Energy & Buildings: M. Economidou, V. Todeschi, P. Bertoldi, D. D'Agostino, P. Zangheri, L. Castellazzi

Energy & Buildings 225 (2020) 110322
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb
Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency policies for buildings

M. Economidou a, V. Todeschi a,b, P. Bertoldi a,⇑, D. D’Agostino a, P. Zangheri a, L. Castellazzi a
a
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate, Italy
b
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The reduction of energy demand in buildings through the adoption of energy efficiency policy is a key
Received 5 June 2020 pillar of the European Union (EU) climate and energy strategy. Energy efficiency first emerged in the
Revised 15 July 2020 EU energy policy agenda in the 1970s and was progressively transformed with shifting global and EU
Accepted 17 July 2020
energy and climate policies and priorities. The paper offers a review of EU energy policies spanning over
Available online 24 July 2020
the last half century with a focus on policy instruments to encourage measures on energy efficiency in
new and existing buildings. Starting from early policies set by the EU in response to the Oil Embargo
Keywords:
in the 1973, the paper discusses the impact of EU policies in stimulating energy efficiency improvements
Energy performance of buildings directive
Energy efficiency directive
in the building sector ranging from the SAVE Directive to the recently 2018 updated Energy Performance
Energy performance certificate of Buildings Directive and Energy Efficiency Directive. The review explores the progress made over the
Cost-optimal methodology last 50 years in addressing energy efficiency in buildings and highlights successes as well as remaining
Nearly zero energy buildings challenges. It discusses the impact of political priorities in reshaping how energy efficiency is addressed
EU energy policies by EU policymakers, leading to a holistic approach to buildings, and provides insights and suggestions on
how to further exploit the EU potential to save energy from buildings.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Early beginnings of EU energy efficiency policy for buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. The construction products Directive (CPD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. The boiler Directive (HWBD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. The SAVE Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. The energy efficiency action plans & climate energy targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. The 2000 energy efficiency action plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. The 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. The 2011 Energy Efficiency Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. The energy Union and the role of energy efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. The Energy Performance of Building Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. EPBD 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Minimum energy performance requirements (Articles 4–5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Energy performance certificates (Article 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3. Inspections of boilers and air-conditioning systems (Articles 8–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. EPBD 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. The cost-optimal methodology (EPBD Article 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Nearly zero energy buildings (EPBD Article 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.3. Energy performance of buildings standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
⇑ Corresponding author at: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC),

Directorate C–Energy, Transport and Climate, Energy Efficiency and Renewables
Unit, Via E. Fermi 2749, Ispra, VA, Italy.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Economidou), paolo.
[email protected] (P. Bertoldi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110322
0378-7788/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
2 M. Economidou et al. / Energy & Buildings 225 (2020) 110322
5.3. EPBD 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. The Energy Services Directive (ESD) and Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Long-term renovation strategies (EED Article 4/ EPBD Article 2.a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Central government buildings (EED Article 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Split incentives (EED Article 19a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Metering and billing (EED articles 9–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 1
1. Introduction
Categorization of policy measures [Source: Bertoldi & Economidou., 2018].
Energy production and consumption have a significant impact Regulatory Building codes; Minimum energy performance
standards (MEPR) for new and existing
on climate change due to their contribution in atmospheric emis-
buildings; Energy efficiency standards for
sions of CO2 resulting from fossil fuels. With the establishment of appliances & equipment; Refurbishment
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change obligations; Procurement Regulations; Phase-
(UNFCCC) at the Rio Conference in 1992 and the subsequent Kyoto out of inefficient equipment.
Protocol in 1997, climate change received widespread recognition Financial and fiscal Grants/subsidies; Preferential loans; Tax
incentives; Energy taxation.
as one of the most urgent global issues and remains a key priority
Information and General Information; Information campaigns;
for governments around the world to-date. Actions to limit global awareness Information Centres; Energy Audits; Energy
warming have been intensified in more recent years, with the Paris labelling schemes; Governing by Example;
Agreement at COP 21 in December 2015 marking the latest major Information exchange; Awareness campaigns;
Demonstration programmes.
milestone in global climate change negotiations [1–2]. Through the
Qualification, training and Professional training; Training courses;
Paris Agreement, participating countries are called to set targets to quality assurance Vocational education, quality standards.
limit the global average temperature rise to ‘‘well below” 2 °C Market-based Incentives facilitating Third Party Financing/
above pre-industrial levels, with the view to pursue further efforts ESCOs; Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes
to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (EEOSs); White certificates; Incentives for the
producers of innovative technologies;
[3]. The agreement aims to ‘‘reach global peaking of greenhouse
Technology deployment schemes.
gas (GHG) as soon as possible” and ‘‘achieve a balance between Voluntary action Voluntary certification and labelling programs;
anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of Voluntary and negotiated agreements.
GHG in the second half of this century”[3]. Energy efficiency (EE) Infrastructure Investments in transportation infrastructure
investments (e.g. railways, road networks), Energy
and energy demand reduction have been highlighted as key miti-
infrastructure (e.g. generation plants, electrical
gation options by several IPCC Assessment Reports and UNFCCC grid, substations, and local distribution); Smart
documents, protocols and international agreements [4]. meter roll-out.
In the European Union (EU), energy production and use is Other Other measures that do not fall under one of the
responsible for 80% of all GHG emissions. Accounting for about above categories (e.g. research innovation and
innovation programme, demonstration projects).
40% of EU’s final energy and 36% of CO2 emissions, buildings are
associated with a significant untapped energy saving potential
[5]. Much of the energy currently used in buildings is wasted due
to outdated construction practices, use of inefficient systems or resources, contribute to the national security of supply of energy
appliances and lack of effective technical control systems. There importing countries, reduce local pollution, improve the competi-
are, however, several well-proven solutions that can limit this tiveness of companies, reduce household energy expenditure,
energy waste in buildings. For example, demand for heating and eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and improve indoor envi-
cooling in buildings can be drastically reduced through thermal ronment quality. Many of these additional benefits have been
insulation, efficient glazing solutions, elimination of thermal broadly discussed in the literature [11–13]. Despite the plethora
bridges and leaks, and installation of efficient heating/cooling gen- of their benefits and well-documented cost effectiveness actual
eration and distribution systems [6,7]. Additional measures may investments in energy efficiency remain at suboptimal levels and
cover other technical building systems such as air-conditioning, not in par with their potential. In the literature, the ‘‘energy effi-
ventilation, hot water production and lighting systems. Beyond ciency gap”, defined as the difference between the actual and opti-
active solutions, passive design options such as optimised spatial mal level of energy efficiency, has been extensively studied [14,15].
planning, building orientation, natural ventilation strategies and A number of barriers including perceived uncertainty and possible
effective use of thermal mass, passive solar systems for heating risks inhibit the widespread application of energy efficiency mea-
and cooling [8,9] have an important role to play in reducing energy sures in buildings [16]. Loss aversion can partly justify the ‘‘energy
consumption and improving thermal comfort. Smart metering sys- efficiency gap” where individuals appear to neglect cost-effective
tems can be used to better control supplied services, inform occu- energy efficiency investments [17,18]. Other barriers relate to the
pants about their behaviour and encourage energy conversation cost of financing the upfront investments, lack of information, split
measures [6,10]. incentives, complex decision-making processes and difficulties in
Many of the aforementioned energy efficiency measures can accessing capital [19]. Vogel et al. [20] identify 38 barriers to
generate significant energy savings, thereby limiting the overall energy efficiency in buildings, categorized into three analytical
contribution of the sector to global warming. Beyond energy sav- decision-levels: (1) project level (lack of interest, information,
ings, the installation of these measures can preserve scarce natural etc.); (2) sector level (barriers at the industrial level, e.g. resistance
M. Economidou et al. / Energy & Buildings 225 (2020) 110322 3
Table 2
Overview of main energy efficiency policy initiatives taken at the EU level over the last 50 years.
Type of policy Description Reference

Resolutions Council Resolution 75/C 153/2 of 17 December 1974 concerning Community energy policy objectives for 1985 1975/C
153/2
Council Resolution 80/C 149/1 of 9 June 1980 concerning Community energy policy objectives for 1990 and convergence of the 1980/C
policies of the Member States 149/1
Council Resolution 86/C 241/01 of 16 September 1986 on new Community energy policy objectives for 1995 and convergence of 1986/C
the policies of the Member States 241/01
Regulations Regulation 305/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for 2011/305/
the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC EU
Directives Council Directive 1978/170/EEC of 13 February 1978 on the performance of heat generators for space heating and the production 1978/170/
of hot water in new or existing non– industrial buildings and on the insulation of heat and domestic hot-water distribution in new EEC
non-industrial buildings
Council Directive 1989/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of 1989/106/
the Member States relating to construction products EEC
Council Directive 1992/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous 1992/42/
fuels EEC
Council Directive 1992/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the 1992/75/
consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances EEC
Council Directive 1993/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE) 1993/76/
EEC
Directive 1996/57/EC of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency requirements for household electric refrigerators, freezers and 1996/57/
combinations thereof EC
Directive 2000/55/EC of 18 September 2000 on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting 2000/55/
EC
Directive 2002/91/EC of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings 2002/91/
EC
Directive 2005/32/EC of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-using products 2005/32/
and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council EC
Directive 2006/32/EC of 5 April 2006 on Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services and Repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC 2006/32/
EC
Directive 2009/125/EC of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related 2009/125/
products EC
Directive 2010/31/EU of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (recast) 2010/31/
EU
Directive 2012/27/EU of 14 November 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and 2012/27/
Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC EU
Directive 2018/844/EU of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2018/844/
2012/27/EU on energy efficiency EU
Directive 2018/2002/EU of 11 December 2018 amending Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency 2018/
2002/EU
Communications EC, 1987. Towards a continuing policy for energy efficiency in the European Community. COM (1987) 223 final. Brussels, COM(1987)
13.05.1987 223
EC, 1998. Energy Efficiency in the European Community - Towards a Strategy for the Rational Use of Energy. COM (1998) 246 final. COM(1998)
Brussels, 29.04. 246
EC, 2000. EU policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: towards a European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). COM(2000)
COM (2000) 88 final. Brussels, 08.03.2000 88
EC, 2000. Action Plan to Improve Energy Efficiency in the European Community. COM (2000) 247 final. Brussels, 26.04.2000 COM(2000)
247
EC, 2000. Green Paper on Towards a European Strategy for Energy Supply. COM (2000) 769 final. Brussels, 29.11.2000 COM(2000)
769
EC, 2005. Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More with Less. COM (2005) 265 final. Brussels, 22.06.2005 COM(2005)
265
EC, 2006. Communication from the Commission - Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential. Brussels, 19.10.2006 COM(2006)
545
EC, 2007. An energy policy for Europe. COM (2007) 1 final. Brussels, 10.1.2007 COM(2007)
1
EC, 2011. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM (2011) 112 final. Brussels, 8.3.2011 COM(2011)
112
EC, 2015. Energy Union Package: A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change COM(2015)
Policy. COM (2015) 80 final. Brussels, 25.2.2015 80
EC, 2019. The European Green Deal. COM (2019) 640 final. Brussels, 11.12.2019 COM(2019)
640
Recommendations Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy in the heating system of existing buildings 76/493/
EEC
Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy for electrical household appliances 76/496/
EEC
Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy by promoting the thermal insulation of buildings 76/492/
EEC
Council Recommendation of 25 October 1977 on the regulation of space heating, domestic hot water production and the metering 77/712/
of heat in new buildings EEC
Council Recommendation of 5 February 1979 on the reduction of energy requirements for buildings in the Community 79/167/
ECSE
to change); (3) and contextual level (institutional framework, reg- In order to overcome these barriers, governments have adopted
ulations, policies, etc.). several energy efficiency programmes, policies or packages of poli-
Table 3
Literature review on EPBD and EED, and the impact assessment in buildings.
Topic Subtopic No. of Source

papers
1. a. International climate agreement 8 Wiel et al. [40],Dehousse & Zgajewski [70],da Graça Carvalho [71],Kinley [1],Bertoldi [4],Ringel & Knodt [73],
Tobin et al. [2],Veum & Bauknecht [72]
b. Energy efficiency and barriers in 15 Blumstein et al. [35],Hirst & Brown [14],Jaffe & Stavins [15],Brown [21],Míguez et al. [63],Atanasiu & Bertoldi
buildings [56],Backlund et al. [69],Pelenur & Cruickshank [17],Wilson et al. [19],Vogel et al. [20],Martínez-Molina et al.
[8],Martinopoulos et al. [6],Aslani et al. [7],Blázquez et al. [9],Cooremans & Schönenberger [16]
c. Energy efficiency policies and 44 Kestner [60],Ryan [46],Axelrod [44],Elagöz [59]; Fee (1992a); Fee [52–53],Loveday [49],Elagöz [42],Bassi [47];
energy security Lay-cock et al. (1995); Caluwaerts et al. [45],Swisher [43],Waide et al. [55],Pesch [51],Laponche & Tillerson
[67],Leth-Petersen & Togeby [28],Richalet et al. [65],Sjöström et al. [48],van Wees et al. [61],Bertoldi et al. [57],
Geller et al. [41],Konidari & Mavrakis [166],de Alegría Mancisidor et al. [62],Nash [58],Vivoda [34],Alpanda &
Peralta-Alva [32],De Paepe et al. [54],Kanellakis et al. [29],Månsson et al. [38], Sovacool & Saunders [39],
Rosenow et al. [23], Bluszcz [33], Brown & Huntington [36], Freed & Felder [12],Kern et al. [22],Laes et al. [26],
Mutani & Todeschi [13],Bertoldi [64],Camarasa et al. [27],Fawcett & Killip [11],Heutel [18],Šprajc et al. [31],
Bertoldi [24],Bertoldi & Mosconi [173]
2. a. Overview of EPBD 8 Cohen et al. [74],Santamouris [76],Dascalaki et al. [77], ÓBroin et al. [107],Papadopoulos [37],Fokaides et al.
[75],Blumberga et al. [78],Thonipara et al. [25]
b. Minimum energy performance 2 Sorrell [79],Serrano et al. [81]
requirements
c. Energy performance certificates 22 Beerepoot & Sunikka [85],Fuerst & McAllister [100],Amecke [89],Bull et al. [90],Kok & Jennen [99],Bio
Intelligence Service et al. [82],Hyland et al. [93],Högberg [94],Arcipowska et al. [84],Cerin et al. [95],Murphy
[101],Davis et al. [86],Fuerst et al. [96],de Ayala et al., [83],Chegut et al. [97],Hårsman et al. [87],Wahlström
[102],Fregonara et al. [98],Olaussen et al. [103],Pascuas et al. [88],Li et al. [91],Semple & Jenkins [92]
d. Inspections of boilers and air- 3 Barma et al. [105],Fleiter et al. [104],Kozarcanin et al. [106]
conditioning systems
e. Cost-optimal methodology 12 Kurnitski et al. [108],Corgnati et al. [110],Hamdy et al. [109],Corrado et al. [111],Becchio et al. [114],Congedo
et al. [112],Sağlam & Yılmaz [113]; Ashrafiana et al. [115]; Brandão de Vasconcelos et al. [116],Ortiz et al.
[117],Buso et al. [161],Zangheri et al. [118],Karásek et al. [119]
f. Nearly zero energy buildings 17 Torcellini et al. [159],Kapsalaki et al. [126],Annunziata et al. [122],Panagiotidou & Fuller [160],Lindkvist et al.
[134],Kylili & Fokaides [125],D’Agostino et al. [123],D’agostino & Zangheri [124],Attia et al. [132],Oregi et al.
[130],D’Agostino & Parker [127],Rodrigues et al. [131],Asdrubali et al. [121],Belussi et al. [128],D’Agostino &
Mazzarella [174],Dunlop [133],Chastas et al. [129]
g. Energy performance of 4 Roulet & Anderson [135],Hogeling & van Dijk [136],Hogeling [137]; van Dijk & Hogeling [138]
buildings standards
3. a. Overview of ESD and EED 10 Fawcettet al. [68],Economidou et al. [172],Bertoldi & Boza-Kiss [140],Rosenow et al. [139],Bertoldi &
Economidou [30],Ringel & Knodt [73],Malinauskaite et al. [142],Nabitz & Hirzel [141],Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki
et al. [5]; Zangheri et al. [10]
b. Long-term Renovation 4 Castellazzi et al. [143],Sesana & Salvalai [146],Castellazzi et al. [144],Sebi et al. [145]
Strategies
c. Central government buildings 4 Czakó [148],Economidou et al. [149],Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki et al. [5]; Zangheri et al. [147]
d. Split incentives 4 Bird & Hernández [153],Economidou & Bertoldi [151]; Castellazi et al. [150]; Economidou & Serrenho [152]
e. Metering and billing 6 Fischer [155],Karlin et al. [157],Zvingilaite & Togeby [156],Castellazzi [154],Canale et al. [158]; Zangheri et al.
[10]
cies [14,21–24]. In the EU, buildings have been an integral part of geted reduction of energy consumption and consequently GHG
the EU energy and climate policy for several years. Energy effi- emissions in buildings, the EU has developed two main Directives:
ciency policies for buildings can impact all end uses ranging from the EPBD1, and the EED2, described in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.
heating and cooling to lighting and appliances [25–26]. They can Section 5 presents, inter-alia, an in-depth overview of the energy
take the form of regulatory or control instruments, building codes, performance certificate (EPC) instrument (Section 5.1.2), the cost-
consumer information campaigns and economic or financial incen- optimal methodology (Section 5.2.1) and the concept of nearly zero
tives [27]: [28]. Instruments of regulatory nature can include energy buildings (Section 5.2.2). The discussion and conclusions are
requirements on various household appliances, products, systems presented in the final sections.
or entire buildings. Many of the energy efficiency measures can
be encouraged or mandated through individual policies or policy 2. Methodology
packages [29]. So far, the evaluation and assessment of existing
policies for EE in buildings (Table 1) suggest that there is no single In order to understand how the EU policies have been effective
policy that alone can achieve a substantial transformation of the in transforming the building stock and in reducing the energy con-
existing building stock and reduce significantly energy consump- sumption in new and existing buildings, this article investigates EU
tion [30]. energy efficiency policy initiatives affecting the building sector
The present work offers a review of 50 years of the EE policies (Table 2). An extensive literature review was performed to analyse
adopted by the EU and some of the policies adopted by its Member in detail the EE policies and the impact on the energy consumption
States (MSs) since the 1970s in order to improve the energy secu- in buildings (Table 3). The review was based on the Web of Science
rity and equity, reduce the impact on the environment, and and the Scopus databases to collect publications on EU energy effi-
increase the competitiveness of the European economy [31]. ciency policies related to buildings, including definitions/descrip-
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the tions, assessment on economic and environmental effectiveness
methodology used for assessing policy documents and published
articles. A review of the early beginnings of the EU energy effi- 1
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3A2018%3A156%
ciency policy for buildings is presented in Section 3. Section 4 3ATOC&uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_0.2018.156.01.0075.01.ENG.
describes the 2000 and 2006 Action Plans that have aimed to set 2
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1399375279076&uri=
a strategic vision for EE improvements in Europe. To reach the tar- CELEX:52013DC0762.
and notable examples of implementation in Europe. In particular, vision of consumer information, seen as essential element to trig-
the literature review covered the following topics: ger investments in energy efficiency in a period of low oil prices.
In 1990, the climate change issue started to emerge and in the
Energy efficiency and consumption in buildings: same year the European Council of Environment and Energy Min-
International climate agreement; isters agreed on 29 October 1990 to stabilise total CO2 emissions in
Energy efficiency and barriers in buildings; 2000 at the 1990 levels.
Energy efficiency policies and energy security. Following the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD): (IPCC) Assessment report and establishment of the UNFCCC at the
Overview (re-cast 2010 & 2018); Rio Summit in 1992, the mitigation of climate change impacts
Minimum energy performance requirements (MEPR); became a key component of the EU energy policy along with the
Energy performance certificates (EPC) including their role security of energy supply and competitiveness of energy users
and impact on sales; [4,39–40]. It was highlighted that EE contributed to three pillars
Inspections of boilers and air-conditioning systems; of energy policy: the reduction of energy demand (and the related
Cost-optimal methodology introduced by EPBD 2010; CO2 emissions), the reduction of energy imports to meet energy
Nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) service demand, and the cheaper energy services due to the reduc-
Energy performance of buildings standards tion in energy use [41].
Energy Services Directive (ESD) and Energy Efficiency Directive In the field of energy performance of buildings, the existence of
(EED): large variations in energy performance levels and norms at Mem-
Overview (re-cast 2018); ber State level gave a reason to consider policy action at the EU
Long-term Renovation Strategies; level [42–43]. The early EU energy efficiency policies for buildings
Central government building; constituted the ‘‘Construction Products Directive” in 1989, the
Split incentives; ‘‘Boiler Directive” in 1992 and the ‘‘SAVE Directive” in 1993[44].
Metering and billing.
3.1. The construction products Directive (CPD)

3. Early beginnings of EU energy efficiency policy for buildings
The ‘‘Construction Products Directive” (CPD) (89/106/EEC)4
intended to ensure that reliable information was presented in rela-
The development of energy policy was at the heart of the Euro-
tion to the performance of construction products used in buildings
pean project, with the ECSC Treaty (establishing the European Coal
and civil engineering works [45,46]. This was achieved by develop-
and Steel Community) in 1951 and the Euratom Treaty (establish-
ing a common technical language through the introduction of har-
ing the European Atomic Energy Community) in 1957. In the
monized standards [47,48].
1970 s and 1980 s, the initial emphasis of energy policies was on
The CPD provided four main elements: i) a common system of
the security of energy supply as result of the Oil Embargo in the
technical specifications; ii) an agreed system of verification of con-
1970 s [32–34]. Following the oil crisis in OECD countries in the
formity; iii) a framework of stakeholders; iv) the CE marking of
1973–1974, energy efficiency started to emerge as an important
products [49]. While the requirements introduced by the CE mark-
policy response to enhance oil security [35–37]. At the time, energy
ing included ‘‘energy economy and heat retention”, the CPD did not
security was associated with ‘‘security of oil supply”, but was later
explicitly address energy performance of construction products
evolved to focus on other energy carriers including natural gas and
[50]. Instead, it called for construction works and its heating, cool-
renewable energy [38].
ing and ventilation installations to be designed and built in a way
Following the first oil crisis, the European Council adopted a
that ensured ‘‘low” energy use [51]. The CPD was repealed and
Resolution promoting energy savings in 1974 with the goal of
replaced by the ‘‘Construction Products Regulation” (CPR) (Regula-
reducing the rate of energy consumption growth and reach by
tion N. 305/2011)5 in order to simplify and clarify the previous
1985 a level 15% below the January 1973 estimates (Council Reso-
framework, and to improve transparency and effectiveness of exist-
lution of 17th December 1974, OJ C 153/2). In 1980, the European
ing measures.
Council introduced a target for energy intensity and adopted poli-
cies including energy pricing measures (Council Resolution of 9th
June 1980, OJ C 149/1). The Council Resolution of 16th September 3.2. The boiler Directive (HWBD)
1986 (86/C 241/01, concerning new Community energy policy
objectives for 1995 and convergence of the policies of the Member Heating and hot water boilers were the first building technical
States3) emphasized the need to search for balanced solutions as equipment to be covered by EU legislation in 1978, by the Council
regards energy and the environment, make use of the best available Directive 78/170/EEC on the performance of heat generators for
and economically justified technologies and improve energy effi- space heating and the production of hot water [52–53]. The direc-
ciency. This Council Resolution represented the first EU policy initiative left to MSs the level of efficiency performances, this resulted in
tive adopting an EE target with the aim to achieve greater energy very different levels. The directive also covered the insulation of
efficiency in all sectors and to tap into various energy saving possi- heat and domestic hot-water distribution networks in buildings.
bilities. The EE target was defined as a minimum 20% improvement As the largest share of the energy in buildings is used for space
in the ‘‘efficiency of final energy demand” -defined as the ratio of heating and hot water production the Commission proposed a
final energy demand to gross national product- by 1995. major legislative initiative on energy efficiency of boilers, which
In 1987, the Commission Communication entitled ‘‘Towards a at the time were mostly of very low energy efficiency levels [54].
continuing policy for energy efficiency in the European Commu- The Directive on Hot Water Boilers (HWBD) 92/42/EEC6, adopted
nity” (COM(1987)223 final) proposed fourteen energy efficiency in 1992, introduced common efficiency requirements for new hot-
measures to Member States to help achieve the 1995 target. Seven water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels in all MSs. It covered
out of the fourteen recommended policies were related to the pro-
4
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31989L0106.
3 5
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986Y0925 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32011R0305.
6
(01)&from=IT. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0042.
standard boilers, low-temperature boilers and gas-condensing boil- improvements until the year 2010. The Communication identified
ers with an output of between 4 kW and 400 kW. an economic saving potential in building of 22% by 2010 compared
A key requirement of the HWBD was the use of clear and con- to 1995. The Communication analysed the nature and types of bar-
sistent energy efficiency labels on hot-water boilers, enabling easy riers to the exploitation of this potential, reviewed the adopted
comparisons and bringing them in line with energy labelling prac- programmes and proposed elements for a strategy and priorities
tices for domestic appliances7. Similar Directives were adopted in to exploit the available potential. In particular, it proposed the revi-
1996 introducing efficiency requirements for domestic refrigerators sion of the SAVE directive for buildings and reinforcement of appli-
and freezers (1996/57/EC) [55]and in 2000 for ballasts for florescent ances standards.
lighting (2000/55/EC). These Directives were the predecessors of the The SAVE Directive was partly replaced by the Directive on the
Directive 2005/32/EC establishing a framework for the setting of Energy Performance of Buildings in 2002 (as regards the efficiency
eco-design requirements for energy-using products8, which set out standards, certification and boiler inspection articles), and the
efficiency requirements for energy consuming products [56–58]. remaining articles were replaced by the Directive on energy end-
use efficiency and energy services in 2006.
3.3. The SAVE Directive

4. The energy efficiency action plans & climate energy targets
The ‘‘SAVE” Directive9 (93/76/EEC) of 1993 represents the first
major EU policy on energy efficiency [59–61]. Earlier efforts such Since 2000 the Commission has published several Energy Effi-
as the Council recommendations dating back to 1976 and 197910 ciency Action Plans laying out its strategic vision and proposing
provided policy suggestions on how to improve efficiency of heating actions such as new policies or strengthened existing measures.
systems, thermal insulation and electrical appliances. The Directive The following sections present the main elements of the Commis-
required Member States to draw up and implement programmes sion Energy Efficiency Action Plans in 2000, 2006 and 2011, and the
to improve energy efficiency, with the aim to limit CO2 emissions Energy Union in 2015.
and to promote the rational use of energy [53,62]. At that time, EU
and national policy makers considered that building efficiency stan- 4.1. The 2000 energy efficiency action plan
dards, mainly expressed as insulation requirements (minimum U
value), were of national matter, in line with the principle of sub- The implementation of the SAVE Directive was not as fast,
sidiarity [63]. The issue was that, while a number of EU Member strong and successful as expected, which had not sufficiently
States such as Denmark and Germany, had already adopted manda- exploited the large energy saving potential of the sector. This
tory building standards of various levels of stringency, several south- was in part due to the failure of MSs to adopt efficiency require-
ern European countries did not have any mandatory building codes ments or standards in their national building codes or the adoption
[64]. The SAVE Directive, therefore, called for all Member States, of weak national standards. This underlined the need to increase
through its Article 5, to draw up and implement programmes intro- thermal insulation in existing buildings, install energy efficient
ducing sufficient thermal insulation provisions in new buildings. The equipment, and expand certification and granting of licenses. After
language used in the Directive, however, was not strong enough to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the EU committed to a
oblige MSs to adopt efficiency requirements or fix a minimum level binding 8% GHG emission reduction target in the period 2008–
for the thermal insulation of buildings. 2012 compared to 1990. This triggered the enactment of stronger
Other building-related requirements in the SAVE included the energy and climate policies [4]. The Kyoto agreement on the reduc-
preparation and implementation of programmes for: i) the certifi- tion of CO2 emissions, renewed the need of commitment and pro-
cation of buildings with the description of the building energy motion of energy efficiency in a more active way (COM(2000)247
characteristics in order to provide to the consumer information final). The 2000 Action Plan [41,66] proposed several reinforced
on the EE level [65]; ii) the billing of heating, air-conditioning actions, building on the SAVE Directive provisions on buildings.
and domestic hot water based on actual consumption including The Action Plan acknowledged the fact that different implementa-
the right for building occupants to regulate their own consumption tion and enforcement approaches of the SAVE Directive led to
of heat, cold or hot water; iii) the facilitation of third-party financ- mixed results. The Commission in its 2000 Action Plan highlighted
ing11 for energy efficiency investments in the public buildings; iv) the need to amend the SAVE Directive, define more concrete mea-
the thermal insulation of buildings, v) the regular inspection of heat- sures and strengthen reporting and compliance procedures. While
ing installation larger than 15 kW and vi) the energy audits of under- a more co-ordinated and harmonised approach was recommended
takings with high energy consumption. in the Action Plan, the freedom for Member States to set their own
In 1998 the Commission presented a Communication (COM efficiency requirements was also stressed. This Action Plan has
(1998) 246 final) highlighting the potential for energy efficiency nonetheless served as a key trigger that shaped the policy cycle
leading to the development of the EPBD in 2002 (see Section 5)
7
Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling [67].
and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources
by household appliances - OJ L 297, 13 October 1992.
8 4.2. The 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan
Directive 2005/32/EC amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC, Directives 96/57/EC
and 2000/55/EC. It was then replaced with Ecodesign of Energy Related Products
Directive 2009/125/EC. In 2006 the European Commission published its second Energy
9
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0076:EN: Efficiency Action Plan12 [54,68–69]. Its scope was to control and
HTML. reduce energy demand and to take targeted action on consumption
10
Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy in the
and supply with the intention to save 20% of annual consumption of
heating system of existing buildings; Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the
rational use of energy for electrical household appliances; Council Recommendation primary energy by 2020 compared to baseline energy consumption
of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy by promoting the thermal insulation of forecasts for 2020. This objective corresponded to achieving approx-
buildings; Council Recommendation of 5 February 1979 on the reduction of energy imately a 1.5% saving per year up to 2020. The policies and measures
requirements for buildings in the Community in the 2006 Action Plan were based on the consultations launched by
11
Third-party financing is a typical implementation of an ESCO project in a building
with the provision of auditing, installation, operation, maintenance and financing
12
with the payment based on the achieved energy savings. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l27064.
the 2005 Green Paper on Energy Efficiency (COM(2005)265 final). 4.4. The energy Union and the role of energy efficiency
The Green Paper on the European Energy Strategy underlined the
need to strengthen EU’s energy efficiency policy. The Energy Union Strategy14 ‘‘Energy Union Package: A Frame-
The plan identified an energy saving potential of 27% com- work Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking
pared to the business as usual consumption for residential build- Climate Change Policy” (EC, 2015), adopted on 25th February 2015,
ings by 2020 and 30% for commercial buildings. The [72–73] reinvigorated the need to increase support for the transition
Communication proposed an overall realistic energy saving target towards a more sustainable consumer and business behaviour and
of 20% to be achieved by 2020 through new measures and the promotion of secure, sustainable, competitive and affordable energy.
strengthening of existing policies. In particular, the plan called The Energy Union Strategy focused on five dimensions: (i) security,
for a drop in the EPBD threshold of 1000 m2 for the mandatory solidarity and trust; (ii) a fully integrated internal energy market;
energy efficiency improvements in major renovations of existing (iii) energy efficiency; (iv) climate action, decarbonising the econ-
buildings and mandated very low energy consumption (e.g. Pas- omy; and (v) research, innovation and competitiveness. The goal of
sive House levels) levels for new buildings. The policy debate that the dimension on energy efficiency was to reduce dependence on
followed this action plan lead to the 2010 revision of the EPBD. energy imports, limit GHG emissions, improve energy security, drive
The Action Plan included all measures with the best cost- new jobs and promote economic growth. The Energy Union Commu-
efficiency ratio, i.e. those with the lowest environmental cost over nication called for a revision of the EPBD (Section 5.3) and of the EED
the life cycle, which do not overrun the budget for investments in (Section 6) and for the introduction of a new governance of energy
the energy sector. and climate action plans.
Following the 2006 Action Plan in March 2007, EU leaders com-
mitted Europe to become a highly energy-efficient, low carbon
economy and agreed on the targets, known as the ‘‘20-20-2000 tar- 5. The Energy Performance of Building Directive
gets, by 2020 [70], which were formulated as:
The first cohesive European legal act on energy policy in build-
A 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 ings was the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD,
levels; 2002/91/EC). Introduced in 2002, it aimed to tap into the large
An increase in the share of energy from renewable energy cost-effective saving potential of the sector (namely 22% in a 10-
sources to 20%; year period) underlined by several Commission Communica-
Improvements in energy efficiency that lead to 20% EU primary tions15. With this initiative, the European Union transposed a key
energy savings. article of its founding Treaty16 (new Article 191 on environmental
protection), based on the idea to, inter-alia, improve the security of
energy supply, increase employment and eliminate large differences
4.3. The 2011 Energy Efficiency Action Plan observed between Member States.
In compliance with the EPBD Article 11, after the official trans-
In 2011 the new Commission presented the Roadmap for mov- position by the Member States (due by 4th January 2006) and the
ing to a competitive low carbon economy in 205013 introducing first years of implementation, the Commission started to evaluate
new far-reaching targets to promote energy security, energy equity, the Directive in light of the experience gained during its applica-
and environmental sustainability: a cut in GHG emissions of 40% in tion. Following this evaluation, the EPBD underwent a recast pro-
2030, 60% in 2040 and 80–95% in 2050 compared to 1990 levels cedure in order to clarify and strengthen several provisions, the
[71]. At the same time the Commission adopted a new Energy Effi- result of which was the adoption of the EPBD recast 2010/31/EU
ciency Action Plan [69,71]. Given the large energy saving potential of 19th May 2010. Overall, the EPBD policy framework laid down
of building renovations, the Plan stressed the need of more energy the foundation for:
renovations in private and public sectors and introduced energy
efficiency criteria for public buildings. In particular, the Plan pro- setting minimum energy performance standards in new build-
posed the requirement to renovate at least 3% of central govern- ings and existing buildings under major renovation;
ment buildings every year. At that stage, the potential energy ensuring that prospective buyers or renters are well informed
savings in residential buildings had been largely unexploited. MSs and thereby encouraged to choose higher than minimum stan-
were thus encouraged to set up tools, instruments and measures dards in their decision making processes;
to stimulate more energy performance upgrades of buildings in speeding up the rate at which investors engage in energy effi-
the private sector. Some measures introduced by the Plan were ciency projects (including through finance).
directed towards addressing the issue of ‘split incentives’, promot-
The following sections give an overview of the first EPBD (2002)
ing the use of cogeneration combining electricity generation and
and describe the re-cast of EPBD in 2010 and its amendment in
district heating systems (wherever possible) and facilitating the
2018.
use of tools such as energy performance contracting, energy audits,
and ESCOs.
In 2014, the EU adopted energy and climate targets for 2030 as
5.1. EPBD 2002
part of the Intended nationally determined contributions (INDC) to
UNFCCC process leading to the Paris agreement. These were
With the Directive 2002/91/EC of 16th December 2002, the
defined as: a 40% reduction in GHG emissions compared to 1990
European Parliament and the Council introduced a joint energy
levels, a minimum 27% share of renewable energy consumption,
performance calculation methodology for buildings. The following
and at least 27% energy savings [4,72]. In 2018, following the dis-
main areas of action were identified:
cussions on setting the legal basis for the targets, the renewable
and energy efficiency targets were modified to 32% and 32.5%,
14
COM(2015)080 final (https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/com-2015–
respectively.
80-final).
15
COM (2001) 226, COM (2000) 769 of 29 November 2000 and COM (2000) 247 of
13
COM(2011) 112 final (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= 26 April 2000.
16
COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection/eu-law/treaties/treaties-force.html.
national minimum requirements and specific energy perfor- methodological approach adopted under Articles 4–5, EPCs are a
mance measures for new buildings and large (more than concise document displaying the energy performance of a building
1000 m2) existing buildings undergoing major renovation or building unit —based on an energy class or continuous scale rat-
(Section 5.1.1); ing system— together with recommended actions on how to
specific provisions for the set-up of mandatory national energy improve the existing energy performance. In accordance with the
performance certificate (EPC) schemes for both new and some EPBD Annex 1, energy performance can be defined as either calcu-
categories of existing buildings, including the need to display lated or monitored energy consumption of a building. The primary
EPCs together with recommended indoor temperatures in large scope of EPCs is to guide prospective buyers or renters in their
public buildings (Section 5.1.2); decision making process, increase demand in buildings of high
revised conditions for the inspection of boilers and heating/- energy efficiency and act as a driver for more energy renovations
cooling systems, made by qualified and accredited experts [82,83]. Beyond their important awareness raising dimension, EPCs
(Section 5.1.3). can also be used to monitor the overall energy performance of the
building stock, thereby bringing more transparency in the property
In accordance with the European subsidiarity principle and con-
market [84–86].
sidering the local peculiarities and climatic differences, Member
The scope and implementation details of the enacted EPC
States were asked to transpose the EPBD provisions within a three
schemes varied greatly from country to country. Variations cover
year period. Given the novelty of the Directive, in particular in rela-
qualification systems for certifiers, dependent quality control sys-
tion to building codes and certification schemes [74–76], the pro-
tems, EPC registers, etc. [84]. While EPC registers and quality con-
gress of the transposition in several Member States was rather
trol measures were established in most Member States, a general
slow [75,77–78]. Member States were therefore given the possibil-
underlying issue is the lack of access to trustworthy information
ity to apply for an additional period of three years (until 2009) to
which leads to reluctance in renovation decisions according to
comply with the provisions of the Directive.
Hårsman et al. [87]. A survey carried out in eight European coun-
tries revealed low trust in EPCs among real estate agents, repre-
5.1.1. Minimum energy performance requirements (Articles 4–5) senting a key hurdle to their success [88]. Even though the use of
The adoption of minimum energy performance requirements in EPCs generally improved after the EPBD recast, further remaining
buildings represented a major step forward [37] despite the exis- changes to the design of EPCs have been identified by several
tence of some prior experience in a small group of countries com- researchers [89–90]. Li et al. [91] stressed the need of upgrading
prising Germany, France, UK, Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands. the next generation of EPCs to a more comprehensive and reliable
This early adopter group moved from the ‘‘first” generation of information source and Semple and Jenkins [92], who studied EPC
building codes in the 1970 s–1980 s (mainly consisting of thermal methodological differences between countries, pointed out the
insulation requirements in the form of U-values) to the ‘‘second” need of a more flexible approach.
generation of integrated building codes in the late 1990 s. The sec- The relationship between energy performance and property
ond generation was developed with a view to regulate energy per- value, which is generally studied in hedonic-price techniques,
formance of buildings in a more holistic approach and give remains a complex and under-researched topic in part due to data
freedom to building designers to meet a targeted energy perfor- limitations. Despite this, several studies have identified a positive
mance in function of building requirements, costs and other factors correlation between energy performance and property value.
[79,80]. The EPBD aimed to bring up to speed all Member States These include studies on the Swedish, Irish, Italian, Spanish, UK
and set a common approach on the calculation of energy perfor- and Dutch which all show that real estate markets value energy
mance of buildings [81]. Under the EPBD provisions, the minimum efficiency [83,93–98]. Premiums for energy efficiency ranged from
energy performance requirements applied to both new and large 1.8 to 5% for UK, 2.0–6.3% for Dutch, 6–8% for Italian and 5.4% and
(over 1000 m2 useful floor area) existing buildings under major 9.8% for Spanish dwellings [83,96–98]. For commercial properties,
renovation, where energy performance of a building was defined an empirical analysis showed that inefficient buildings of EPC
as the amount of consumed or calculated energy use, typically labels D or below were linked to rental price levels around 6.5%
measured in kWh/m2 per year. The latter was estimated based lower compared to energy efficient ones [99]. On the other hand,
on different needs associated with a standardized use of the build- some studies identified a negligible or weak relationship between
ing. This amount had to be reflected in one or more numeric indi- energy performance and property value [86,89,100–103]. In some
cators, taking into account: cases, this weak relationship was found in markets which have
been showed by other studies to value energy efficiency, pointing
outdoor and indoor climatic conditions; out to the need for further research.
position and orientation of the building;
thermal characteristics of the envelope (including air- 5.1.3. Inspections of boilers and air-conditioning systems (Articles
tightness); 8–9)
passive solar systems and solar protection; Another important EPBD measure, which was first introduced
natural ventilation and passive strategies; in the SAVE Directive, relates to regular inspections and assess-
heating, hot water, air-conditioning and ventilation ment of efficiency of boilers and air-conditioning systems (Articles
installations; 8 and 9). With space heating accounting for at least 50% of residen-
built-in lighting installations (mainly for the non-residential tial energy consumption, thus representing the most important
sector); end-use [104], proper maintenance, periodic inspections, and
own-energy generation. awareness raising actions cannot only ensure safety but help
reduce energy consumption [105]. In compliance with Articles 8–
5.1.2. Energy performance certificates (Article 7) 9, boilers with an effective rated output of more than 10 kW should
Energy performance certification is an ambitious and manda- be regularly inspected to improve their operating conditions. As
tory information scheme set up by Member States in compliance efficiency of boilers drops with time without proper maintenance,
with the EPBD Article 7. According to the EPBD provisions, EPCs inspections of entire heating installations with boilers of more than
with a 10-year validity must be made available to prospective buy- 15 years old should be carried out, and advice be given on alterna-
ers or tenants in real estate transactions. Using the integrated tive solutions to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Similar measures
need to be implemented, for the first time also in relation to cool- Calculation of the (net) primary energy consumption based on
ing systems, in particular in larger service buildings. This provision the current National or CEN standards (i.e. EPBD methodology)
is of foremost importance due to the rising cooling needs through- for each selected building variant;
out Europe linked to climate change [106]. Calculation of the global cost at each step using the Net Present
Value based on 30 years for residential and 20 years for non-
5.2. EPBD 2010 residential buildings. The included cost categories are: initial
investment costs, running costs (i.e. energy, operational, main-
In 2009 the European Commission presented the recast of the tenance, replacement costs), disposal costs, final value and the
EPBD17 (2010/31/EC, EPBD Recast) with the aim to strengthen some cost associated to CO2 emissions (only for the macroeconomic
original EPBD provisions and capture additional energy savings as perspective);
stated in the 2006 Action Plan. The main purpose of the EPBD recast Identification of cost-optimal levels for each reference building
was to ensure that national Minimum Energy Performance Require- expressed in primary energy consumption (kWh/m2 year or in
ments adopted by Member States had similar ambition levels in the relevant unit). Cost-optimal levels can be calculated for both
terms of energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. macroeconomic and financial perspectives, but normally
This is because some national standards were not ambitious and derived with the second one;
cost-effective enough [107]. To this end, Article 5 of the EPBD recast Evaluation of the gap with current minimum energy perfor-
introduced the cost-optimal methodology as the guiding principle mance requirements. If the difference is more than 15%, Mem-
for setting building energy requirements and Article 9 introduced ber States are asked to justify the gap or define a plan to
the concept of ‘‘nearly zero-energy buildings” (NZEBs) according to reduce the gap.
which all new private buildings will have to comply with nationally
defined NZEB standards by January 2021. Key calculation parameters in the cost-optimal calculation are:
The new EPBD also eliminated the threshold of 1000 m2 for the discount/interest rate, the annual increase of energy prices, as
existing buildings under renovation to meet energy performance well as primary energy factors associated to different fuels. The
standards and installation requirements. In addition, energy per- EPBD delegated Regulation required Member States to develop
formance requirements were introduced for technical building sys- sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of these parameters,
tems (heating, hot water, ventilation, cooling, air conditioning). and possibly also future technology price development.
The provisions related to the EPCs and inspection of heating and A number of recent researchers tested the cost-optimal
air-conditioning systems were reinforced to make them more methodology applied in different EU countries [108–119]. Member
effective. The EPBD recast aimed to raise the importance of finan- States sent their calculation reports to the Commission in 2013 and
cial incentives to promote energy renovations and required Mem- 2018. While the assessment of the latest results is still ongoing, the
ber States to identify and submit to the Commission national analysis of the first ones revealed an overall rather positive picture
financial measures to improve energy efficiency. From the Com- regarding both the conformity to the official requirements and the
mission’s side, support was made available in terms of structural plausibility of the final outputs [120].
funds, European Investment bank funds and other EU funds.
5.2.1. The cost-optimal methodology (EPBD Article 5) 5.2.2. Nearly zero energy buildings (EPBD Article 9)
As indicated in the EPBD recast, in 2012 the Commission pro- The concept of nearly zero energy building (NZEB) was intro-
vided the delegated Regulation 244/2012 (accompanied by official duced in the EPBD recast. It establishes that new buildings occu-
Guidelines) related to the comparative methodology framework of pied by public authorities have to be NZEBs by 31st December
cost-optimal levels to be used by Member States to benchmark 2018, while all new buildings by 31st December 2020. An NZEB
their buildings standards. The methodology is based on the princi- is defined as a building of very high energy performance, where
ple of the cost-benefit analysis and can be calculated from two eco- the nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be
nomic perspectives: the financial and the macroeconomic, which covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable
refer to different discount rates (lower in the macroeconomic sources produced on-site or nearby. The concept of NZEBs can be
one) and cost items. While the financial perspective includes taxes, summarized in the diagram of Fig. 1.
the macroeconomic considers greenhouse gas emission costs. According to the EPBD, Member States were requested to report
The calculation approach can be summarized in six steps: NZEB definitions, reflecting on national, regional or local condi-
tions. Their reports had to include quantified information on the
Establishment of reference buildings by selecting real or virtual meaning of ‘‘very high energy performance” and ‘‘very significant
buildings representing the building stock. Member States shall extent by energy from renewable sources” as well as a primary
define them for at least four building categories, both for new energy indicator (expressed in kWh/m2). This can be referred to
and existing buildings (residential single-family, residential total non-renewable or renewable energy use [121,122].
multi-family, offices, and another non-residential type). For Benchmarks for the energy performance of NZEBs are reported
new buildings, the energy performance standard in force can in Table 4 for different climatic zones as published in the EU Com-
be assumed as base case, while for the existing stock at least mission Recommendation 2016/1318 of 29th July 2016 (on Guide-
two construction periods have to be considered as reference; lines for the promotion of nearly zero energy buildings and best
Identification of energy efficiency and renewable measures to practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero
be implemented in new or existing buildings, including differ- energy buildings).
ent packages of measures or measures of different levels (e.g. The Member State progress towards NZEBs definitions was
different insulation levels), which must respect the EU and assessed by D’Agostino et al. [123], based on NZEB National Plans,
national legislation on construction products, comfort indoor information from the EPBD Concerted Action (CA), Energy Effi-
and indoor air quality; ciency Action Plans (NEEAP), and National Codes. Member States
have now endorsed EU requirements in their Regulations and set
numerical indicators for new and existing buildings aiming to
reach the NZEB level. Some key points can be summarized as fol-
17
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0031. lows [124]:
Fig. 1. Concept of a NZEB [Source: [174]].
Table 4
NZEBs level of performance (kWh/m2y) per building type according to the European climate.
Climate Single family house Office

net primary primary on-site net primary primary on-site
energy energy RES energy energy RES
[kWh/m2y]
Mediterranean Catania (others: Athens, Larnaca, Luga, Seville, Palermo) 0–15 50–65 50 20–30 80–90 60
Oceanic Paris (others: Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, London, 15–30 50–60 35 40–55 85–100 45
Macon, Nancy, Prague, Warszawa)
Continental Budapest (others: Bratislava, Ljubljana, Milan, Vienna) 20–40 50–70 30 40–55 85–100 45
Nordic Stockholm (others: Helsinki, Riga, Stockholm, Gdansk, Tovarene) 40–65 65–90 25 55–70 85–100 30
Heating, domestic hot water (DHW), ventilation, and cooling Different barriers persist towards NZEBs renovation. These are
are the main included energy uses. Auxiliary energy and light- mainly technical, financial, social, political and institutional. It is
ing are taken into account in the majority of Member States, frequent that existing structures limit the choice of the technical
while several also include appliances and central services; solutions that can be used, especially in buildings of architectural
Energy balance calculations are derived as the difference value. Furthermore, technical solutions may be expensive and
between primary energy demand and generated energy over a request a high investment. A limited access to investments and
one-year period; the non-adequacy of financial models of micro-credit institutes
Single building or building unit are the most frequent physical are other open issues. The payback period for renovation may take
boundaries in energy performance calculations; between 15 and 30 years, and often residents do not benefit from
Conditioned area is the most agreed upon choice in relation to it. Recently, the importance of social barriers has risen [133]. These
normalization factors. include: lack of knowledge, user behaviors, and interest in energy
On-site generation is the most common RES option, but some efficiency. Communication and information between the involved
MSs also consider external and nearby generation; actors and organizations, as well as with residents, are key factors
The most used technologies are PV, solar thermal, air- and for a successful NZEB renovation. Communication of best practices
ground-source heat pumps, geothermal, passive solar, passive and end-user behaviour are other aspects to be considered towards
cooling, wind power, biomass, biofuel, micro CHP, and heat a wide NZEB retrofit implementation [134].
recovery.
5.2.3. Energy performance of buildings standards
Different system boundaries and energy uses cause a high vari-
The European standardisation bodies, and in particular CEN, had
ation within the described definitions [125]. The level of energy
a key role for enabling the implementation of the EPBD in Member
efficiency, the inclusion of lighting and appliances, as well as the
States. The 2002 EPBD Article 3 requested Member States to apply
recommended renewables to be implemented vary across Europe
a methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings
[126].
based of the general framework set out in the EPBD Annex. The
In addition to provide definitions, Member States are requested
European Commission issued on 30 January 2004 a standardisation
to draw up national plans and adopt measures, policies and finan-
mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for a methodology calculating
cial incentives for the promotion of NZEBs. However, while reach-
the integrated energy performance of buildings and estimating the
ing the NZEBs target in new buildings appears to be feasible
environmental impact (M/343)18. CEN introduced a common frame-
according to studies on energy performance optimization [127]
work for a methodology of calculation of the total energy perfor-
the challenge remains for existing buildings [128]. According to
mance of buildings [135]). Under the mandate M/343, 28 European
[129], an economic and environmental assessment could identify
standards (EN) have been developed, covering the building energy
the uncertainty in system boundaries [130], using it to assess the
performance calculation methods, the technical system inspection
lack of information in the design stage of building retrofitting
procedures and other relevant issues [136]. The CEN Technical Com-
through a streamlined approach [131].
mittees, which contributed to the preparation of the standards
The current renovation rate has been assessed between 0.5%
included: CEN/TC 89 (Thermal performance of buildings and build-
and 2.5% per year with buildings dating between 1945 and 1980
ing components); CEN/TC 156 (Ventilation for buildings); CEN/TC
having the largest energy demand [132]. Moreover, the existing
stock is characterized by a high heterogeneity in terms of uses, cli-
18
Available at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?-
matic areas, construction traditions and systems.
fuseaction=refSearch.search&lang=EN
169 (Light and lighting); CEN/TC 228 (Heating systems in buildings); Member States shall establish more effective long-term renova-
CEN/TC 247 (Building automation, controls and building manage- tion strategies (LTRS), identifying an adequate set of financial
ment) [135]. The relation between these standards is described in measures and consulting stakeholders in the preparation and
the ‘‘Umbrella Document” (CEN Technical Report TR 15615)19. implementation of their strategies;
With the recast of the EPBD in 2010, a new mandate (M/480) Stimulate cost-effective deep renovation encouraging more
was issued by the European Commission to CEN to further develop holistic approaches in energy renovation projects. The possibil-
the set of EPB standards to be used by Member States for the ity of using Building Renovation Passports (BRP) and trigger
implementation of the Directive. This resulted in the set of 52 points in the life of the building is also given. Member States
EPB-standards. The standards were reformulated in order to avoid need to identify these trigger points as part of their LTRS and
ant ambiguity in the national transposition [137]. Several CEN in accordance with national practices. The introduction of an
Technical Committees have developed the standards as during optional scheme for individual BRP is included for the first time
the first phase: TC 89, TC 156, TC 169, TC 228, TC 247, while in the LTRS context of the requirements that Member States
CEN/TC 371 provided the overall coordination. Some of (11 of the prepare for their building stock;
42) first generation of EBP standards are EN-ISO standards. Revi- The Commission will develop common European schemes for
sion of these standards requires co-operation with the ISO /TC rating the smart readiness of buildings, which will be optional
163/WG 4 [137]. In order to co-ordinate the revisions of EN-ISO for Member States;
standards required under mandate M/480 CEN/TC 371 established Smart technologies and ICT in buildings will be promoted, for
a liaison with ISO/TC163/WG4 [137]and finally produced the EN- example through requirements on the installation of building
ISO series 52,000 including more than 32 standards entirely dedi- automation and control systems and on devices that regulate
cated to energy performance of buildings. Some of (11 of the 42) the indoor temperature from the building level down to the
first generation of EBP standards are also EN-ISO standards. Revi- room level ensuring that buildings operate efficiently;
sion of these standards requires co-operation with the ISO /TC E-mobility will be supported by introducing minimum require-
163/WG 4. In order to co-ordinate the revisions of EN-ISO stan- ments for electric recharge points over a certain size of the
dards required under mandate M/480 CEN/TC 371 established a building and other minimum infrastructure are introduced for
liaison with ISO/TC163/WG4 and finally produced the EN-ISO ser- smaller buildings;
ies 52,000 including more than 32 standards entirely dedicated to Member States shall express their national energy performance
energy performance of buildings [137]. The final package of the requirements in ways that allow cross-national comparisons;
Energy Performance of Buildings standard under mandate M/480 improving the transparency and quality of the EPCs;
has been published in summer [138]. This set of standards allow Health and well-being of building users will be promoted, for
to evaluate the overall energy performance of a building. A number instance through an increased consideration of air quality and
of key EPB standards are available at global level (the EN ISO ventilation;
52,000 family of standards) [138]. Combatting energy poverty and reducing the household energy
bill by renovating older buildings.
5.3. EPBD 2018
6. The Energy Services Directive (ESD) and Energy Efficiency
20 Directive (EED)
In order to implement the Energy Union Strategy , in Novem-
ber 2016 the Commission adopted a package of measures (the Win-
The Energy Services Directive (ESD – 2006/32/EC) is broadly
ter Package) to revise the EED and EPBD and align them to the new
considered as successor of the SAVE Directive and the predecessor
2030 energy and climate targets. The EPBD amendment procedure
of the EED. Adopted in 2006, the ESD laid out the foundation for
started at the end of 2016 and ended on 30 May 2018 with the
setting indicative national targets equivalent to at least 9% energy
approval of Directive 2018/844/EU. The Commission also launched
savings by 2016 and introduced reporting obligations through the
a new buildings database – the EU Building Stock Observatory21 –
preparation of National Energy Efficiency Plans (NEEAPs) [30,73].
to track the EP of buildings across Europe. In order to stimulate
Whilst the ESD did not have any specific focus on buildings, it
and increase the level of direct investment towards the renovation
included some provisions on metering and billing, financing and
of the building stock, the Commission launched the ‘Smart Finance
energy performance contracts. These provisions were strengthened
for Smart Buildings’ initiative, which aims to unlock an additional
in the subsequent EED, discussed below.
EUR 10 billion of public and private funds.
The legal basis of the 2020 targets and other provisions stipu-
On 19th June 2018 the new Directive (2018/844/EU, EPBD) was
lated in the 2011 Energy Efficiency Action Plan (section 4) was
published and the revised provisions entered into force on 9th July
established in the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED, 2012/27/EU)
2018. This revision introduces targeted amendments to the current
which was adopted in December 2012 as part of the European
EPBD aimed at accelerating the cost-effective renovation of exist-
Energy and Climate Package [139].
ing buildings, with the aim of a decarbonized building stock by
The Directive quantified the 20% energy efficiency target in
2050 and the mobilization of investments to reach this goal [25].
terms of absolute primary and final energy consumption levels
The revision also supports electro-mobility diffusion by mandating
by 2020 and required MSs to contribute to the overarching EU tar-
electro-mobility infrastructure deployment in buildings’ car parks.
get by setting their own energy efficiency targets at national level.
It also introduces new provisions to enhance smart technologies
While these targets are of indicative nature, the Directive set sev-
and technical building systems, including building automation.
eral mandatory EE policy measures to help reach the target, focus-
Member States have 20 months to transpose the Directive into
ing on all stages of the energy chain from production to end use.
national laws (namely by 10th March 2020). In particular, the
The most important EED articles on buildings included the require-
2018 EPBD includes the following provisions:
ment for the public sector to renovate its central government
building stock (Article 5), the setup of metering and billing require-
19
TP CEN/TR 15615:2008, available at https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/stan-
ments measures (Articles 9–11) [10] and establishment of long-
dards/cen/d7208116-9623–4117-8d99-4c81230c6f5e/cen-tr-15615–2008
20
COM/2015/080 final.
term strategies for national building stock renovation (Article 4).
21
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/ The Directive also included provisions to promote energy perfor-
eu-bso_en. mance contracting in the public sector (Article 18) [140], to remove
split incentives (Article 19a) and to establish mandatory audits for 6.2. Central government buildings (EED Article 5)
large companies (Article 8) [141]. Lastly, the Directive pushed to
open up energy markets to demand response (Article 15) and To reinforce the role of the public sector in the clean energy
establish Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes mandating energy transition, Member States were asked to renovate 3% of the total
companies to achieve 1.5% annual energy savings for final con- floor area of heated and/or cooled buildings owned and occupied
sumers every year (Article 7) [68,142]. In 2018 the EED was by their central government every year in order to meet the mini-
amended (2018/2002/EU) to provide a legal frame for the 2030 mum energy performance requirements set in application of EPBD
energy efficiency targets and extend article 7 to 2030. Article 4. Given that the setup of minimum energy performance
requirements for existing buildings alone cannot stimulate energy
renovations, the rationale of this EED provision was for the public
6.1. Long-term renovation strategies (EED Article 4/ EPBD Article 2.a)
sector to showcase a lead-by-example approach, paving the way
for ambitious renovations at a wider scale across many sectors.
To tap into the large cost-effective energy saving potential of
To provide more flexibility to Member States, the EED provided
energy renovations across the EU, Member States were asked to
an alternative route under the condition that equivalent energy
develop long-term renovation strategies with the view of mobilis-
savings to the ones generated by mandatory renovations are
ing energy efficiency investments in residential and commercial
achieved through other cost-effective measures including deep
buildings. These strategies, which represented the first strategies
renovations and behavioral change measures.
of this kind, aimed to act as a guiding tool for Member States in
In the first 5 implementation years since 2014, progress has
the decarbonisation transition of their building stocks. The EED
remained relatively slow, with around one third of the Member
did not mandate specific policy interventions/measures to be
States reaching their annual renovation target or equivalent energy
included in the strategies nor did it require setting up renovation
savings [5,147]. The public commitment towards high energy effi-
targets. Instead, the strategies were drawn up to provide:
ciency building stock has somewhat weakened by the introduction
of the alternative route with only 11 out of 28 Member States
1. an overview of the country’s national building stock;
choosing to pursue central government renovations (default
2. identify key policies to stimulate renovations;
approach). Given that new public buildings must comply with
3. provide an estimate of the expected energy savings and wider
NZEB levels from 2019 onwards, the gap between new and existing
benefits;
public buildings in terms of energy performance levels is expected
4. identify cost-effective approaches by building type and climatic
to be widened in the coming years. This demonstrates the need to
zone;
strengthen public commitment to improve energy efficiency of
5. encompass a forward-looking perspective to guide investment
their properties and take more EU-wide action to tackle some of
decisions.
the barriers specific to the public sector [148,149].
While high compliance with the above 5 elements was in gen-
eral achieved in both the originally submitted national strategies in 6.3. Split incentives (EED Article 19a)
2014 and subsequent updates in 2017 [143,144], the ambition
level, scope and depth of analysis varied significantly from country In view of addressing split incentives in the building sector, the
to country. In particular, data gaps in the non-residential sector EED Article 9a called for Member States to evaluate and, if neces-
were identified as well as lack of modelling and clear and ambi- sary, take appropriate measures to remove regulatory and non-
tious targets. The updated strategies of 2017 provided a more in- regulatory barriers to energy efficiency. While the EED does not
depth analysis of national building stocks and more rigorous sce- mandate specific measures to tackle split incentives, it mentions
nario analysis of possible intervention options. On the other hand, several possible solutions including rules for dividing costs and
the evaluation and monitoring of implemented policies and the benefits between owners and tenants and measures regulating
development of specific monitoring indicators remained weak decision-making processes in multi-owner properties. Measures
points of the strategies [144]. While there is no yet evidence in to address split incentives include regulatory measures -e.g. rent
the literature on the actual impact of these strategies in generating law amendments and minimum energy performance standards
energy savings or indeed in mobilising investments, several new in rented properties, administrative rules (e.g. revisions in gover-
policy measures have been put in place as a result of the develop- nance structure of jointly-owned apartment buildings) and various
ment of these strategies [145,146]. financial and fiscal incentive schemes [150–152]. While it is clear
As anticipated above, with the revision of the EED and EPBD in that a one-size-fits-all solution cannot address all particularities
2018, Article 4 of EED was moved to the amending EPBD Article 2a. across various segments of the building sector or national condi-
To address some of the above shortcomings, the amended EPBD tions, a number of common principles can be highlighted
introduced a number of key changes with the view of enhancing [150,151,153]. These include a more active engagement of building
the role of these strategies as ‘roadmaps’ with an action plan on occupants in energy saving practices, the development of agree-
how to transform their building stock to a highly energy efficient ments benefitting all involved actors, acknowledgement of real
and decarbonized building stock by 2050 and specific milestones energy consumption and establishment of cost recovery models
for the years 2030 and 2040. Even though the new strategies are attached to the property instead of the owner. As the EED did
not required to include quantifiable targets, they must be sup- not stipulate any obligatory actions, an assessment carried out to
ported by measurable progress indicators and must explain how identify the progress towards implementing EED Article 19, has
they contribute to the overall 32.5% energy efficiency target for revealed uneven progress by Member States in tackling the issue
2030 (as part of the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Direc- of split incentives [152]. Some countries have no yet relevant mea-
tive). It goes further by emphasizing that the strategies must facil- sures in place measures, highlighting the need for further policy
itate the cost-effective transformation of existing buildings into action in this area.
nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs), a provision already included
in Article 9.2. Emphasis is also given for the worst-performing seg- 6.4. Metering and billing (EED articles 9–11)
ments of the national building stock, actions to alleviate energy
poverty and efforts to accelerate energy efficiency gains in public To promote energy savings through behavioural change, the
buildings. EED (2012/27/EU) introduced a mandatory requirement of
Fig. 2. Overview of 50-year policy evolution in the area of energy efficiency in buildings in the EU.
consumption-based cost allocation and billing of heating cooling frequency, the accuracy of metering systems, the availability of
and hot water in multi-apartment and multipurpose buildings heating controls and the capability of maintaining energy savings
with collective heating/cooling systems. The general idea behind habits over the time.
these provisions was to ensure that users of such buildings had Although the EU has promoted energy consumption individual
the right incentives and sufficient information to adopt energy- metering for energy consumption since 1976/197722, the EED rep-
efficient practices [154]. Many studies [155–157] have demon-
strated that providing consumption feedback to energy users can 22
Council Recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy in the
influence their behaviour, which can lead to an average 5–10% final heating systems of existing buildings (76/493/EEC); Council Recommendation of 25
energy consumption reduction in households [10]. Effectiveness of October 1977 on the regulation of space heating, domestic hot water production and
such measures depend on several conditions: feedback type and the metering of heat in new buildings
300
DE
long been recognised as a frontrunner in energy building codes.
FR
It can be derived that the NZEB requirements under EPBD (last
IT level starting from the 1st January 2021) are on average 67% lower
250
ES than the national requirements in 2006. This reflects a notable
primary energy demand [kWh/m2y]
PL improvement for the countries, attained progressively over a rela-

200 RO tively short period through reiterations of at least three legislative
NL steps.
DK Along with energy requirements, the building concept has also
150 continuously evolved over the last decade. Starting from high per-
forming buildings, several definitions have been launched (e.g.
Zero Emission Building, Zero Carbon Buildings, Autonomous, Net
100
Zero Source/Site Buildings [159,160]. In this context, the NZEBs
marked a new EU official definition (EPDB 2010 recast), which
50 establishes how buildings should use nearly zero energy and pro-
duce renewables, adopt cost-optimal technology choices, and guar-
antee a healthy and comfortable environment. Despite these
0
important milestones achieved through European legislations,
01-2005
01-2006
01-2007
01-2008
01-2009
01-2010
01-2011
01-2012
01-2013
01-2014
01-2015
01-2016
01-2017
01-2018
01-2019
01-2020
01-2021 the envisaged match between cost-optimal and NZEB energy per-
formance level remains debated. Especially for existing buildings,
Fig. 3. Improvement of residential minimum energy performance requirements in studies investigating the possible energy/financial performance
some key Member States, since the entry in force of the first EPB Directive. gaps between the two levels [118] can inform policy-makers about
how demanding the forthcoming market transition towards an
energy efficient building stock will be [161].
resents the legal foundation for accurate metering and billing of Concerns also rise as different studies highlighted that reaching
energy individual consumption in multi-apartment and multi- the NZEBs target is achievable, but the selected design choices vary
purpose buildings in the EU. Relevant articles include: Article 9 on when the environmental perspective is enhanced. The importance
energy metering, Article 10 on billing information and Article 11 of a life-cycle assessment has been highlighted as suitable for
on cost of access to metering and billing information. Due to differ- buildings [162], however this approach is not commonly applied
ences in climatic conditions, building stocks and user habits, EU for data and calculation obstacles. Furthermore, the literature is
Member States adopted different allocation rules that led, in some pointing out the importance of the embodied energy inclusion
cases, to a series of technical, legal and consumer protection issues within the energy performance [163,164]. When part of the calcu-
[158]. These were subsequently addressed in 2018 with the provi- lations, the energy used to extract raw resources, process materi-
sions of the amended EED, that introduced stronger rules on meter- als, assemble components, transport, construction, maintenance,
ing and billing of thermal energy by giving consumers clearer rights repair, deconstruction and disposal, severely impact the energy
to receive more frequent and more useful information on their consumption (from 30% to 70%) and the technologies chosen for
energy consumption. NZEBs [165,166]. Although the importance of the embodied energy
inclusion in the energy performance was already pointed out
7. Discussion around the 1990s [167], the literature is more and more emphasiz-
ing its central role over the last decade [163,164,168]. When part of
Since the initial focus of energy security in the 1970s, energy the calculations, the energy used to extract raw resources, process
efficiency policy, which spans over 5 decades, has made consider- materials, assemble components, transport, construction, mainte-
able strides in terms of scope, scale and ambition (Fig. 2). The early nance, repair, deconstruction and disposal, severely impact the
requirements on construction products set in 1989 (CPD 1989) and energy consumption (from 30% to 70%) and the technologies cho-
boilers in 1992 (HWBD 1992) were gradually transformed into a sen for NZEBs [165,166]. When a building achieves the nearly zero
set of comprehensive energy standards for individual building energy goal, the majority of the life cycle energy remains in the
technical systems (Ecodesign 2005) and energy performance embodied energy of its materials and systems [169]. Therefore,
requirements for entire buildings (EPBD 2002 and EPBD recast as energy efficiency continues to decrease the operating energy
2010). The shift to a holistic approach has been a particularly ─as a result of building codes, stringent regulations and efficient
important development for the sector itself, opening possibilities systems-more focus and practice guidance should be given to the
for innovation and offering flexibility to designers, architects and inclusion of embodied energy in future policies [170,171].
engineers for cost-optimised solutions. This holistic approach, Important developments have also occurred in the diversifica-
which was supported by the development of CEN standards, paved tion of instruments and tools deployed in energy efficiency policy,
the way for fairer cross-country comparisons, the introduction of moving from policies solely comprising building codes up until the
cost-optimality concepts in building codes and the application of 1990s to comprehensive policy packages from the 2000s onwards.
energy efficiency requirements in renovations. For construction While the SAVE Directive of the preceding decade included many
products and technical systems, the EU policies have brought the thematic areas which are of key relevance even today (e.g. meter-
much necessary equivalence of standards in products in the Euro- ing/billing, energy certifications, third party financing, etc.), it was
pean market, facilitating trade of building products across borders. the legislative framework set out by the EPBD in 2002, ESD in 2006
Looking at the results achieved under the drive of the European and EED in 2012 which mandated the implementation of a wide
policies, it is interesting to observe how the national minimum range policy instruments at national level. As discussed in Sec-
energy performance requirements (applied for new buildings and tion 5, the EPBD called for Member States to develop comprehen-
major renovations) have evolved during the period covered by sive requirements in their building codes but at the same time
the EPBDs (around 15 years from the first transposition due by Jan- introduced information tools such as energy performance certifi-
uary 2006). Fig. 3 shows the main regulatory steps in terms of pri- cate schemes and inspection programmes for thermal systems.
mary energy requirements for an average residential building in The Energy Efficiency Directive mandated energy audits in indus-
the most populated EU countries, including Denmark which has try and SMEs, introduced metering and billing provisions and
280
267
270
260 256 257 257

252 254 254 254 253
Energy (Mtoe)
250
248 248
250 245
242 241 242
239
240 236
234 234
231 231
230
220
220
210
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Fig. 4. Residential energy consumption in EU-15 (1990–2017).
1.6
toe/[(MeanHDD/HDDref)*millionEU
1.45
1.38
1.35
1.32
1.4 1.28
R*millionPOP*m2]
1.23
1.14 1.13
1.10
1.1 1.04
1.01
0.98
0.91 0.91 0.89
0.83
0.81
0.9 0.79 0.80 0.77
0.72 0.72 0.70
0.6
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Fig. 5. Residential energy consumption climatic corrected per capita, per average floor area of dwellings and per adjusted disposable income of households in EU-15 minus PT
& BE (1995–2017). Portugal (PT) and Belgium (BE) were excluded from the analysis due to unavailability of floor area data.
encouraged the set-up of energy efficiency funds and use of energy of the more recent National Energy and Climate plans through
performance contracting in public sector buildings. Despite some the adoption of the Energy Union Governance Regulation of 2018
of the shortcomings of these policies discussed in this paper, these [73] strengthens the role of these coherent packages of policies
measures, ranging from Regulations to information tools or aware- in the overall efforts to curb climate change and allow for synergies
ness raising campaigns, and from educational/training pro- and interconnections with other policy areas such as renewable
grammes to financial instruments are integral parts of all energy and decarbonisation policies.
national policy packages today. The overall impact of energy efficiency policies in buildings
Beyond individual policy measures, comprehensive policy pack- remains an open research question and debated topic in the policy-
ages require the setting of quantitative and measurable targets, making sphere [107,173]. By looking at final energy consumption
allowing policymakers to track overall progress and give clear trends in the residential sector in the period from 1995 to 2017
direction to all involved stakeholders [22]. Whilst there has not in the EU-15 (Fig. 4), it can be observed that consumption has
been a specific target for the sector itself to date ─with the appli- remained relatively stable over the studied period with the excep-
cation of the 1995, 2016, 2020 and 2030 targets on an economy tion of variations linked to fluctuations of outdoor climatic
wide level─ buildings have always played a prominent role in conditions.
the achievement of energy efficiency targets [172]. The only excep- During the studied period, some energy consumption drivers
tion is the specific yearly public sector target of 3% of central gov- such as total population, household disposable income and build-
ernment floor area renovation prescribed by the EED in 2012. ing size have been on a rising trend as a result of the attainment
While the progress for this target has been slow, it has also high- of higher living standards over time. As presented in Tsemekidi-
lighted important lessons for the future set-up of specific Tzeiranaki et al. [5], these drivers act as a driving force of energy
building-specific milestones for the years 2030, 2040 and 2050 consumption due to improved thermal comfort, more square
stipulated by the EPBD 2018. meters per capita (also due to a smaller household size and
To support the development of these packages, the National increase in the number of single person households), larger popu-
Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs) and Long-Term Renova- lation and more and larger appliances. In Fig. 5, the final residential
tion strategies ─ first introduced by the ESD 2006 and EED 2012, consumption normalized to take into account all key drivers-
respectively ─ served as key strategic planning tools, placing climate, income, population and building size-in the EU-15 minus
energy efficiency at the heart of energy policy. The introduction Portugal and Belgium follows a clear declining trend. This analysis
points to reduction of 52%, suggesting a strong possible impact of doing. This stresses the need to examine how climate change will
the buildings energy efficiency policies implemented at European, impact buildings, as those built or refurbished today will be in
national and local levels. use for decades. Therefore, a synergy with the climatic, societal
and technical state of progress will be increasingly essential for a
widespread NZEB diffusion, overcoming common technical, finan-
8. Conclusions cial, social, and educational barriers.
Finally, a solid financial component on energy efficiency has a
The EU has adopted policies and programmes to promote gen- key role in the transition towards climate-neutral buildings, with
eral energy efficiency since the 1970s and since the 1980s focusing a need for more targeted financial mechanisms, new financial
on buildings. These policies have been progressively reinforced to models and more active participation of financial institutions.
meet commitments for combatting climate change under the The Smart Finance for Smart Buildings Initiative launched in
UNFCCC and for increasing the security of the energy supply. Poli- 2016 by the European Commission aims to further mobilize private
cies at EU level include a framework to set national building codes, financing in buildings, ensure effective use of public EU funding
EU Regulation for efficiency requirements for energy using equip- and identify ways to de-risk energy efficiency investments. Under
ment, Directive for the removal of barriers to investments in the European Green Deal23 proposed by the European Commission
energy efficiency, and finally financial support to energy efficiency. in 2020, the ’’renovation wave’’ initiative is expected to create a tai-
Despite earlier efforts, the major steps in boosting energy effi- lored policy framework to mobilize all stakeholders in the buildings
ciency have stemmed from the EPBD (2002), the Ecodesign sector, address any regulatory or other barriers and scale up new
(2005) and the ESD (2006), as well as the additional improvements innovative mechanisms. This should ultimately act as a catalyst for
and strengthening from the EPBD recast (2010) and the EED innovation and bring new opportunities which will not only enhance
(2012). the energy performance of European buildings but will also ensure
The adoption of more stringent building standards and require- future resilience to climate change risks and adequate living condi-
ments for boilers has contributed to a decline in heating energy tions for all Europeans.
consumption, which is the major energy use in the building sector
in the EU. As indicated, the EPBD has been a major EU policy for
driving energy efficiency improvements in buildings. The move 9. Disclaimer
from prescriptive requirements such as U-values for building walls
to performance requirements through the adoption of EPBD has The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may
enabled the introduction of cost optimality concepts in building not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position
codes and application of net zero energy levels for new buildings of the European Commission.
in the recast EPBD. Not only this, but the EPBD called for MSs to
set standards for existing buildings when renovated. Despite these
Declaration of Competing Interest
positive developments, the responsibility for setting standards
levels has remained at the discretion of individual Member States,
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
leading to large discrepancies in ambition among Member States.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
It is also particularly important to highlight many additional
to influence the work reported in this paper.
policies implemented in this period by individual Member States,
with some Member States (e.g. Denmark) anticipating EU efforts
or going beyond. Several MSs have introduced information mecha- References
nisms through national and local energy agencies offering advice to
building owners and public authorities. Others have also offered a [1] R. Kinley, Climate change after Paris: from turning point to transformation,
Climate Policy 17 (1) (2017) 9–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/
broad range of financial incentives to facilitate investments in
14693062.2016.1191009.
energy efficiency in existing buildings. These incentives range from [2] P. Tobin, N.M. Schmidt, J. Tosun, C. Burns, Mapping states’ Paris climate
low or zero interest loans (e.g. in Germany and France) to subsidies pledges: analysing targets and groups at COP 21, Global Environ. Change 48
(grants, tax deduction, white certificates) in Italy, France and Spain. (2018) 11–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.11.002.
[3] UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President.
Given the low rate of new constructions in Europe, it is essential to Paris Climate Change Conference - November 2015, COP 21, 21932
focus on existing buildings by triggering energy retrofits and/or (December), 32. DOI:FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
including energy efficiency measures in routine building mainte- [4] P. Bertoldi. The Paris Agreement 1.5°C goal: what it does mean for energy
efficiency? 2018 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
nance works. To this end, it is key to provide more targeted con- (2018).
sumer information (e.g. through enhanced energy performance [5] S. Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki, N. Labanca, B. Cuniberti, A. Toleikyte, P. Zangheri, P.
certificates) and financial support through tailored instruments, Bertoldi. Analysis of the Annual Reports 2018 under the Energy Efficiency
Directive – Summary report 2019 Luxembourg.
which empower final users to invest in energy efficiency. [6] G. Martinopoulos, K.T. Papakostas, A.M. Papadopoulos, A comparative review
A key point of future policies is that buildings are increasingly of heating systems in EU countries, based on efficiency and fuel cost, Renew.
expected to meet higher performance requirements, reaching a Sustain. Energy Rev. 90 (2018) 687–699, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2018.03.060.
positive balance between the produced and required energy. Cur- [7] A. Aslani, A. Bakhtiar, M.H. Akbarzadeh, Energy-efficiency technologies in the
rently, the scientific community is stressing the need and advan- building envelope: life cycle and adaptation assessment, J. Build. Eng. 21
tages of a new dimension of interconnected buildings, going from (2019) 55–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2018.09.014.
[8] A. Martínez-Molina, I. Tort-Ausina, S. Cho, J.-L. Vivancos, Energy efficiency and
the building level to the district one. Smart technologies and elec-
thermal comfort in historic buildings: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
trical mobility play a central role in this vision, where aspects such 61 (2016) 70–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.03.018.
as safety, resilience, and user awareness become more and more [9] T. Blázquez, S. Ferrari, R. Suárez, J.J. Sendra, Adaptive approach-based
assessment of a heritage residential complex in southern Spain for
crucial.
improving comfort and energy efficiency through passive strategies: a
Another important aspect is the inclusion of climate change study based on a monitored flat, Energy 181 (2019) 504–520, https://doi.
impact on buildings. New extreme, short periods of intense cold org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.05.160.
or heat are likely to have an influence on both heating and cooling
loads as well as best efficiency measures chosen to reach the NZEB 23
COM(2019)640 final (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=
target. Research is moving towards this direction, as policies are 1588580774040&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640)
[10] P. Zangheri, T. Serrenho, P. Bertoldi, Energy savings from feedback systems: a Energy Build. 127 (2016) 942–952, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meta-studies’ review, Energies 12 (19) (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ enbuild.2016.06.051.
en12193788. [38] A. Månsson, B. Johansson, L.J. Nilsson, Assessing energy security: an overview
[11] T. Fawcett, G. Killip, Re-thinking energy efficiency in European policy: of commonly used methodologies, Energy 73 (2014) 1–14, https://doi.org/
practitioners’ use of ‘multiple benefits’ arguments, J. Cleaner Prod. 210 (2019) 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2014.06.073.
1171–1179, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.11.026. [39] B.K. Sovacool, H. Saunders, Competing policy packages and the complexity of
[12] M. Freed, F.A. Felder, Non-energy benefits: workhorse or unicorn of energy energy security, Energy 67 (2014) 641–651, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
efficiency programs?, Electricity J 30 (1) (2017) 43–46, https://doi.org/ ENERGY.2014.01.039.
10.1016/J.TEJ.2016.12.004. [40] S. Wiel, N. Martin, M. Levine, L. Price, J. Sathaye, The role of building energy
[13] G. Mutani, V. Todeschi, Energy resilience, vulnerability and risk in urban efficiency in managing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Environ. Sci. Policy 1 (1)
spaces, J. Sustain. Dev. Energy, Water Environ. Syst. 6 (4) (2018) 694–709. (1998) 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(98)00004-5.
[14] E. Hirst, M. Brown, Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of [41] H. Geller, P. Harrington, A.H. Rosenfeld, S. Tanishima, F. Unander, Polices for
energy, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 3 (4) (1990) 267–281, https://doi.org/ increasing energy efficiency: thirty years of experience in OECD countries,
10.1016/0921-3449(90)90023-W. Energy Policy 34 (5) (2006) 556–573, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[15] A.B. Jaffe, R.N. Stavins, The energy-efficiency gap what does it mean?, Energy ENPOL.2005.11.010.
Policy 22 (10) (1994) 804–810, https://doiorg/10.1016/0301-4215(94)90138- [42] A. Elagöz, Legal and administrative measures for energy savings in non-
4. industrial buildings in the member states of the EC, Renew. Energy 4 (1)
[16] C. Cooremans, A. Schönenberger, Energy management: a key driver of energy- (1994) 109–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(94)90071-X.
efficiency investment?, J Cleaner Prod. 230 (2019) 264–275, https://doi.org/ [43] J.N. Swisher, Regulatory and mixed policy options for reducing energy use
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.04.333. and carbon emissions, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 1 (1) (1996) 23–49,
[17] M.J. Pelenur, H.J. Cruickshank, Closing the Energy Efficiency Gap: a study https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MITI.0000027538.90774.a8.
linking demographics with barriers to adopting energy efficiency measures in [44] R.S. Axelrod, Reconciling energy use with environmental protection in the
the home, Energy 47 (1) (2012) 348–357, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. European Community, Int. Environ. Affairs 4 (3) (1992) 185–202,
ENERGY.2012.09.058. ISSN:10414665.
[18] G. Heutel, Prospect theory and energy efficiency, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 96 [45] P. Caluwaerts, C. Sjöström, S.E. Haagenrud, Service life standards: background
(2019) 236–254, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEEM.2019.06.005. and relation to the European construction products directive, in: Proceedings
[19] C. Wilson, L. Crane, G. Chryssochoidis, Why do homeowners renovate energy of the 7th International Conf. on Durability of Building and Construction
efficiently? Contrasting perspectives and implications for policy, Energy Res. Components and Materials, 19–23 May 1996, Stockholm, Sweden, 1996, pp.
Social Sci. 7 (2015) 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2015.03.002. 1353–1363.
[20] J.A. Vogel, P. Lundqvist, J. Arias, Categorizing barriers to energy efficiency in [46] N.M. Ryan, Construction products directive. Its influence on design and
buildings, Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 2839–2845, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. construction Retrieved from Struct. Eng. London 69 (3) (1991) 52. https://
EGYPRO.2015.07.568. www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0026416495&partnerID=
[21] M.A. Brown, Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies, 40&md5=e8467e47b796f9179ab03ec8179ceaa6.
Energy Policy 29 (14) (2001) 1197–1207, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301- [47] R. Bassi, Concrete surface systems: European standards update, Concrete
4215(01)00067-2. (London) 29 (1) (1995) 25–26, ISSN:00105317.
[22] F. Kern, P. Kivimaa, M. Martiskainen, Policy packaging or policy patching? The [48] C. Sjöström, P.J.P. Caluwaerts, S.K.S. Haagenrud, J.L. Chevalier,
development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes, Energy Res. Social Implementation of the European Construction Products Directive via the
Sci. 23 (2017) 11–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.11.002. ISO 15686 Standards, in: S.C. Burn (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International
[23] J. Rosenow, T. Fawcett, N. Eyre, V. Oikonomou, Energy efficiency and the Conference on the Durability of Building Materials and Components, 2002,
policy mix, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (5–6) (2016) 562–574, https://doi.org/10.1080/ pp. 1–9.
09613218.2016.1138803. [49] C. Loveday, Quality and the construction products directive, Quarry Manage.
[24] P. Bertoldi, Overview of the European Union policies to promote more 19 (1) (1992) 29–33, ISSN:09509526.
sustainable behaviours in energy end-users, Energy Behav. (2020) 451–477, [50] P.J. Lay-cock, S. Graham, P. Fewings, The effective implementation of the
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818567-4.00018-1. Construction Products Directive (CPD): an update, Build. Res. Inf. 23 (2)
[25] A. Thonipara, P. Runst, C. Ochsner, K. Bizer, Energy efficiency of residential (1995) 119–124, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613219508727440.
buildings in the European Union – an exploratory analysis of cross-country [51] L. Pesch, European standardisation of concrete products, Betonwerk Und
consumption patterns, Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1156–1167, https://doi.org/ Fertigteil-Technik/Concrete Precasting Plant and Technology 63 (1) (1997)
10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.03.003. 82–100, ISSN:03734331.
[26] E. Laes, I. Mayeres, N. Renders, P. Valkering, S. Verbeke, How do policies help [52] D.A. Fee. Energy Efficiency Legislation in the European Community. Review of
to increase the uptake of carbon reduction measures in the EU residential European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 1(2), 126-130
sector? Evidence from recent studies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94 (2018) (1992b). HeinOnline. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9388.1992.tb0002.
234–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.05.046. [53] D.A. Fee, A new proposal in the framework of the SAVE programme to limit
[27] C. Camarasa, C. Nägeli, Y. Ostermeyer, M. Klippel, S. Botzler, Diffusion of carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency, Energy Europe 20
energy efficiency technologies in European residential buildings: a (1992) 19–22.
bibliometric analysis, Energy Build. 109339 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/ [54] M. De Paepe, C. T’Joen, H. Huisseune, M. Van Belleghem, V. Kessen,
J.ENBUILD.2019.109339. Comparison of different testing methods for gas fired domestic boiler
[28] S. Leth-Petersen, M. Togeby, Demand for space heating in apartment blocks: efficiency determination, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (1) (2013) 275–281, https://
measuring effects of policy measures aiming at reducing energy doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2012.06.027.
consumption, Energy Econ. 23 (4) (2001) 387–403, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [55] P. Waide, B. Lebot, S. van der Sluiss, Analysis of Efficiency of European
S0140-9883(00)00078-5. Domestic Refrigeration Retrieved from, in: Proceeding of the ACEEE 1996
[29] M. Kanellakis, G. Martinopoulos, T. Zachariadis, European energy policy—a Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 1996, pp. 3–169. https://
review, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1020–1030, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/1996/data/papers/SS96_Panel3_Paper21.pdf.
ENPOL.2013.08.008. [56] B. Atanasiu, P. Bertoldi, Latest assessment of residential electricity
[30] P. Bertoldi, M. Economidou, EU member states energy efficiency policies for consumption and efficiency trends in the European Union, Int. J. Green
the industrial sector based on the NEEAPs analysis, in: Eceee Industrial Energy 7 (5) (2010) 552–575, https://doi.org/10.1080/
Summer Study Proceedings, 2018-June (September 2018), 2018, pp. 117–127. 15435075.2010.515449.
[31] P. Šprajc, M. Bjegović, B. Vasić, Energy security in decision making and [57] P. Bertoldi, L. Werring, R. Bowie, J. Lorentzen, P. Hodson. (2006). EU
governance - methodological analysis of energy trilemma index, Renew. Environmental Law: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Sources.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 114 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109341 Retrieved from https://books.google.it/books?id=v8ZWvQEACAAJ.
109341. [58] H.A. Nash, The European Commission’s sustainable consumption and
[32] S. Alpanda, A. Peralta-Alva, Oil crisis, energy-saving technological change and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan, J. Cleaner Prod. 17
the stock market crash of 1973–74, Rev. Econ. Dyn. 13 (4) (2010) 824–842, (4) (2009) 496–498, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2008.08.020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RED.2010.04.003. [59] A. Elagöz, Energy savings training in the member states of the EC, Proceedings
[33] A. Bluszcz, European economies in terms of energy dependence, Qual. Quant. 2nd WREC, 4, 2140-2145, Reading, U.K, Second edition., 1992.
51 (4) (2017) 1531–1548, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0350-1. [60] M. Kestner, First energy efficiency directives under SAVE programme, Energy
[34] V. Vivoda, Diversification of oil import sources and energy security: a key Europe 17 (1991) 25–31.
strategy or an elusive objective?, Energy Policy 37 (11) (2009) 4615–4623, [61] M. van Wees, M. Uyterlinde, M. Maly, Energy efficiency and renewable energy
https://doiorg/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2009.06.007. policy in the Czech Republic within the framework of accession to the
[35] C. Blumstein, B. Krieg, L. Schipper, C. York, Overcoming social and European Union, Energy 27 (11) (2002) 1057–1067, https://doi.org/10.1016/
institutional barriers to energy conservation, Energy 5 (4) (1980) 355–371, S0360-5442(02)00068-3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(80)90036-5. [62] I.M. de Alegría Mancisidor, D. de Basurto, P. Uraga, M. de Alegría, I.
[36] S.P.A. Brown, H.G. Huntington, OPEC and world oil security, Energy Policy 108 Mancisidor, R. de Arbulo, P. López, European Union’s renewable energy
(2017) 512–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.06.034. sources and energy efficiency policy review: the Spanish perspective, Renew.
[37] A.M. Papadopoulos, Forty years of regulations on the thermal performance of Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (1) (2009) 100–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
the building envelope in Europe: achievements, perspectives and challenges, RSER.2007.07.003.
[63] J.L. Míguez, J. Porteiro, L.M. López-González, J.E. Vicuña, S. Murillo, J.C. Morán, [90] R. Bull, N. Chang, P. Fleming, The use of building energy certificates to reduce
E. Granada, Review of the energy rating of dwellings in the European Union as energy consumption in European public buildings, Energy Build. 50 (2012)
a mechanism for sustainable energy, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 10 (1) 103–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2012.03.032.
(2006) 24–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2004.08.003. [91] Y. Li, S. Kubicki, A. Guerriero, Y. Rezgui, Review of building energy
[64] P. Bertoldi, Policies, Recommendations and Standards (International performance certification schemes towards future improvement, Renew.
Technical Standards, Main Laws and Regulations; EU Directives; Energy Sustain. Energy Rev. 113 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109244
Labeling), Handbook Energy Effic. Build. 5–73 (2019), https://doi.org/ 109244.
10.1016/B978-0-12-812817-6.00002-4. [92] S. Semple, D. Jenkins, Variation of energy performance certificate assessments
[65] V. Richalet, F.P. Neirac, F. Tellez, J. Marco, J.J. Bloem, HELP (house energy in the European Union, Energy Policy 137 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
labeling procedure): methodology and present results, Energy Build. 33 (3) ENPOL.2019.111127 111127.
(2001) 229–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00086-4. [93] M. Hyland, R.C. Lyons, S. Lyons, The value of domestic building energy
[66] T. Zgajewsk. Energy Efficiency: The Ever Neglected Priority Of The European efficiency — evidence from Ireland, Energy Econ. 40 (2013) 943–952, https://
Energy STRATEGY Retrieved from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/ doi.org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2013.07.020.
uploads/2014/05/ep66.pdf?type=pdf 2014. [94] L. Högberg, The impact of energy performance on single-family home selling
[67] B. Laponche, K. Tillerson. The green paper: «Towards a European strategy for prices in Sweden, J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 6 (3) (2013) 242–261, https://doi.org/
the security of energy supply». Revue de l’Energie. (2001), 529, 425-432. ISSN 10.1108/JERER-09-2012-0024.
0303-240X. [95] P. Cerin, L.G. Hassel, N. Semenova, Energy performance and housing prices,
[68] T. Fawcett, J. Rosenow, P. Bertoldi, Energy efficiency obligation schemes: their Sustain. Dev. 22 (6) (2014) 404–419, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1566.
future in the EU, Energy Effi. 12 (2019) 57–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/ [96] F. Fuerst, P. McAllister, A. Nanda, P. Wyatt, Does energy efficiency matter to
s12053-018-9657-1. home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in
[69] S. Backlund, P. Thollander, J. Palm, M. Ottosson, Extending the energy England, Energy Econ. 48 (2015) 145–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
efficiency gap, Energy Policy 51 (2012) 392–396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ENECO.2014.12.012.
enpol.2012.08.042. [97] A. Chegut, P. Eichholtz, R. Holtermans, Energy efficiency and economic value
[70] F. Dehousse, T. Zgajewski, The EU Climate Policy after the Climate Package in affordable housing, Energy Policy 97 (2016) 39–49, https://doi.org/
and Copenhagen - Promises and Limits, in: Egmont Institute Egmont Paper, 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.06.043.
2010, p. 38. [98] E. Fregonara, D. Rolando, P. Semeraro, Energy performance certificates in the
[71] M. da Graça Carvalho, EU energy and climate change strategy, Energy 40 (1) Turin real estate market, J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 10 (2) (2017) 149–169,
(2012) 19–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.012. https://doi.org/10.1108/JERER-05-2016-0022.
[72] K. Veum, D. Bauknecht, How to reach the EU renewables target by 2030? An [99] N. Kok, M. Jennen, The impact of energy labels and accessibility on office
analysis of the governance framework, Energy Policy 127 (2019) 299–307, rents, Energy Policy 46 (2012) 489–497, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.12.013. ENPOL.2012.04.015.
[73] M. Ringel, M. Knodt, The governance of the European Energy Union: [100] F. Fuerst, P. McAllister, The impact of Energy Performance Certificates on the
efficiency, effectiveness and acceptance of the Winter Package 2016, Energy rental and capital values of commercial property assets, Energy Policy 39 (10)
Policy 112 (2018) 209–220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.047. (2011) 6608–6614, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.08.005.
[74] R. Cohen, B. Bordass, J. Field, Read the label - large public buildings will soon [101] L. Murphy, The influence of the energy performance certificate: the Dutch
need to display an energy certificate, Energy World 307 (2003) 8–11, case, Energy Policy 67 (2014) 664–672, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ISSN:03077942. ENPOL.2013.11.054.
[75] P.A. Fokaides, K. Polycarpou, S. Kalogirou, The impact of the implementation [102] M.H. Wahlström, Doing good but not that well? A dilemma for energy
of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive on the European conserving homeowners, Energy Econ. 60 (2016) 197–205, https://doi.org/
building stock: the case of the Cyprus land development corporation, Energy 10.1016/J.ENECO.2016.09.025.
Policy 111 (2017) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.09.009. [103] J.O. Olaussen, A. Oust, J.T. Solstad, Energy performance certificates –
[76] M. Santamouris. Energy Performance of Residential Buildings. London: informing the informed or the indifferent?, Energy Policy 111 (2017) 246–
Routledge. (2005). DOI:10.4324/9781849776059. 254, https://doiorg/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.09.029.
[77] E.G. Dascalaki, C.A. Balaras, A.G. Gaglia, K.G. Droutsa, S. Kontoyiannidis, [104] T. Fleiter, R. Elsland, M. Rehfeldt, J. Steibach, U. Reiter, G. Catenazzi, P. Stabat.
Energy performance of buildings—EPBD in Greece, Energy Policy 45 (2012) Heat Roadmap Europe - Profile of Heating and Cooling Demand in 2015.
469–477, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.02.058. (2017). Retrieved from https://heatroadmap.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/
[78] A. Blumberga, E. Cilinskis, A. Gravelsins, A. Svarckopfa, D. Blumberga, Analysis 03/Brochure_Heating-and-Cooling_web.pdf.
of regulatory instruments promoting building energy efficiency, Energy [105] M.C. Barma, R. Saidur, S.M.A. Rahman, A. Allouhi, B.A. Akash, S.M. Sait, A
Procedia 147 (2018) 258–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. review on boilers energy use, energy savings, and emissions reductions,
EGYPRO.2018.07.090. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 970–983, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[79] S. Sorrell, Reducing energy demand: a review of issues, challenges and RSER.2017.05.187.
approaches, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 74–82, https://doi.org/ [106] S. Kozarcanin, R. Hanna, I. Staffell, R. Gross, G.B. Andresen, Impact of climate
10.1016/J.RSER.2015.03.002. change on the cost-optimal mix of decentralised heat pump and gas boiler
[80] IEA. (2017). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2017. Retrieved from https:// technologies in Europe, Energy Policy 140 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
www.iea.org/reports/tracking-clean-energy-progress-2017. ENPOL.2020.111386 111386.
[81] S. Serrano, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, C. Barreneche, A. Palacios, L.F. Cabeza, Heating [107] E. Ó. Broin, J. Nässén, F. Johnsson. Energy efficiency policies for space heating
and cooling energy trends and drivers in Europe, Energy 119 (2017) 425–434, in EU countries: A panel data analysis for the period 1990–2010. Applied
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2016.12.080. Energy 2015, 150, 211–223. DOI:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.03.063.
[82] Bio Intelligence Service, Ronan, L., & IEEP. (2013). Energy performance [108] J. Kurnitski, A. Saari, T. Kalamees, M. Vuolle, J. Niemelä, T. Tark, Cost optimal
certificates in buildings and their impact on transaction prices and rents in and nearly zero (nZEB) energy performance calculations for residential
selected EU countries. Final Report Prepared for European Commission (DG buildings with REHVA definition for nZEB national implementation, Energy
Energy), (April), 151 (11). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- Build. 43 (11) (2011) 3279–3288, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
content/ET/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32010L0031&from=EN. ENBUILD.2011.08.033.
[83] A. de Ayala, I. Galarraga, J.V. Spadaro, The price of energy efficiency in the [109] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, A multi-stage optimization method for cost-
Spanish housing market, Energy Policy 94 (2016) 16–24, https://doi.org/ optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-
10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.03.032. recast 2010, Energy Build. 56 (2013) 189–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[84] A. Arcipowska, F. Anagnostopoulos, F. Mariottini, S. Kunkel. Energy ENBUILD.2012.08.023.
Performance Certificates Across the EU. A mapping of National Approaches [110] S.P. Corgnati, E. Fabrizio, M. Filippi, V. Monetti, Reference buildings for cost
(Building Performance Institute Europe, Ed.) (2014). Retrieved from http:// optimal analysis: method of definition and application, Appl. Energy 102
bpie.eu/publication/energy-performance-certificates-across-the-eu/. (2013) 983–993, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2012.06.001.
[85] M. Beerepoot, M. Sunikka, The contribution of the EC energy certificate in [111] V. Corrado, I. Ballarini, S. Paduos, Assessment of cost-optimal energy
improving sustainability of the housing stock, Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. performance requirements for the Italian Residential Building Stock, Energy
32 (1) (2005) 21–31, https://doi.org/10.1068/b3118. Procedia 45 (2014) 443–452, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.01.048.
[86] P.T. Davis, J.A. McCord, M. McCord, M. Haran, Modelling the effect of energy [112] P.M. Congedo, C. Baglivo, D. D’Agostino, I. Zacà, Cost-optimal design for
performance certificate rating on property value in the Belfast housing nearly zero energy office buildings located in warm climates, Energy 91
market, Int. J. Housing Markets Anal. 8 (3) (2015) 292–317, https://doi.org/ (2015) 967–982, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.08.078.
10.1108/IJHMA-09-2014-0035. [113] N.G. Sağlam, A.Z. Yılmaz, Progress towards EPBD Recast Targets in Turkey:
[87] B. Hårsman, Z. Daghbashyan, P. Chaudhary, On the quality and impact of application of cost optimality calculations to a residential building, Energy
residential energy performance certificates, Energy Build. 133 (2016) 711– Procedia 78 (2015) 973–978, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2015.11.036.
723, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2016.10.033. [114] C. Becchio, D.G. Ferrando, E. Fregonara, N. Milani, C. Quercia, V. Serra, The cost
[88] R.P. Pascuas, G. Paoletti, R. Lollini, Impact and reliability of EPCs in the real optimal methodology for evaluating the energy retrofit of an ex-industrial
estate market, Energy Procedia 140 (2017) 102–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/ building in Turin, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 1039–1044, https://doi.org/
J.EGYPRO.2017.11.127. 10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2015.11.057.
[89] H. Amecke, The impact of energy performance certificates: a survey of [115] T. Ashrafian, A.Z. Yilmaz, S.P. Corgnati, N. Moazzen, Methodology to define
German home owners, Energy Policy 46 (2012) 4–14, https://doi.org/ cost-optimal level of architectural measures for energy efficient retrofits of
10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.064.
existing detached residential buildings in Turkey, Energy Build. 120 (2016) [139] J. Rosenow, R. Cowart, E. Bayer, M. Fabbri, Assessing the European Union’s
58–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2016.03.074. energy efficiency policy: will the winter package deliver on ‘Efficiency First’?,
[116] A. Brandão de Vasconcelos, M.D. Pinheiro, A. Manso, A. Cabaço, EPBD cost- Energy Res Social Sci. 26 (2017) 72–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
optimal methodology: application to the thermal rehabilitation of the ERSS.2017.01.022.
building envelope of a Portuguese residential reference building, Energy [140] P. Bertoldi, B. Boza-Kiss, Analysis of barriers and drivers for the development
Build. 111 (2016) 12–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2015.11.006. of the ESCO markets in Europe, Energy Policy 107 (2017) 345–355, https://
[117] J. Ortiz, A. Fonseca i Casas, J. Salom, N. Garrido Soriano, P. Fonseca i Casas, doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.023.
Cost-effective analysis for selecting energy efficiency measures for [141] L. Nabitz, S. Hirzel, Transposing the requirements of the energy efficiency
refurbishment of residential buildings in Catalonia, Energy Build. 128 directive on mandatory energy audits for large companies: a policy-cycle-
(2016) 442–457, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2016.06.059. based review of the national implementation in the EU-28 member states,
[118] P. Zangheri, R. Armani, M. Pietrobon, L. Pagliano, Identification of cost- Energy Policy 125 (2019) 548–561, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
optimal and NZEB refurbishment levels for representative climates and ENPOL.2017.12.016.
building typologies across Europe, Energy Effi. 11 (2) (2017) 337–369, [142] J. Malinauskaite, H. Jouhara, L. Ahmad, M. Milani, L. Montorsi, M. Venturelli,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9566-8. Energy efficiency in industry: EU and national policies in Italy and the UK,
[119] J. Karásek, J. Pojar, L. Kaločai, R.S. Heralová, Cost optimum calculation of Energy 172 (2019) 255–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.01.130.
energy efficiency measures in the Czech Republic, Energy Policy 123 (2018) [143] L. Castellazzi, P. Zangheri, D. Paci. Synthesis Report on the assessment of
155–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.08.049. Member States’ building renovation strategies. (2016). DOI:10.2790/557013.
[120] ECOFYS. (2015). Assessment of cost optimal calculations in the context of the [144] L. Castellazzi, P. Zangheri, D. Paci, M. Economiduo, N. Labanca, T., Ribeiro
EPBD (ENER/C3/2013-414) Final report. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ Serrenho, S. Panev, P. Zancanella, J.-S. Broc. Assessment of second long-term
energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Assessment of cost optimal calculations in renovation strategies under the Energy Efficiency Directive. (2019).
the context of the EPBD_Final.pdf. DOI:10.2760/973672.
[121] F. Asdrubali, I. Ballarini, V. Corrado, L. Evangelisti, G. Grazieschi, C. Guattari, [145] C. Sebi, S. Nadel, B. Schlomann, J. Steinbach, Policy strategies for achieving
Energy and environmental payback times for an NZEB retrofit, Build. Environ. large long-term savings from retrofitting existing buildings, Energy Effi. 12
147 (2019) 461–472, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2018.10.047. (1) (2019) 89–105, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9661-5.
[122] E. Annunziata, M. Frey, F. Rizzi, Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: the [146] M.M. Sesana, G. Salvalai, A review on Building Renovation Passport:
state-of-art of National Regulations in Europe, Energy 57 (2013) 125–133, potentialities and barriers on current initiatives, Energy Build. 173 (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2012.11.049. 195–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.05.027.
[123] D. D’Agostino, P. Zangheri, B. Cuniberti, D. Paci, P. Bertoldi. Synthesis Report [147] P. Zangheri, M. Economidou, N. Labanca, Progress in the implementation of
on the National Plans for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs). (2016). the EU Energy Efficiency Directive through the lens of the national annual
DOI:10.2790/659611. reports, Energies 12 (6) (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/en12061107.
[124] D. D’Agostino, P. Zangheri. Development of the NZEBs concept in Member [148] V. Czakó, The leading role of the public sector in energy end-use efficiency in
States: Towards nearly zero energy buildings in Europe. (2016). DOI:10.2788/ the EU: where do we stand?, ECEEE Summer Study Proc (2013) 375–382.
278314. [149] M. Economidou, N. Labanca, L. Castellazzi, T. Serrenho, S. Panev, P. Zancanella,
[125] A. Kylili, P.A. Fokaides, European smart cities: the role of zero energy J.-S. Broc, P. Bertoldi. Assessment of the Second National Energy Efficiency
buildings, Sustain. Cities Soc. 15 (2015) 86–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Action Plans under the Energy Efficiency Directive (2019). DOI:10.2760/
SCS.2014.12.003. 780472.
[126] M. Kapsalaki, V. Leal, M. Santamouris, A methodology for economic efficient [150] L. Castellazzi, P. Bertoldi, M. Economidou. Overcoming the split incentive
design of Net Zero Energy Buildings, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 765–778, barrier in the building sector - Unlocking the energy efficiency potential in
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2012.10.022. the rental & multifamily sectors. (2017). DOI:10.2790/912494.
[127] D. D’Agostino, D. Parker, A framework for the cost-optimal design of nearly [151] M. Economidou, P. Bertoldi, Practices to overcome split incentives in the EU
zero energy buildings (NZEBs) in representative climates across Europe, building stock, ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings, 2015.
Energy 149 (2018) 814–829, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.02.020. [152] M. Economidou, T. Serrenho. Assessment of progress made by Member States
[128] L. Belussi, B. Barozzi, A. Bellazzi, L. Danza, A. Devitofrancesco, C. Fanciulli, M. in relation to Article 19(1) of the Directive 2012/27/EU. (2019). DOI:10.2760/
Ghellere, G. Guazzi, I. Meroni, F. Salamone, F. Scamoni, C. Scrosati, A review of 070440.
performance of zero energy buildings and energy efficiency solutions, J. Build. [153] S. Bird, D. Hernández, Policy options for the split incentive: increasing energy
Eng. 25 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2019.100772 100772. efficiency for low-income renters, Energy Policy 48 (2012) 506–514, https://
[129] P. Chastas, T. Theodosiou, D. Bikas, K. Tsikaloudaki, Integrating embodied doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.05.053.
impact into the context of EPBD recast: an assessment on the cost-optimal [154] L. Castellazzi. Analysis of Member States ’ rules for allocating heating , cooling
levels of nZEBs, Energy Build. 215 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J. and hot water costs in multi- apartment / purpose buildings supplied from
ENBUILD.2020.109863 109863. collective systems Implementation of. In Implementation of EED (Vol. 9).
[130] X. Oregi, P. Hernandez, R. Hernandez, Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for (2017). DOI:10.2760/40665.
environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment [155] C. Fischer, Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving
projects, Energy Build. 136 (2017) 12–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. energy?, Energy Effi 1 (1) (2008) 79–104, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-
ENBUILD.2016.11.057. 008-9009-7.
[131] E. Rodrigues, M.S. Fernandes, N. Soares, Á. Gomes, A.R. Gaspar, J.J. Costa, The [156] E. Zvingilaite, M. Togeby, Impact of Feedback about energy consumption, Ea
potential impact of low thermal transmittance construction on the European Energy Analysis, 2015.
design guidelines of residential buildings, Energy Build. 178 (2018) 379–390, [157] B. Karlin, J.F. Zinger, R. Ford, The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.009. meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 141 (2015) 1205–1227, https://doi.org/10.1037/
[132] S. Attia, P. Eleftheriou, F. Xeni, R. Morlot, C. Ménézo, V. Kostopoulos, M. Betsi, a0039650.
I. Kalaitzoglou, L. Pagliano, M. Cellura, M. Almeida, M. Ferreira, T. Baracu, V. [158] L. Canale, M. Dell’Isola, G. Ficco, T. Cholewa, S. Siggelsten, I. Balen, A
Badescu, R. Crutescu, J.M. Hidalgo-Betanzos, Overview and future challenges comprehensive review on heat accounting and cost allocation in residential
of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) design in Southern Europe, Energy buildings in EU, Energy Build. 202 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Build. 155 (2017) 439–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2017.09.043. ENBUILD.2019.109398 109398.
[133] T. Dunlop, Mind the gap: a social sciences review of energy efficiency, Energy [159] P. Torcellini, S. Pless, M. Deru, D. Crawley. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical
Res. Social Sci. 56 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2019.05.026 Look at the Definition; Preprint. (2006). Retrieved from https://www.
101216. osti.gov/servlets/purl/883663.
[134] C. Lindkvist, A. Karlsson, K. Sørnes, A. Wyckmans, Barriers and challenges in [160] M. Panagiotidou, R.J. Fuller, Progress in ZEBs—a review of definitions, policies
nZEB Projects in Sweden and Norway, Energy Procedia 58 (2014) 199–206, and construction activity Retrieved from Energy Policy 62 (C) (2013) 196–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.10.429. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:enepol:v:62:y:2013:i:c:p:196-206.
[135] C.A. Roulet, B. Anderson, CEN Standards for Implementing the European [161] T. Buso, C. Becchio, S.P. Corgnati, NZEB, cost- and comfort-optimal retrofit
Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings, Proceedings of the PLEA2006 - solutions for an Italian Reference Hotel, Energy Procedia 140 (2017) 217–230,
The 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.11.137.
[136] J. Hogeling, D. van Dijk. More information on the set of CEN standards for the [162] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment
EPBD, P60, The EPBD Buildings Platform. (2008). Retrieved from http://www. (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building
buildup.eu/sites/default/files/P060_EN_EPBD_CEN_March2008_p3031.pdf. sector: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416, https://doi.
[137] J. Hogeling, European Energy Codes for Buildings based on EU-mandate480 to org/10.1016/J.RSER.2013.08.037.
CEN, a historic step forward in harmonising EPB procedures, Retrieved from, [163] R. Azari, N. Abbasabadi, Embodied energy of buildings: a review of data,
Proceedings 8th International Conference Improving Energy Efficiency in methods, challenges, and research trends, Energy Build. 168 (2018) 225–235,
Commercial Buildings, Frankfurt, 2014. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/ https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.03.003.
publication/books/proceedings-8th-international-conference-improving- [164] J. Kneifel, E. O’Rear, D. Webb, C. O’Fallon, An exploration of the relationship
energy-efficiency-commercial-buildings-ieecb-14. between improvements in energy efficiency and life-cycle energy and carbon
[138] D. van Dijk, J. Hogeling, The new EN ISO 52000 family of standards to assess emissions using the BIRDS low-energy residential database, Energy Build.
the energy performance of buildings put in practice, in: E3S Web of 160 (2018) 19–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.030.
Conferences Les Ulis: EDP Sciences, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/ [165] D. D’Agostino, D. Parker, P. Melià, Environmental and economic implications
201911104047. of energy efficiency in new residential buildings: a multi-criteria selection
approach, Energy Strategy Rev. 26 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J. bibliometric analysis, Dev. Built Environ. 3 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ESR.2019.100412 100412. dibe.2020.100010.
[166] P. Konidari, D. Mavrakis, A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate [171] F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the
change mitigation policy instruments, Energy Policy 35 (12) (2007) 6235– built environment - what does the evidence say?, J Environ. Manage. 181
6257, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2007.07.007. (2016) 687–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036.
[167] N. Kohler. PhD thesis number 623, Analyse énergétique de la construction, de [172] M. Economidou, N. Labanca, L. Castellazzi, T. Serrenho, P. Bertoldi, P.
l’utilisation et de la démolition des bâtiments. (1986). Retrieved from https:// Zancanella, P. Daniele, P. Strahil, I. Gabrielaitiene. Assessment of the first
www.epfl.ch/labs/leso/research/pdh-theses/. National Energy Efficiency Action Plans under the Energy Efficiency
[168] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an Directive: Synthesis report. (2016) (2016th ed.; E. 28055 EN, Ed.).
overview, Energy Build. 42 (10) (2010) 1592–1600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. DOI:10.2790/98108.
enbuild.2010.05.007. [173] P. Bertoldi, R. Mosconi, Do energy efficiency policies save energy? A new
[169] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernández-Solís, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Need for an embodied approach based on energy policy indicators (in the EU Member States),
energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper, Renew. Sustain. Energy Policy 139 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111320
Energy Rev. 16 (6) (2012) 3730–3743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 111320.
rser.2012.03.021. [174] D. D’Agostino, L. Mazzarella, What is a Nearly zero energy building?
[170] M. Hu, D. Milner, Visualizing the research of embodied energy and Overview, implementation and comparison of definitions, J. Build. Eng. 21
environmental impact research in the building and construction field: a (2019) 200–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2018.10.019.

Energy & Buildings: M. Economidou, V. Todeschi, P. Bertoldi, D. D'Agostino, P. Zangheri, L. Castellazzi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy & Buildings: M. Economidou, V. Todeschi, P. Bertoldi, D. D'Agostino, P. Zangheri, L. Castellazzi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy & Buildings: M. Economidou, V. Todeschi, P. Bertoldi, D. D'Agostino, P. Zangheri, L. Castellazzi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy & Buildings 225 (2020) 110322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency policies for buildings

⇑ Corresponding author at: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC),

5.3. EPBD 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Type of policy Description Reference

Topic Subtopic No. of Source

3.1. The construction products Directive (CPD)

3.3. The SAVE Directive

Fig. 1. Concept of a NZEB [Source: [174]].

Climate Single family house Office

PL improvement for the countries, attained progressively over a rela-

260 256 257 257

You might also like