The Commission is in the process of updating some of the content on this website in light of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. If the site contains content that does not yet reflect the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, it is unintentional and will be addressed.

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

Share this Post:
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 the further revision of the EPBD related legislation with the experiences of the neighbouring countries concerning energy performance certification. The study reflects the situation until autumn 2008 in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.
The publication gives an overview of main topics and experiences. Each country has a special background and national distinctions which influenced the implementation process, which are summarized in chapter "Distinctions of the national implementation process". The chapter "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 "Comparison of national implementation".

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 contibutions from

Graz Energy Agency, Austria; Belgien Gebäude Research Institute (BBRI), Belgium; SEVEn, The Energy Efficiency CenterCzech Republic; Esbensen Colsulting Engineers A/S, Denmark; Rhônalpénergie-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 Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR), Bonn
Horst-Peter Schettler-Köhler (Project management)
Hans-Peter Lawrenz

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