety is to be found within the document.

2.4 An association in the construction industry did not support the Directive as they felt it to be a full European Union encroachment into the UK's Building Regulations, which they perceive as being adequate and ahead of other EC countries. They also feel that the Directive would be a levelling down on energy performance rather than a levelling up. These views were not shared by other organisations.

2.5 The development of a common methodology of certification of buildings may need to consider differences beyond the simple daytime temperature differentials between countries or regions. Furthermore, there may be differences in comfort expectations and standards.

2.6 Tackling the energy generation industry was perceived by several organisations as missing from the Directive. Some organisations felt a need for the introduction of other measures to ensure that energy saving standards are implemented, such as tax incentives for companies, reduction on VAT, grants and other market stimulators.

2.7 A County Council voiced concern about the cost implications that they considered would arise if the Directive was ratified. The need to improve their existing building stock to the standard implied would have inherent cost implications.

2.8 In answer to some of the above concerns an organisation suggested placing buildings that did not pass the minimum standards required on a remedial path with an agreed period of grace to modify their poor performance.

3. Article 1: Purpose and requirements

This Article addresses the basic framework of the Directive, summarising in broad terms the aims and objectives.

3.1 A Consultancy company suggested that the process of arriving at a common standard should be assisted by the new ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) Standards. They also felt that the application of minimum standards to commercial buildings was viable, but not for domestic buildings. Finally, energy certification of buildings and inspection of boilers alone will not persuade owners to install energy measures in existing buildings. A leading office sector organisation made similar points, suggesting that targets need not necessarily be tied to renovation but could be scheduled as part of a general improvement programme, or as part of routine maintenance schedules.

3.2 Common methodologies for the integrated energy performance of buildings should not necessarily result in one standard but should reflect broad regional differences. System operations and occupant behaviour impinge on energy use and should be taken into account.

3.3 A trade association in the energy sector suggested that the term 'boilers' should be replaced by 'heating and hot water generating equipment' throughout the Directive. This would give a wider implication to the Directive and improve the scope, making way for the consideration of heating controls and other elements of the heating system.

3.4 The general trend for the age at which boilers are replaced is a decreasing one and this presents an opportunity to upgrade and improve heating equipment.

4. Article 2 Definitions

This Article gives basic descriptions of the key issues and parameters occurring within the Directive.

4.1 According to several representative bodies, both the terms 'air conditioning' and 'heat pumps' require better definitions, to align and avoid conflict with existing and future technical standards. Another major national representative body expressed a very similar view and noted that reverse-cycle heat-pumps should be included as well. It was also mentioned by another representative body that heat recovery systems should be specifically mentioned, and not grouped generally as 'other' factors.

4.2 A University suggested that the term 'building energy performance' was far too vague and a clearer definition was needed. One trade association questioned the size criteria, wondering if it implied floor area. Again, the suggestion was made to replace 'boiler' by 'heating and hot water generating equipment'. Several organisations expressed the view that control systems are needed in buildings. Others took this one stage further to include monitoring systems for commercial buildings.

4.3 Two respondents were concerned that atria and conservatories should be included in the buildings definition.

5. Article 3 Adopting a methodology

This Article requires Member States to adopt a methodology for the calculation of energy performance for buildings. The article requires energy performance to be expressed simply and to contain a carbon dioxide emission indicator.

5.1 This is one of the Articles that generated the greatest number of responses. One trade federation voiced particular concern that the Directive gave only an outline of the method of calculation, as it is the Commission's intention to implement the work through comitology. One association stated that the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating could be an effective means of assessing the performance of buildings, as this UK rating measures the energy efficiency of a building as a whole. A consultancy pointed out that there are already ISO standards for calculating U-values, which are a measure of how well an individual roof, floor, wall or window can retain heat. The consultancy also voiced concern about the need for the Carbon Performance Rating. There was positive support for this from several other sources providing that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied. One manufacturing company suggested that any certification scheme introduced into the UK should be based on SAP but acknowledged that real performance data is also needed. A conservation body was encouraged by the proposal for a common methodology for calculating energy performance. They perceived the new Part L of the Building Regulations as moving away from the concept of overall building performance and this does not favour historic buildings where energy improvement choices can be even more limited.

5.2 A research organisation, amongst others, also supported the Article but pointed out that while there is an established assessment method (SAP) for residential buildings, no such method exists for non-domestic buildings. Although Carbon Performance Rating (CPR) offers some solution for offices, it does not for other building types, and that the development of appropriate methods will take time. It was stated that new housing is already insulated to high standards, so that when the new Part L Regulations are published there is little to be gained by setting even higher standards, as the results will not reward the investment. One leading trade association welcomed the common methodology for integrated energy performance standards, provided the standards can be fully developed to reflect specific local circumstances and climate differences across Member States.

6. Article 4 New Buildings

The Article specifies that the Directive applies only to buildings over 1000m² of total surface area and lists buildings that may be excluded. Furthermore, suggestions are made for assessing the economic feasibility of certain technologies.

6.1 This Article generated comments from most of the respondents. The prime concern was that the Directive applied only to buildings over 1000m² surface area, which excludes most dwellings. The strong suggestion was that residential housing should be included and a surface area figure of 100m² was proposed as being more appropriate. One institute suggested a higher figure of 250m², whilst a manufacturing company suggested an incremental introduction of floor area limits, to offset the impact on small businesses.

6.2 One representative body called for clarification on which buildings were involved, as there may be confusion over the terminology when regarding the treatment of blocks of flats, sheltered housing, and building features such as foyers. One respondent recommended the inclusion of factory buildings, as these are responsible for the largest energy use outside the domestic sector. Another required the inclusion of light industry units.

6.3 Further clarification was requested by an organisation in relation to the list of technologies, as in their view the Article appears to require only the technologies listed to be considered. One manufacturer suggested the addition of renewable energy to the list.

6.4 On the subject of historic buildings, a university posed the question of whether listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas were included. Other respondents requested a clearer definition of historic and temporary buildings. It was pointed out that churches are used regularly, but not frequently - hence further clarification is needed in connection with buildings that are exempt.

7. Article 5 Existing buildings

Existing buildings of over 1000m² are required to undertake the necessary measures to ensure they meet suitable energy performance standards, providing the extra costs can be recovered within a period of 8 years, and do not exceed 25% of the building's value

7.1 As a starting point, clarification was sought on what was considered to be a "renovation"; otherwise there is a risk that building owners may use a "get out" clause to avoid carrying out improvements. One trade association considered that as commercial buildings do not raise funding through mortgages, energy performance renovation couldn't be done in a similar way to new build. One manufacturer suggested that excluding buildings of less than 1000m² surface area would be missing a major opportunity. Another suggested that a percentage of floor area would be more appropriate. Most respondents on the subject of floor area were of the opinion that larger dwellings should be included and were in favour of the 100m² threshold. The same reasoning is stated by a construction association who suggested an even lower limit of 60m². One manufacturer went even further and asked why there should be any limit on the size of the building. One private company was concerned that small commercial buildings and many dwellings will be excluded from the Directive, resulting in a missed opportunity to improve the quality of overall building stock. They then warned that the resulting market recognition for energy efficiency would be strengthened in property pricing.

7.2 A consultancy firm agreed in principle with the 8-year period, but disagreed with a threshold of 25% of the insured building value as this would be sufficient to replace a complete lighting and air-conditioning system. They felt the minimum performance standards should apply to individual measures, and/or a level of 15% of the building value instead, the latter view being endorsed by a trade association. Another trade association suggested that 8 years was too long, and that a 5-year period would be more appropriate for the commercial sector. Another association was in favour of increasing the payback period to 12-15 years as they considered 8 years to be too short. Two respondents shared the view that any renovation requiring planning permission should qualify under the Directive. The clearest criticism was that buildings of less than 1000m² floor area would be excluded.

8. Article 6 Energy performance certificate

The requirement to undertake certification of the energy performance of buildings when buildings are constructed, sold or rented. Some exceptions are listed. The certificate shall display relevant information and in public buildings the certificate itself will be displayed.

8.1 This Article produced the greatest number of comments. One national trade association questioned the premise that the casual visitors to a ministry or shopping centre would be interested in its energy performance, as this would be the preserve of tenants, landlords and facility managers. They questioned what was meant by target temperature and humidity when these are likely to vary from room to room, therefore rendering the information for a large building too complicated to display meaningfully, a view shared by another association. Another stated that they were not in favour of a common performance certificate, and suggested that such a certificate would result in a compromise and be of little benefit. One institute sounded a note of caution at the cost involved in the certification of existing buildings. A University made the point that there would be no way of knowing if the actual performance of a building corresponded to that shown on the certificate. Another academic body saw no reason to require 5-year certification if no controlled improvements had been made to the building, but noted that major works such as the change of boiler could be the trigger for a new certificate. A domestic energy association supported the idea of certification and drew comparison with the 'Seller's Pack', once proposed for existing buildings.

8.2 One trade association agreed with the Article but suggested it should include historic buildings, industrial buildings and workshops. Irrespective of the type of building, the organisation that is paying for the energy should be given information on energy performance. One manufacturer was concerned that the excluded buildings should be carefully defined to avoid some owners redefining their property as a cheap alternative to investment in energy efficiency measures. A trade organisation was concerned that industrial buildings were to be included as these buildings account for more than 10% of energy use, a view shared by a research organisation.

8.3 Concerns were expressed over the list of excluded buildings, and a suggestion made that in principle all buildings should be included. One association suggested that on sale or change of tenancy, energy performance certificates together with plant maintenance records should be produced by law. This would ensure that the policing of the system would need only minimum government intervention. Another took the view that minimum standards for energy performance already exist through the Building Regulations and that the public display of certificates will have little impact on improving energy performance and be difficult to monitor and enforce. However, the opposite view was also expressed by a research organisation that strongly endorsed the requirement for certificates to be displayed, although they could foresee difficulties with the display of internal temperatures if offices were heated at a level outside the generally accepted range (min 16-24^oC).

8.4 One trade association strongly supported the certification of existing buildings but suggested a lower renewal period of 3 years instead of 5, whereas another trade association felt that annual certification would be more appropriate. Two trade organisations were of the view that a 10-year period would be more suitable in the case of new buildings.

8.5 Several organisations suggested that performance improvement measures should be implemented within the 5-year period between certificates. One association went a step further and suggested that there should be some annual statement of performance outside of which the certificate can be revoked. A university expressed a similar view. One research organisation noted that certificates would show only theoretical performance; for existing buildings it would be useful to account for other factors such as the standard of commissioning and management of the building, as such factors can negate the theoretical savings from good, low-energy design. A manufacturer took up this point and suggested that secondary certification would also be required, based on monitored performance i.e. meter readings . They noted that to this end some form of 'black box' monitoring device would need to be produced.

8.6 On a final note, one manufacturer did not agree with the obligation on building owners to implement energy measures within 5 years, but proposed instead that some form of log book should be kept of all identified energy measures implemented during the life of the certificate. One regulatory body supported this idea, particularly for the rented sector.

9. Article 7 Inspection of boilers

Member States are required to set up the necessary measures to establish the regular inspection of boilers whose effective output is greater than10 kiloWatts.

9.1 The Article prompted most comments from organisations interested in building services. A metropolitan council agreed with the aims but highlighted the need for resources to pay for boiler replacements, etc. A trade association suggested that all chimneys and air ducts should incorporate suitable access points for cleaning. An energy consultancy made the point that there is no requirement for heating plant to operate efficiently - even with the Boiler Efficiency Regulations - as there are no standards for commissioning. They also pointed out that safety implications should be taken into account. This point was also made by two other organisations that saw safety as of paramount importance, suggesting that the onus is placed on manufacturers to suggest what regular safety and efficiency checks should be carried out on their boilers.

9.2 One respondent suggested that setting the output as low as 10 kW will include small residential properties, giving enormous problems in employing sufficient numbers of inspectors to carry out the checks. Another association re-iterated this point more strongly by saying that it would be unenforceable in the domestic sector and recommended that a lower limit of 25 kW effective output be introduced. . A similar point was made by a manufacturer who suggested a figure of 50 kW for the residential sector and 150 kW for the tertiary sector as being more workable. An association stated that regular maintenance in the domestic sector seldom extends beyond the boiler, while others made the point that the heating distribution system and controls are equally as important to system efficiency as the boiler. However, one consultant questioned why boilers of under 10 kW output should be excluded from these inspections.

9.3 One organisation saw the proposed boiler inspection scheme as cumbersome, expensive to operate and open to misuse. A consultant questioned how the regular inspection of boilers and air-conditioning plant would be monitored, as without this it is unlikely to be effective. One institute agreed with the aim of targeting boilers over 15 years age, but questioned where these boilers were to be found, as there are no known databases of boiler installations and many owners will not know the age or output rating of their domestic boiler.

9.4 A university warned that to avoid compulsory inspections building owners may switch to electric resistance heating, unless measures such as carbon taxation are introduced. One trade association saw the boiler and air-conditioning systems inspection as crucial to the whole Directive as far as the UK is concerned. The inspection requirements refer to the efficiency and sizing of installations and may miss the crucial opportunity for all buildings: wasteful operation of the services.

10. Article 8 Inspection of air conditioning units

This article is very similar to Article 8 but applies to the regular inspection of air-conditioning units of over 12 kW effective output.

10.1 Fewer comments were received in connection with this Article, due in part to the fact that in the UK there are far fewer installed air-conditioning systems than there are boilers, although it is a growing trend.

10.2 A trade federation raised the point that the testing and assessing the performance of air-conditioning systems is a complex process that does not lend itself to being carried out on site. It was also suggested that the Article should refer to decentralised or distributed systems where units are less than 12 kW. One respondent pointed out that building managers need to be aware of problems with heating and air-conditioning plant and trained to make simple adjustments, so that system faults are not allowed to develop or persist. Two organisations stated that 12 kW effective output will include relatively small premises and that a threshold of 15 kW may be better advised.

11. Article 9 Common provisions

Member States shall ensure that building certification and the inspection of boilers shall be carried out by suitable qualified personnel.

11.1 The most common questions raised in connection with Article 9 were where the certification and inspection personnel were to come from, who would be responsible for their pay and training, and who would ensure they retained certain standards of competence? One trade association claimed that there are currently too few consultants, which means that smaller buildings will be last in line for the consultant's improvements on energy performance. Furthermore, they suggested that professional property owners should be allowed to educate technically skilled employees to perform certification. Several other respondents made the same point.

11.2 An institute expanded upon the question of 'qualified and independent personnel', suggesting that Member States should be allowed to make their own requirements. They were concerned that the creation of yet another skills base would lead to more costs and slow progress on energy efficiency and the implementation of the Directive. A consumer organisation made a similar point, stating that installers with a suitable level of competence may be provided through the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, but another association claimed that the National Home Energy Rating scheme should be considered to be the de facto standard required.

12. Article 10 Amendments

Any amendments necessary to adapt the Annex to technical progress shall be adopted.

No comments were offered by the respondents.

13. Article 11 Establishment of technical Committee

The Commission shall be assisted by the technical committee.

No comments were offered by the respondents.

14. Article 12 Timing

Member States shall implement the Directive by 31 December 2003.

14.1 One respondent wanted to press for the Directive to be implemented as quickly as possible, since no primary legislation is required. Another agreed that an early start should be encouraged but urged caution due to the size of the task in hand. A trade association considered the timing of the introduction of the Directive to be practical as the majority of requirements are contained within the new Building Regulations Part L to be introduced on 1 April 2002. However, they pointed out that a new Act of Parliament would be necessary to allow inspectors access to buildings to inspect boiler and/or air-conditioning systems.

15. Article 13 Timing of publications

The Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following publication in the OJEC.

No comments were offered by respondents.

Annex A Framework for the calculation of energy performance of buildings (Article 3)

A.1 One consultancy firm stated that the method for calculating the energy performance of domestic buildings should be based on methodologies already in use. They also stated that the new method should be sufficient to adequately quantify all energy use within the building as 'total fuel running costs'. This would allow for an effective measure of total carbon emission and assessment of fuel poverty, compatibility between performance calculation and the actual fuel bill, and recognition of products and technologies that reduce energy demand. For commercial office buildings the respondent envisaged the use of the Carbon Performance Rating (CPR) method that is due to be introduced in the Building Regulations in 2002.

A.2 One association would like the 'management of the building' to be included in the framework calculation as this is the single biggest influence on energy consumption. A county council called for clear guidance on the calculation method - otherwise similar buildings could end up with different certificates. A research organisation stated that although the list of aspects included lighting, this was the first mention of what is a dominant contributor to carbon emissions in non-domestic buildings. Furthermore, there was no mention of controls or ways in which the building fabric and form can be used to moderate energy use. They were also questioned why position and orientation should only apply to houses.A trade association also suggested that occupant density, climate factor, indoor air quality and air tightness of the building envelope should all be taken into account.

Annex B Requirements for the inspection of boilers (Article 7)

B.1 A local authority commented that these provisions would extend the current inspections to include energy efficiency in addition to safety matters. This would encourage the replacement of inefficient systems, but resources would be needed. A trade association made the point about the need for suitably qualified technicians, and for them to be working under statutory guidelines. There were relatively few comments on this Annex but of those made there was obvious concern about the need for skilled people to undertake boiler inspections and the need for resource issue for training.

Annex C Requirements for the inspection of central air conditioning systems (Article 8)

There were no specific comments for this Annex.

TABLE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE UK CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED EC DIRECTIVE ON THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS