ENER/C3/2018-447/05 1

EPBD19a feasibility study on building renovation passport

Jonathan Volt Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE)

iBRoad webinarFeb 19th 2020

2

01 02

03

The European Commission and the consortium carrying out this study were committed to actively engage stakeholders in the study, collect their input and viewpoints, and consider their feedback in relation to study results.

01

Review on building renovation passport schemes and related initiatives

02

Analysis of the relevance, feasibility and possible scope of measures at EU level for building renovation passports

03

Selection of policy options for building renovation passports and analysis of related potential impacts

Part

Part

Part

We reviewed 16 relevant cases

ENER/C3/2018-447/05

Several (regional) examples of models, promoting and offering BRPs to owners, auditors and craftsmen• Passeport Efficacité Energétique• Passeport Énergie Habitat• Picardie Pass RénovationFinancing: Both private and public

Woningpas and EPC+ combine the BRP with an integrated database with building data and beyond. Financing: public (Flanders Region, inter-ministerial cooperation)

individueller Sanierungsfahrplanprovides a detailed individual renovation roadmap for single family housesFinancing: public (Federal government)

Map designer:3

We derived relevant information

ENER/C3/2018-447/05

Key results

A survey of 1006 Danes who bought a property in 2015, shows that 65%stated that they read the whole report that comes with the EPC [8]

45% of owners are living in a building with a lower EPC rating (E-F-G)have implemented at least one of the EPC-listed energy-saving measures(for people living in D=35%, C=16%, B=15%, and A=7%) [8]

When asked about the importance of the EPC when they bought theirbuilding, 22% described the EPC as very important, while 36% saw it assomewhat important [8]

Most building owners were satisfied with an EPC rating C (37%), followedby D (22%). Only 7% desired an EPC rating A to be satisfied [8]

38% of the building owners implemented measures because it was“financially attractive”, while 28% did so in conjunction with otherrenovation work. Only 5% did so to reduce their climate andenvironmental impact [8]

46% of the building owners knew that it is possible to view their own orother EPCs online; while 46% out of these had used this function [8]

6% said they would have renovated if the EPC report included moredetailed information and additional suggestions for renovation measure [8]

The most commonly implemented measures from the recommendationsrelated to windows (42%), roof (39%), heating system (28%), doors(21%) and external wall (19%) [8]

Danish EPC framework Key findings

A survey of 1006 Danes who bought a property in 2015, shows that 65%

stated that they read the whole report that comes with the EPC

45% of owners are living in a building with a lower EPC rating (E-

F-G) have implemented at least one of the EPC-listed energy-

saving measures (for people living in D=35%, C=16%, B=15%, and

A=7%)

When asked about the importance of the EPC when they bought their

building, 22% described the EPC as very important, while 36% saw it as

somewhat important

Most building owners were satisfied with an EPC rating C (37%),

followed by D (22%). Only 7% desired an EPC rating A to be satisfied [8]

38% of the building owners implemented measures because it was

“financially attractive”, while 28% did so in conjunction with other

renovation work.

6% said they would have renovated if the EPC report included

more detailed information

The most commonly implemented measures from the recommendations

related to windows (42%), roof (39%), heating system (28%), doors

(21%) and external wall (19%)

4

We proposed a definition of building renovation passport

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 5

3 main policy options for the EU to consider

ENER/C3/2018-447/056

LEAVE TO MEMBER STATES

Policy package 1

(Soft)

Policy package 2

(Stringent)

COMMON REFERENCE FRAMEWORK

Policy package 3

(Soft)

Policy package 4

(Stringent)

FUTURE EPBD REQUIREMENT

Policy package 5

(Soft)

Policy package 6

(Stringent)

Types of measures

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 7

Policy package

Direct measure

Supportive measures

Enabling measures

Policy measures

Financial instruments

Legislative instruments

Input(policy package)

Process(impact on BRPs)

Output(Impact categories)

MS decide whether to design and implement BRP

Dir

ect

mea

sure

Communication campaign

EU Encourage BRPs through LTRS

Sup

po

rtiv

e m

easu

re

Training of energy experts

Subsidies the cost for the development of the BRP

5 additional MS to implement BRPs

If o

mit

ted

im

pac

t *

80%

If o

mit

ted

im

pac

t *

50%

If o

mit

ted

im

pac

t *

80%

• Implemented as an optional add-on toEPCs

• 6% of people getting an EPC opts for theadditional BRP

∆ BRPs [#]

∆ Renovation rate [%] and depth [%]

• Every BRP triggers renovation dependingon EPC rating (EPC E-F-G =90%, D=70%,C=32%, B=30%)

• Average energy saving between first andfinal step: 45%

• Share that completes all steps of theBRP: 60%

Energy savings

CO2-emissions

Estimated improvement of EPC ratings

Triggered private investments

Health benefits

Increase in on-site renewables

Policy package 1

Public investment

Residential energy expenditure

ENER/C3/2018-447/05

8

Energy demand

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 10

2.800

3.000

3.200

3.400

3.600

3.800

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045

Fin

al en

erg

y d

em

an

d [

TW

h]

Year

Residential energy demand

Historic data No Action Policy Package 1

Policy Package 2 Policy Package 3 Policy Package 4

Policy Package 5 Policy Package 6

1.500

1.600

1.700

1.800

1.900

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045

Fin

al en

erg

y d

em

an

d [

TW

h]

Year

Non-residential energy demand

Historic data No Action Policy Package 1 Policy Package 2

Policy Package 3 Policy Package 4 Policy Package 5 Policy Package 6

Health benefits

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 11

No action PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6

2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2030 0 (88,24) (189,83) (109,62) (347,43) (134,42) (239,37)

2040 0 (176,49) (250,56) (219,03) (567,30) (567,30) (1.548,26)

2050 0 (264,73) (388,86) (328,44) (1.038,79) (1.000,18) (2.233,15)

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

Million E

uro

Yearly savings per year in the different decades

Absenteeism cost savings

Conclusion

• The review shows that BRPs are effective in alleviating two of the main barriers; low awareness of the benefits of energy renovation and insufficient knowledge of what measures to implement and in which order.

• The potential impact of BRPs on renovation activity is largely threefold; • It can trigger building owners with no previous intention to renovate to invest

in energy efficiency measures

• It enhances the quality, performance and overall depth of the renovation measures

• It triggers people that have planned to renovate to do so earlier.

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 12

Conclusion

• All policy packages are expected to trigger energy and CO2-emission savings.

• Impact of selected policy package varies depending on indicator, i.e. energy demand in residential sector is estimated to be between 3-10% lower by 2050, similar number for CO2 emissions.

• Impact of the BRPs will be limited unless coupled with financial, communication and training measures. BRPs without accompanying measures won’t have a considerable effect.

• To increase the attractiveness and effectiveness of BRPs, indoor environmental quality should be integrated.

ENER/C3/2018-447/05 13