MJ0320335ENN en

FINAL REPORT ON THE
TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE

DEVELOPMENT OF A SMART
READINESS INDICATOR FOR
BUILDINGS
Final Report
June 2020
AUTHORS
Stijn Verbeke (VITO)

Dorien Aerts (VITO)
Glenn Reynders (VITO)
Yixiao Ma (VITO)
Paul Waide (WSEE)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Energy

Directorate C - Renewables, Research and Innovation, Energy Efficiency
Unit C4 – Energy Efficiency: Buildings and Products
E-mail: [email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
FINAL REPORT ON THE

TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SMART
READINESS INDICATOR FOR
BUILDINGS
Directorate-General for Energy

Energy Efficiency: Buildings and Products
2020
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you)
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020
EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-19197-1 doi: 10.2833/41100 MJ-03-20-335-EN-N
© European Union, 2020

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study team of the second technical support study wishes to thank the broad
stakeholder community for providing inputs, in particular those stakeholders volunteering
to participate in topical groups A, B and C and individuals participating in the public beta
test. We also wish to thank policy officer Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER) for his supervision
and valuable guidance throughout the project, as well as colleagues of DG ENER and other
EC DG’s who provided their inputs in discussing and reviewing parts of the project
deliverables.
This report builds upon – and contains extracts from – the first technical support study on
the establishment of the SRI. We gratefully acknowledge their contributions into this final
report. Contributors to the first technical support study are: for VITO: Stijn Verbeke, Yixiao
Ma, Paul Van Tichelen, Sarah Bogaert (coordination and management), Virginia Gómez
Oñate; for WAIDE STRATEGIC EFFICIENCY: Paul Waide ; for ECOFYS: Kjell Bettgenhäuser,
John Ashok, Andreas Hermelink, Markus Offermann, Jan Groezinger ; for OFFIS: Mathias
Uslar, Judith Schulte.
Although the persons listed above have provided many constructive comments and
suggestions or contributions in the reporting of the first technical support study, they were
not asked to endorse the final conclusions and/or recommendations. Responsibility for the
final content of this report rests entirely with the authors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Smart technologies in buildings can be a cost-effective means to assist in creating

healthier and more comfortable buildings with a lower energy use and carbon
impact and can also facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources in
future energy systems. One of the focal points of the Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive (EPBD) is to better tap this potential of smart technologies in
the building sector. As part of this focus, the EPBD sets out provisions to establish
a “Smart Readiness Indicator” (SRI) as an instrument for rating the smart
readiness of buildings. This optional common EU scheme will assess the
technological readiness of buildings to interact with their occupants, to interact
with connected energy grids and to operate more efficiently. The aim of the SRI
is to raise awareness of the benefits of smarter building technologies and
functionalities and make their added value more tangible for building users,
owners, tenants, and smart service providers. It seeks to support technology
innovation in the building sector and create an incentive for the integration of
cutting-edge smart technologies in buildings.
The European Commission services (DG ENERGY) commissioned and supervised

two studies with the aim of providing technical support to feed into the discussions
on a common methodology and potential implementation pathways of this
indicator. The outcomes are structured to help guide the establishment of the SRI
by the European Commission and Member States and inform the development of
related delegated and implementing acts, in accordance with the provisions of the
EPBD. A first technical study proposed a definition and draft methodology for the
SRI. The second technical support study has built further on the available
knowledge to deliver the technical inputs needed to refine and finalise the
definition of the SRI and the associated calculation methodology. Both technical
studies have been carried out in close collaboration with the stakeholder
community, e.g. through open consultations, five plenary stakeholder meetings,
surveys, and collection of written feedback on draft reports, and via input received
from three topical stakeholder working groups.
The technical study team has observed a broad consensus among stakeholders
on the key principles and methodological choices of the SRI. A beta version of the
methodology was tested on a voluntary basis during an open public testing phase,
which resulted in 112 assessments being conducted by interested actors across
the EU. This provided confirmation of the viability of the approach and led to
further improvements of the consolidated methodology. Furthermore, the studies
explored various options for the implementation of the SRI in order for the
Commission Services and Member States to be informed of the possible
arrangements for an effective implementation of the SRI scheme and the
associated potential impacts. The EU impact analysis indicates that significant net
beneficial benefits can result from implementing the SRI instrument across the
European Union.
In conclusion, the technical support studies have developed and tested a viable
definition and assessment methodology for the SRI. The proposed approach is
aligned with the objectives set out in the EPBD, produces acceptably consistent
results, can be readily implemented and has been shown to provide useful
information to building users. It has been extensively reviewed and appears to
enjoy broadly-based support across a wide range of stakeholders, suggesting that
it could be an adequate basis to support an effective implementation of the SRI
including, where relevant, further testing at Member State level.
SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 1

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT
1 CONTENTS OF THE SUMMARY
A first technical study to support the establishment of the SRI was launched in March
2017 and conducted by a consortium consisting of VITO NV, Waide Strategic Efficiency,
Ecofys and Offis1. A second technical support study - conducted by a consortium
consisting of VITO NV and Waide Strategic Efficiency Europe - started in December 2018
and concluded in June 2020.
This summary provides a resumé of the main findings and conclusions discussed in the
full report of the second technical support study, which also integrates the outcomes of
the first technical support study. Specifically, this document presents a summary of the
main conclusions concerning:
• a consolidated proposal for the SRI calculation method and its main components,
including the service catalogues of method A and method B
• a proposal of weighting factors for the multi-criteria analysis on impact and domain
level
• suggestions on the SRI assessment procedures
• suggested implementation pathways for the SRI
• findings on SRI formatting and value to the respective users
• an overview of the main interactions with stakeholders and member state
representatives
• results from the EU-level impact analysis of the SRI instrument.
2 WHY A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS

IS NEEDED
There is a clear need to accelerate building renovation investments and leverage smart,
energy-efficient technologies in the building sector across Europe. Smart buildings
integrate cutting edge ICT-based solutions to optimise energy-efficient control of
technical building systems and enable energy flexibility as part of their daily operation.
Such smart capabilities can also effectively assist in creating healthier and more
comfortable buildings, which adjust to the needs of both the user and the energy grid
while reducing building energy consumption and carbon impacts.
A greater uptake of smart technologies is expected to lead to significant, cost-effective

energy savings, while also helping to improve indoor comfort in a manner that enables
the building to adjust to the needs of the user. Smart buildings have also been identified
and acknowledged as key enablers of future energy systems for which there will be a
larger share of renewables, distributed supply, and demand-side energy flexibility.
1
“Support for setting up a Smart Readiness Indicator for buildings and related impact assessment - final
report”; August 2018; Brussels. Authors: VITO: Stijn Verbeke, Yixiao Ma, Paul Van Tichelen, Sarah Bogaert,
Virginia Gómez Oñate; Waide Strategic Efficiency: Paul Waide ; ECOFYS: Kjell Bettgenhäuser, John Ashok,
Andreas Hermelink, Markus Offermann, Jan Groezinger ; OFFIS: Mathias Uslar, Judith Schulte

In the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)2, one of the focal points is
to improve the realisation of this potential of Smart Ready Technologies in the building
sector. Therefore, the revised EPBD requires the development of a voluntary European
scheme for rating the smart readiness of buildings: the “Smart Readiness
Indicator” (SRI). The SRI aims to make the added value of building smartness more
tangible for building users, owners, tenants, and smart service providers. The present
technical study was commissioned to support the development of this indicator.
Figure 1 – Expected advantages of smart technologies in buildings
The SRI-scheme is intended to raise awareness about the benefits of smart buildings -
in particular from an energy perspective - and thereby stimulate investments in smart
building technologies and support the uptake of technology innovation in the
building sector. It is also within the scope of the SRI to enhance synergies between
energy, buildings and other policy segments, in particular in the ICT area, and through
this contribute to cross-sectorial integration of the buildings sector into future energy
systems and markets.
In this work, the following definition of smartness of a building is used:
“
Smartness of a building refers to the ability of a building or its
systems to sense, interpret, communicate and actively
respond in an efficient manner to changing conditions in
relation to the operation of technical building systems or the
external environment (including energy grids) and to demands
”
from building occupants.
2
Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/844.

A Smart Readiness Indicator for buildings therefore provides information on the
technological readiness of buildings to interact with their occupants and the energy grids,
and on their capabilities for more efficient operation and improved performance through
using ICT technologies.
For building occupants, owners and investors of both existing and new buildings, the SRI
is designed to provide information on the smart services the building could deliver.
Valuable information on the smartness level of the building - and potential improvements
- could steer investment decisions. A transition towards ‘smarter’ buildings will induce
multiple benefits to the users of the buildings, such as better energy efficiency, health
and wellbeing, comfort and convenience. Facility managers will also be an important
audience for the SRI as they may operate the smart systems and may influence the
investment decisions. The other important audience for the SRI will be service providers,
including network operators, manufacturers of technical building systems, design and
engineering companies and many others. The SRI can help them to organise and position
their service offering by providing a neutral and common framework wherein the
capability of their smart services can be directly compared with those of their competitors
including the incumbent non-smart services.
By providing a common language for all main stakeholders, the SRI can help boost the
market uptake of smart ready technologies through the establishment of a credible and
integrated instrument.
Figure 2 – Three key functionalities of smart readiness in buildings

3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT STUDIES
3.1 OUTCOMES FROM THE FIRST TECHNICAL STUDY
The first technical support study proposed an SRI methodology according to a set of
guiding principles (see list below) and implemented via inspection of the ‘smart ready
services’ available in a building. Such services are enabled by (a combination of) smart
ready technologies, but defined in a technologically neutral way, e.g. the ability to
“control the power of artificial lighting”. The SRI assessment procedure is based on the
establishment of an inventory of the smart ready services which could be available in a
building and an evaluation of the functionalities they can offer. Each of the services can
be implemented with various degrees of smartness, referred to as ‘functionality levels’.
In the example of lighting control this can range from the simple implementation of
“manual on/off control of lighting” to more elaborate control methods such as “automatic
on/off switching of lighting based on daylight availability”, or even “automatic dimming
of lighting based on daylight availability”.
The services within a building operate in multiple domains (e.g. heating, lighting, electric
vehicle charging, etc.), inducing various kinds of impacts (e.g. energy savings, comfort
improvement, flexibility towards the energy grid, etc.). To cope with this multitude of
domains and impact categories, a multi-criteria assessment method was proposed
and developed as the underlying methodology for calculating the smart readiness
indicator.
The methodology is flexible with regard to the choice of assessment method, e.g. through
on site-inspections by external SRI assessors, self-assessment by building owners, a
blend of checklists and self-reporting by intelligent equipment, etc. To demonstrate the
methodology, two in-field case studies were carried out. These follow a simple checklist
process filled-in by third-party assessors who made site visits to the premises to conduct
the SRI assessments and compute the scores.
Principles which have guided the development of the SRI methodology
The SRI:
• Creates a technology-neutral level playing field for market actors through the
definition of functional capability rather than the prescription of certain
technological solutions.
• Is consistent with the goal of having a simple, expressive, and easy to grasp
indicator which conveys transparent and tangible information.
• Balances the desire for a sufficiently detailed and reliable assessment with the
desire to limit the time and cost requirements of assessing the smartness of a
building.
• Allows for the incorporation of multiple distinct domains (e.g. both heating
services as well as electric vehicle charging capabilities, etc.) and multiple distinct
impact categories (e.g. energy efficiency, energy flexibility and provision of
information to occupants, etc.).
• Is designed to be able to adapt to relevant contextual factors, which include
variations by building type, climate, culture, and the collective impact these have
on the demand for certain services.
• Is flexible enough to allow regular updates to support innovation in line with the
rapidly changing landscape of policies and commercially available services.

3.2 STRONG INVOLVEMENT OF EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDERS
During both technical support studies, the consortium partners have conducted extensive
consultations of relevant stakeholders in an open and inclusive process. The feedback
gathered has informed and deepened the analysis being undertaken and helped to build
awareness and consensus over both the project aims and the most viable approaches to
realise them.
During the technical studies, the dissemination and written consultation open to the
public was managed via a public website3. The draft reports, interim deliverables and
other relevant documents have been published regularly. At the end of the second
technical support study, 813 people were registered as stakeholders and signed up to
receiving updates. In total, five large plenary stakeholder consultation meetings were
organised, with an average attendance of over 80 stakeholders in Brussels as well as the
numerous stakeholders who followed the web-stream.
During the second technical support study, three dedicated thematic stakeholder working
groups were set up specifically to enter into in-depth discussions with compact and well-
balanced expert groups of approximately 30 members, representing different sector
organisations and Member States, as follows:
• topical group A focused on the SRI value proposition and implementation

• topical group B focused on the consolidation of the SRI methodological framework,
including the selection of services and the definition of weighting factors and impacts
• topical Group C was added in autumn 2019 and focusses on future developments of
the SRI.
Both study teams have set up structured surveys to request feedback on interim
deliverables. In addition, the Commission’s DG Energy set up a targeted consultation on
its website, to collect further feedback from stakeholders on some key issues related to
the SRI. This consultation opened from 9 August 2019 to 11 October 2019. The
consultation resulted in the collection of detailed feedback from 93 respondents located
in 21 countries. This feedback was processed by the study team to inform the
developments on the SRI methodology and implementation pathways.
Furthermore, 55 position papers were sent in by stakeholders and analysed and

processed by the study teams. These position papers covered a wide set of topics,
ranging from a general appreciation of the SRI concept to feedback on very specific
technical suggestions.
Finally, stakeholders were also given the opportunity to test a draft version of the SRI
calculation framework on buildings of their choice. In total, 112 complete and unique
calculation sheets were received, constituting a rich source of information to assess the
viability of the approach and finetune the proposed SRI methodology.
3
This website was set up for the purpose of the study and is bound to be taken offline when this summary and
related report are published by the Commission.

Main conclusions drawn from the public SRI beta testing
• During the public testing, 112 assessments were performed, covering 81 unique
buildings from 21 member states. For 31 buildings, both the simplified methods A and
the more detailed method B were applied to the same building.
• Based on the analysis of the calculation sheets and the received feedback, the study
team concludes that the SRI calculation methodology is generally well-received.
Results were generally in line with the expectations, and the results were found to be
insightful. The formatting and communication on the SRI will play an important role in
creating a reference frame for the results. Additional (default) recommendations could
strengthen the role of the SRI as an informative tool.
• It is concluded that objectively the results for both methods A and B are generally well-
aligned. Furthermore, issues of comparability will not likely arise since in practice only
one of the two methods would be applied to a given building. Nevertheless, both service
catalogues were updated to harmonize the methods. It is suggested to include a clear
reference to the method used in the communication on the SRI of a particular building.
• From a practical perspective, the assessment typically took less than one hour for
method A, whereas most assessments with method B did not take more than 4 hours.
This is in line with the expectations. In general, sufficient information was available to
perform the assessment. To facilitate the assessment, the guidance document should
include more detailed definitions of the functionality levels and provide additional
examples or guidelines for complex systems. The role of the facility manager as a
source of information was highlighted.

4 IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS OF THE SRI SCHEME
4.1 IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS
When considering the implementation of the SRI it is important to recognise that there
is a tension between the notion of a centrally managed and coordinated SRI and that of
subsidiarity where each EU Member State may seek to implement the SRI as they see
fit. The legal framework for the SRI in the EPBD clearly sets out the applicable legal basis,
so this is beyond discussion, however, practically, it is still important to consider the
implications for the efficacy of the SRI of a more or less harmonised methodology. While
the methodology needs to be flexible enough to adequately reflect local specificities such
as climatic and building type variations it also needs to be sufficiently unified for it to
leverage the power of the Single Market for goods and services. In particular, this implies
an approach which is common in the manner in which the smart functionalities of goods
and services are classified so that their providers can position their offers in a common
way across the Single Market and avoid the need (and associated extra cost) of
developing separate offers for each local implementation of the SRI. The discussion of
implementation, beginning with the prospective pathways, builds on this understanding
of the necessary trade-offs between harmonised and locally flexible approaches.
The investigation of the prospective pathways for the effective implementation of the SRI
in the EU involved the following three elements:
• identification of the schemes and initiatives on which the SRI could build on, or
connect to, to facilitate its implementation
• identification and analysis of the potential options for implementing the SRI at EU-
level and at Member States-level
• definition of a set of robust and flexible implementation pathways for the roll-out of
the SRI in the EU.
4.1.1 RELEVANT SCHEMES FOR THE SRI TO BUILD ON
An extensive review was conducted of available schemes at both EU and national level
that the SRI could connect to (e.g. Energy Performance Certificate schemes). One of the
key factors to assess with regard to the schemes reviewed was to evaluate how they
have set about building engagement and stimulating adoption, which will be one of the
key success factors for the SRI. The study team undertook a structured analysis of the
barriers to adoption that these schemes (and the SRI) confront and the mechanisms they
have used to overcome them. Their relative success in doing so has been to derive
relevant lessons for the implementation of the SRI. In so doing it is recognised that
engagement rates are related to the inherent value propositions of the initiatives and the
legal frameworks that apply to them and so these have been considered too.

4.1.2 OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SRI AT EU-LEVEL AND AT MEMBER
STATES-LEVEL
The identification and analysis of the possible options for implementing the SRI at EU-
level and at Member State-level involved the examination of equivalent frameworks as
possible templates for the SRI’s adoption. In principle, the SRI’s governance will require
a final decision-making body, supported by technical group(s) with mechanisms for
stakeholder input.
Some models of other initiatives which are instructive for the SRI’s governance include
the Ecolabelling scheme, and CEN/CENELEC standardisation bodies. Each of these
initiatives involves oversight, review and maintenance and incorporates Member State
representation with technical support just as the SRI will need to. However, the explicit
governance structure that will best suit the needs of the SRI will need to be formally
linked to the EPBD’s governance and also needs to combine routine review and
maintenance functions, with the ability to respond quickly to potentially rapid
innovations. This last aspect implies the possible relevance to have a fast track decision
making pathway in addition to the conventional review and maintenance functions.
4.1.3 DEFINITION OF A SET OF ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS

FOR THE ROLL-OUT OF THE SRI
The definition of a set of robust and flexible implementation pathways for the roll-out of
the SRI in the EU entailed extensive consultation with SRI stakeholders, including regular
physical or virtual meetings with the Topical Group A concerned with SRI value
proposition and implementation.
This consultation process led to the development of the following set of potential
implementation pathways:
A. linkage of the SRI to the EPC (energy performance certificate) (potentially in a

mandatory way) so an assessment would be offered each time an EPC is conducted
B. linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each time a new
build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement
C. a market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line
tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it
D. as option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidised, by the state
and/or utilities seeking to roll out flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and
self-generation measures
E. linkage to the BACS (building automation and controls systems) and TBS deployment
trigger points in Articles 8, 14 & 15 in the EPBD
F. linkages of the roll-out of smart meters
G. a mosaic of the above noting that Member States have subsidiarity in how they may
choose to implement the SRI, so they could choose any of these options – also
combinations of A/B/C/D/E/F are possible within any single Member State.

In the case of option E, the trigger points in the recast EPBD include:
• Article 8 provisions regarding the installation, upgrade, and replacement of technical

building systems (TBS) and measures to encourage the deployment of automatic
temperature regulation and zoning
• Articles 14 (heating inspections) and 15 (cooling inspections) which require all non-
residential buildings with equivalent rated capacity > 290 kW to have BACS by 2025.
In principle, SRI deployment could be linked to any one or all of these trigger points.
In reflecting on these it is first important to appreciate that the SRI is expected to exert
an influence on the market adoption of smart services and technologies through:
• a “market pull” impact of SRI assessments on property investment decisions that

encourages the adoption of SRTs
• a “market push” impact of SRT and service providers self-organizing and promoting
their service offers in line with the SRI criteria.
The market pull effect is driven by the impact that SRI assessments on properties have
on the deployment of smart services and technologies, through raising awareness among
stakeholders in the value chain at the property level. In this regard its impact could be
expected to be rather similar to the impact effect associated with EPCs on building energy
performance. The SRI impact is rather broader than the EPC’s, however, because it also
provides a common organisational framework within which the purveyors of smart
technologies and services can identify and market the functionality and value proposition
of their product and service offerings on a common basis across the EU. This “market
push” effect will often operate at the Single Market level and hence has more in common
with the organisational impacts of say, Ecodesign information requirements, than is the
case of EPCs.
The duality of the SRI in this regard is important to appreciate because it implies that at
one level (the push level) it needs to operate as a harmonised EU-level scheme to
maximise impact whereas at the other level (the pull level) it could follow the same
subsidiarity rationale as is applied to EPCs. Nonetheless, the leading implementation
pathways mapped out above are necessarily all orientated to the pull level because they
address how Member States could choose to implement the SRI. In this context option C
would appear to be a common, lowest, dominator because it implies an entirely voluntary
engagement with the SRI that in principle could be served by a common EU platform (an
on-line SRI assessment and information tool made available in all EU languages). Member
states and interested market actors could potentially choose to promote this in whatever
way suits their concerns and the Commission could support this by the creation of a
common interactive platform; however, while such a platform would provide value to any
implementation pathway option C gives the least stimulus to SRI assessment and hence
is the most passive pathway.

4.2 FORMAT OF THE SRI
4.2.1 APPROPRIATE FORMAT
The determination of the most appropriate format that the SRI should take needed to
consider factors such as:
▪ Should the SRI be presented in the form of a physical certificate, as a virtual

certificate, as a label, or in some other way?
▪ What information is to be conveyed? SRI scores, guidance on improvement
options, or both?
▪ Should the format vary as a function of the target audience e.g. facility managers,
building occupiers, and building owners?
▪ Should the format vary as a function of the building type e.g. non-residential
(medium-large), non-residential (small), and residential?
▪ What scoring information should be presented? An aggregate overall score or
rating, smartness scores for each impact criterion (e.g. energy, flexibility, etc.),
smartness scores for each domain (e.g. heating, cooling, lighting etc.),
combinations of, or all, of the above?
To help answer these questions an extensive stakeholder consultation process was

undertaken. From this the following observations can be made. The most appropriate
form of the SRI could depend on the implementation pathway and target audience – but
it is likely that some blend of a physical and virtual certificate/platform would add most
value. In principle, a virtual platform could be structured in hierarchical layers permitting
users to assess the information they are interested in at the level they are interested in
and thus could accommodate a spectrum of needs and interests. This can also support
transparency which is important for the scheme’s integrity. A physical certificate, if it is
assessed by a third party, is also useful as it allows the ratings to be readily
demonstrated. Most stakeholders surveyed favour allowing the SRI rating (scoring)
information to be presented at both the sub-score level (e.g. at the impact criteria and
domain level) and the overall level (a whole building rating). Most stakeholders would
prefer that improvement guidance be included.
4.2.2 SRI LOGO AND DESIGN
From a design and communication perspective there is another discussion about whether,
or not, the SRI should make use of mnemonics and/or a logo to support communication
and branding. Mnemonics are used to simplify the processing and retention of
information. The most famous example in the energy sector is the energy label that ranks
appliance efficiency from A to G and is reinforced by colour coding (Green to Red). Other
examples of mnemonics used to simplify rankings are the number of stars e.g. a 5-star
hotel. Stakeholders have been asked if:
• mnemonics should be used for the SRI? And does the answer depend on the target
audience?
• mnemonics should be used in combination with numerical scores or as a replacement?
• Some form of A to G and/or colour-coded mnemonic should be an option, or does it
risk confusion vis a vis energy labelling and EPCs?
• other mnemonic scales could/should be considered?

To help answer these questions a professional graphic designer was hired to develop a
set of trial SRI design concepts which were subsequently tested in consumer focus groups
held in Madrid and Budapest. The designs combined a blend of the following:
• conventional logos
• simple mnemonics which apply a single simple mnemonic scoring system to convey
the aggregate performance (e.g. Figure 3)
• more complex, tri-partite mnemonics which apply a mnemonic scoring system for
each of the three pillars mentioned in the EPBD text and also for an aggregate score
(e.g. Figure 4)
• a comprehensive scoring matrix that includes scores per domain and per impact
criterion as well as aggregate scores per impact criterion and the overall SRI
aggregate score (Figure 5).
To test the SRI concepts consumer focus groups with a representative set of members
of the public were conducted in Madrid and Budapest by a professional market research
company (Kantar Millward Brown) and WSEE in state-of-the-art market research
premises using professional moderators and best practice methods.
Example 10A Example 10D
Figure 3 – Examples of single mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score and/or rank
Example 20A Example 20E
Figure 4 – Examples of Tri-partite mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score/rank and sub-
score/ranks for the three SRI “pillars”

Figure 5 – Matrix showing SRI scores by domain and impact criterion, aggregate scores per
impact criterion and the overall SRI score
4.2.3 DATA MANAGEMENT AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
The importance of ensuring data protection and confidentiality has been highlighted as a
critical factor that would severely weaken the SRI were it to compromise these factors.
GDPR requirements therefore need to be respected as a minimum, including ensuring
that only legally mandated actors should have access to the SRI information pertaining
to any specific property.
It is equally essential that SRI assessments should not cause any increase in
cybersecurity risk and that if/where possible the SRI should be structured to enable
information on the cybersecurity status of the smart services and devices being assessed
to be reported to the SRI recipient. As it will not be actionable to have an on-site
inspection of cybersecurity aspects, the SRI will have to rely on other data sources, e.g.
the EU’s voluntary cyber-security label which might become available for specific TBSs
used within buildings in the future. This could feature on the SRI and its accompanying
documents as additional information in addition to other relevant information such as the
EC broadband-ready label4 of a building when this information is available from trusted
sources.
Additionally, the SRI or accompanying documents could also feature information on the
cross-cutting issues of interoperability. It is suggested to take interoperability inexplicitly
into account in some of the services which deal with interaction of various systems (e.g.
the provision of preventing simultaneous heating and cooling in building zones requires
some form of interoperability). Optionally, the SRI and its accompanying documents
could report on the standards and communication protocols used by the technical building
systems, or introduce a simplified metric to indicate interoperability for each of the
technical domains. The latter is likely to be more of a longer-term objective than a near
term reality, as currently it is particularly challenging to determine the interoperability
status of technologies from on-site (or other) assessment.
4
See Article 8 of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures
to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks.

STUDY TEAM CONCLUSIONS ON FORMATTING
• An SRI format that combines a mnemonic graphic design such as those shown
in Figure 3 or Figure 4 at the top with the matrix shown in Figure 5 somewhere
beneath would seem to be viable and address most users’ needs – it seems to
work well for consumers and professional users. This would combine a whole
building score and ranking (which many users have indicated is important) with
the detailed information on the scores by domain and impact criterion in a
manner that is readily accessible. It would also ensure that users can see how
the whole score is comprised from the sub-scores and provide the richness of
information that many users desire without putting off those that simply want
a whole-building score/ranking. The mnemonic ranking complements the
percentage score as it gives a more easily retainable and comparable reference.
It is suggested to use this approach for all building types and user segments.
• With regard to the set of media used to such an approach (i.e. a top-line
mnemonic ranking/score with a matrix of sub-scores beneath) could be
presented via a certificate and/or report with the option to access more details
through an on-line tool. Such a tool could be accessible via a QR code and/or
weblink and could potentially include the option for the user to enter (and/or
retrieve) their building details so they could examine how they could improve
its smart readiness in detail. The on-line tool could combine the functionalities
of: explaining the SRI purpose and calculation to users; explain the higher
levels of SRT functionality that are available and their benefits; and being able
to calculate SRI scores from raw input data while allowing users to see how
improved SRTs would improve their building’s overall score and sub-scores.
• The use of an on-line platform would provide a solid and flexible foundation for
the SRI’s informational needs and be most responsive to the range of user
needs. It could help to: facilitate SRI assessment, enable interactive
determination of the impact of prospective changes in a building’s smartness,
manage evolutions in the SRI, manage evolutions in the data for any specific
property, support data exchange with other service platforms whenever
appropriate permissions are granted. Critically, the use of such a platform, if
arranged to be in a navigable hierarchical manner, would avoid the need for
the scheme to have to present the information in a single condensed format
based on assumptions about user needs, as users would be able to readily find
the information they are most interested in.
• Whatever media and graphic design format is chosen it will be important to

ensure that additional explanation is provided which clearly clarifies what it
does and does not address if confidence in the scheme is to be established and
to protect it from accusations of being misleading. Distinct versions, where
calculation methods have evolved, will need to be clearly communicated.
• There seems to be no obstacle in terms of user comprehension or perception

to integrating the SRI within an EPC or to implementing them jointly. The same
is probably true of other building rating, labelling or certification schemes.
• There seems to be no obstacle to using a common EU graphical design format

for the SRI providing text used within it, such as in the matrix of Figure 5, can
be communicated in the local language. It is probably acceptable to use the
English acronym SRI as part of a common EU brand providing there is
explanation of what the scheme is about offered in the local language.
• Information on cybersecurity and interoperability can be communicated

together with the SRI and its accompanying documents. Some elements of
interoperability are also implicitly integrated in the SRI calculation
methodology, thus attributing to the overall score.

4.3 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The assessment time is strongly linked to the degree of complexity of the SRI definition.
At least two different SRI assessment types could be envisioned: a light version with a
limited set of services and a detailed version. Differentiating between a light version and
a detailed version would allow the costs to be brought down for simple buildings, which
in turn could increase the uptake. At the same time, the detailed version would permit
validation of the added value of advanced systems in complex buildings. On the
downside, differentiation may bring confusion, which could hamper the communication
of the SRI. Finally, there is also a demand amongst certain stakeholders to take the SRI
a step further by basing it on actual performance data of in-use buildings. From
consideration of these aspects, the study team has investigated the three potential SRI
assessment methods depicted below:
Figure 6 - Three potential assessment methods
• Method A could be a simplified quick scan, focusing mainly on residential buildings

and small non-residential buildings. The method could be based on a check-list
approach with a limited or simplified services list. It could be a fast method, taking
less than one hour for a single-family home. The method could allow (online) self-
assessment in addition to a formal third-party expert assessment. Only a third-party
expert assessment would issue a formal certification.
• Method B could be a detailed SRI assessment, focusing mainly on non-residential
buildings. The assessment could take ½ day to 1 day, depending on the size and
complexity of the building. By default, it would require an on-site inspection by a
third-party qualified expert. The method could potentially allow self-assessment by a
non-independent expert (e.g. facility manager). Only a third-party expert assessment
would issue a formal certification.
• Method C could be a metered/measured method. In the long run, Technical Building
Systems (TBS)/ Building Automation and Control Systems (BACS) might be able to
self-report functionality levels, assisting methods A and B. Method C goes beyond
this, and quantifies the actual performance of in-use buildings. Method C will require

benchmarking to assess how much savings, flexibility, comfort improvements, etc.
are delivered as a result of smart technologies. Alternatively, the scope could be
broadened beyond the scope of the current SRI to become an assessment of actual
performance, rather than solely focusing on smart controls. Method C is currently
considered to be a potential future evolution of a certification approach for a
commissioned building. Many practical and legal implications would hamper a fast
roll-out. Therefore, it will not be treated in detail in this technical study but rather
considered as a potential future evolution of the SRI.
Transparent processes will be needed to support the evolution of the SRI once it is
established. The SRI method may need to be adapted over time to include additional
domains, services, functionality levels or impact categories. Transparent frameworks and
procedures will have to be defined and set up to manage this process in close interaction
with relevant stakeholders.
As the SRI scheme becomes more established, it may evolve into a more sophisticated
and less intrusive - thus less costly - assessment process(es). Potential options for this
could include the use of Building Information Models (BIM) to facilitate the assessment
process, self-reporting of smartness by BACS and the emergence of some form of
standardised labelling on (packages of) smart-ready products. The full report discusses
several important considerations that should be addressed in the implementation of the
SRI scheme or could assist in a practical assessment on-site.
The SRI assessment can be linked to other assessment schemes and voluntary labels.
This approach could potentially allow engagement of voluntary schemes introduced by
some industry and service sectors that go into greater depth for specific smart services.
Potential linkages to various schemes and initiatives are discussed in the full report.
The full report also discusses various approaches to deal with smart services that are
only present in a part of the building. By introducing inspection thresholds or defining
representative rooms in a building, the assessment efforts can be reduced significantly.

CONSOLIDATED APPROACH ON THE SRI ASSESSMENT METHODS
• There is strong stakeholder support for distinguishing between a simplified

approach (Method A) and a detailed approach (Method B). Method A, the
simplified method, is mainly oriented towards small buildings with low
complexity (single family homes, small multi-family homes, small non-
residential buildings, etc.). The checklist method could be made accessible for
non-experts, such as individual homeowners. Method B, the detailed method,
is oriented towards buildings with a higher complexity (typically large non-
residential buildings, potentially large multi-family homes).
• While in principle Method B is mainly oriented to more complex buildings, there

is a greater richness of information in Method B and hence the study team are
of the view that it should always be presented as an option even for building
segments where Method A is the more common choice. Nonetheless, the
manner in which this is executed would naturally be dependent on the
implementation pathway adopted by each implementing authority.
• To support this approach, two separate service catalogues have been developed
by the study team in consultation with the stakeholder community: a simplified
service catalogue A and a detailed service catalogue B. Both methods have
been subject to the public beta test which led to further finetuning and
harmonisation of both methods. The consolidated service catalogues are
distributed as annex C and annex D of the full report.
• For either method self-assessment could be made available. In this case it

should be strictly framed as an informative tool that does not issue a formal
certificate.
• The SRI needs to be a dynamic instrument. Within the framework of the current
method, elements such as smart ready services and their scores and
functionality levels will need to be adapted over time to keep in line with
innovations available on the market. Furthermore, novel assessment methods
(e.g. focussing on actual in-use performance) could be introduced. Various
initial options for future evolutions of the SRI scheme have been canvassed and
discussed with the dedicated topical stakeholder group C. While the outcomes
of the technical support study mainly focused on an actionable first version of
the SRI which can readily be implemented, the study team suggests that in
parallel a process is set-up to discuss and facilitate future updates to the SRI
in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders and Member States.

5 TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SRI SCHEME
5.1 THE CATALOGUES OF SMART READY SERVICES
The proposed SRI methodology builds on the assessment of the smart ready services
present in a building. Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready
technologies, but are defined in a technology neutral way, e.g. ‘provision of temperature
control in a room’. To support this, two catalogues of smart ready services has been
compiled: a detailed method (method B) and a simplified method (method A). Each
catalogue lists the relevant services and describes their main expected impacts towards
building users and the energy grid. Many of these services are based on international
technical standards. In accordance with the requirements from the revised EPBD, three
key functionalities of smart readiness in buildings have been taken into account when
defining the smart ready services in the SRI catalogue:
1. The ability to maintain energy efficiency performance and operation of the

building through the adaptation of energy consumption - for example through use
of energy from renewable sources.
2. The ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the
occupant, paying due attention to the availability of user-friendliness,
maintaining healthy indoor climate conditions and ability to report on energy use.
3. The flexibility of a building's overall electricity demand, including its ability

to enable participation in active and passive as well as implicit and explicit
demand-response, in relation to the grid, for example through flexibility and load
shifting capacities.
Figure 7 – Domains structuring the SRI catalogue
In the SRI service catalogues developed, services are structured within nine domains:
heating, cooling, domestic hot water, controlled ventilation, lighting, dynamic building
envelope, electricity, electric vehicle charging and monitoring and control.
The detailed service catalogue (method B) and the simplified service catalogue (method
A) have been thoroughly reviewed based on various stakeholder feedback, a review
session with members of Topical Group B and feedback from the public beta testing. The
final consolidated proposal for a detailed service catalogue (method B) consists of 54
services, the simplified (method A) of 27.

For each of the services, 2 to 5 functionality levels are defined. A higher functionality
level reflects a “smarter” implementation of the service, which generally provides more
beneficial impacts to building users or to the grid compared to services implemented at
a lower functionality level. The functionality levels are expressed as ordinal numbers,
implying that ranks cannot be readily compared quantitatively from one service to
another.
5.2 IMPACT SCORES OF SMART READY SERVICES
A smart ready service can provide several impacts to the building, its users and the
energy grid. In the proposed approach, a set of seven impact criteria is evaluated, but
scores can potentially be aggregated along the three key functionalities mentioned in the
EPBD.
Figure 8 – Smart service impact criteria
The impact criteria are:
• Energy savings on site

This impact category refers to the impacts of the smart ready services on energy saving
capabilities. It is not the whole energy performance of buildings that is considered, but only
the contribution made to this by smart ready technologies, e.g. resulting from better control
of room temperature settings.
• Flexibility for the grid and storage
This impact category refers to the impacts of services on the energy flexibility potential of
the building. The study proposes to not solely focus on electricity grids, but also include
flexibility offered to district heating and cooling grids.
• Comfort
This impact category refers to the impacts of services on occupant’s comfort. Comfort refers
to conscious and unconscious perception of the physical environment, including thermal
comfort, acoustic comfort and visual performance (e.g. provision of sufficient lighting levels
without glare).
• Convenience
This impact category refers to the impacts of services on convenience for occupants, i.e. the
extent to which services “make life easier” for the occupant, e.g. TBS requiring fewer manual
interactions.
• Well-being and health
This impact category refers to the impacts of services on the well-being and health of
occupants. For instance, smarter controls can deliver an improved indoor air quality
compared to traditional controls, thus raising occupants’ well-being, with a commensurate
impact on their health.

• Maintenance and fault prediction
Automated fault detection and diagnosis has the potential to significantly improve
maintenance and operation of technical building systems. It also has potential impacts on
the energy performance of the technical building systems by detecting and diagnosing
inefficient operation.
• Information to occupants
This impact category refers to the impacts of services on the provision of information on
building operation to occupants.
Figure 9 – Matrix displaying the impact scores for the seven impact categories of a fictitious
"service A". Functionality level 2 is assumed to be present in the building, which has the following
impact scores listed: “2” for energy savings, “2” for flexibility and storage, “2” for comfort, etc.
For each of the smart ready services in the catalogue, provisional impact scores have
been defined for their respective functionality levels according to a seven-level ordinal
scale. While most of the impacts are positive, the scale also provides the opportunity to
ascribe negative impacts.
Figure 10 – Proposed structure of domains and impacts criteria

5.3 MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT METHOD
Under the proposed SRI methodology, the smart readiness score of a building is a
percentage that expresses how close (or far) the building is to maximal smart readiness.
The higher the percentage is, the smarter the building. The percentage can also be
converted to another indicator, e.g. star rating or alphabetical score (A, B, C, etc.). This
has been further tested through the development of graphical designs and market
surveying with selected consumer focus groups.
An aggregated score can be derived as follows:
• The process starts with the assessment of individual smart ready services.
Services available in the building are inspected and their functionality level is
determined. For each service, this leads to an impact score being ascribed for
each of the impact criteria considered in the methodology.
• Once all these individual services impact scores are known, an aggregated impact
score is calculated for each of the domains considered in the methodology. This
domain impact score is calculated as the ratio (expressed as a percentage)
between individual scores of the domains’ services and theoretical maximum
individual scores.
• For each impact criterion, a total impact score is then calculated as a weighted
sum of the domain impact scores. In this calculation, the weight of a given domain
will depend on its relative importance for the considered impact.
Figure 11 - The domain score is based on the individual scores for each of the services that are
relevant for this domain
The SRI score is thus based on a weighted sum of the 7 total impact scores. In this multi-
criteria assessment, the weighting factors can be attributed to both domains and
impact criteria to reflect their relative contributions to an aggregated overall impact
score. An aggregated SRI score indicates the overall smartness level of the building, while
sub-scores allow to assess specific domains and impact categories. Conceptually, three
approaches for the derivation of the domain and service level weighting factors can be
envisioned: equal weighting, predicted impact approach and energy balance approach.
The weighting factors for domains will be derived from an energy balance whenever
possible. This approach reflects the differences in relative importance with respect to
regional differences. By using weightings from an energy balance, the heating domain
would gain importance in northern areas of Europe, whereas the relative importance of
the cooling domain would increase in southern areas of Europe. For those domains where
no direct link with an energy balance can be made (e.g. monitoring & control, dynamic
building envelope), a weighting factor can be defined based on the estimated impact of

that domain. The methodology also foresees a differentiation in weighting factors for the
individual impact criteria.
The proposed methodology provides default weighting factors which are differentiated by
building type and climate zone. Figure 12 and Figure 13 provide an overview of the
proposed weighting scheme which consist of a blend of fixed weights, equal weights, and
energy balance weights, depending on domain and impact.
Figure 12 – Overview of the weighting scheme
Figure 13 – Aggregation of impact scores to three key functionalities or to a single score

CONSOLIDATED PROPOSAL ON WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR SERVICES
AND DOMAINS
• Based on the input from stakeholders, the study team has developed a hybrid
approach for the derivation of the weighting factors. The methodology defines
a weighting scheme with three types of weighting factors: fixed weights, equal
weights, and energy balance weights. The methodology includes the option to
use building-specific energy balance data whenever available (for instance from
an EPC calculation).
• The proposal allows flexibility regarding the communication of results at the

two aggregation levels. The study team has investigated ways to efficiently
communicate these impact criteria, aiming to balance clarity and conciseness.
Information on cybersecurity and interoperability can be communicated
together with the SRI and its accompanying documents. Some elements of
interoperability are also implicitly integrated in the SRI calculation
methodology, thus attributing to the overall score.

5.4 NORMALISATION OF SRI SCORE AND TRIAGE PROCESS TO SELECT THE
APPLICABLE SERVICES
The proposed SRI methodology provides a flexible and modular framework. The
applicability of the SRI methodology is likely to vary depending on specific circumstances
(building type, climate, site specific conditions, etc.). Local and site-specific context will
mean that some domains, services and service levels are either not relevant, not
applicable, or not desirable and thus the SRI needs to be flexible enough to accommodate
this. The maximum nominal impact score is not simply the sum of the impacts of the
services listed in the streamlined SRI catalogue. It is highly likely that due to local and
site-specific context some domains and services are either not relevant, not applicable,
or not desirable. The SRI methodology accommodates this by performing a triage
process to identify the relevant services for a specific building.
It may be that some domains are not relevant, e.g. some buildings might not be able to
provide parking (and hence electric vehicle charging facilities) and some residential
buildings might not need cooling. Furthermore, some of the services are only applicable
if certain technical building systems are present, e.g. a storage vessel for domestic hot
water or a heat recovery ventilation unit. Also, some services may be mutually exclusive,
since it is unlikely that a building has both district heating and combustive heating and
heat pumps. If such services are not present, they obviously do not need to be assessed
during on-site inspections. Due to these different factors, in any real building, the number
of services to be inspected as part of an SRI assessment will be lower than the 54 (or 27
in case of method A) smart ready services listed in the SRI catalogue.
Figure 14 – Visualisation of triage process: for this specific example service E is not considered
relevant for the building and thus is not inspected
The triage process does not only affect the inspection time and efforts, but also the
‘maximum obtainable score’, as it would be unfair to penalise a building for not providing
services that are not relevant. The SRI should not promote complexity in buildings and
will therefore only take into account services which are either present or desirable. For
some services, this can be context specific. For instance, a passive house with solar
shades, ventilation and / or window opening control, would not need mechanical cooling
and should not be penalised for not having such services.
In essence, two approaches to deal with absent domains or services are combined:
• Some services only have to be evaluated in cases where the relevant technical
building systems are present (hence: “smart ready”). This approach is appropriate
when assessors cannot unambiguously determine the relevance of the domain. For
instance, the relevance of automated shading devices strongly depends on the
building’s design (orientation, window-to-wall ratio, etc.). Such an assessment cannot
be made objectively within the scope of the SRI. When moveable shading is present,
the SRI can however assess how smartly the shading devices are controlled.

• Some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy perspective
(hence: “smart possible”). This approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing
buildings with additional (smart) services. For instance, penalising the absence of a
controlled ventilation system could create an incentive to install such a system to
improve the SRI score.
Figure 15 – Normalisation of the domain score. As a result of the triage process, certain services
are not included in the maximum score of a building (b), which can therefore be lower than the
theoretical maximum score (c). The SRI score is calculated by dividing the building score (a) by
the maximum score of the building (b).
CONSOLIDATED APPROACH ON DEALING WITH ABSENT SERVICES
The study team recommends the following approach to deal with absent services
• For some services, an evaluation is only relevant in cases where the technical
building systems it relates to are present. This approach is appropriate when
one cannot a priori conclude that a domain or service should be present in a
particular building (e.g. a building could be comfortable without cooling
systems). If such a service is not present, the service is excluded from the
assessment and does not affect the maximum attainable score.
• Some services may be mutually exclusive; if such services are not present,
they can be excluded from the assessment
• Some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy

perspective. This approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing buildings
with additional (smart) services. A suggested solution is to allow implementing
bodies to define guidelines depending on contextual factors such as the
relevance of specific services and domains to particular building types and
climatic zones and requirements in local building codes. These services are
included in the assessment.

Figure 16 - summary of the calculation method

6 BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE SRI’S IMPLEMENTATION
As part of the technical study, an impact analysis was performed to analyse the benefits
and costs of implementing an SRI to support an increased uptake of smart ready
technologies in buildings across the EU. It is also intended to help understand the impact
of implementing the SRI in conjunction with other accompanying policies to enhance the
impact of the SRI. The methodology used to assess the potential impacts of the SRI is
split into two steps:
• The first focuses on the modelling of the evolution of the EU building stock within
the framework of the revised EPBD. The building sector pathways used in this analysis
describe the general development of the building sector calculated in five geographic
zones across the EU. They consider new buildings, the demolition of buildings and
retrofits with regard to energy efficiency measures applied to the building envelope
and the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. These models are
in line with the impact assessment carried out in the first technical support study for
the SRI.
• In the second part of the impact assessment, the effects of an uptake of smart
ready technologies (SRTs) is modelled. Various scenarios of how the SRI and
accompanying policy measures spur the uptake of SRTs are modelled. For this impact
assessment, the level of smart readiness of buildings is clustered into different levels
(from I to IV) in the models. If a building undergoes improvements, it will be allocated
to a higher smart readiness level (e.g. moving from I to II or from II to IV). This
translates into final energy savings, monetary savings and CO 2-savings due to the
improved energy efficiency of the buildings and enhanced demand side flexibility.
Additional benefits (increased work force, health and well-being…) will be described
in a qualitative way but not explicitly quantified.
Various implementation scenarios are investigated in the study, including a potential

mandatory linkage to Energy Performance Certification (referred to as ‘pathway A1’) and
a market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line tools
and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it (referred to as
‘pathway C’).
The business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for the SRI already includes the impacts of all the
other policy measures within the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and thus has
already locked-in very significant final energy savings in EU the building sector. These
measures pertain to the construction of new energy-efficient buildings, and energy-
efficient retrofits of existing buildings with regard to the building envelope and the
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. Nonetheless, the impact
analysis indicates that the SRI can unlock up to 5% additional final energy savings by
2050. Under the BAU scenario an investment of 75 billion euro would be made in smart
ready technologies over the next 30 years, yet under the SRI A1 implementation pathway
this would increase by an additional 126 billion euro, resulting in final energy savings up
to 198 TWh by 2050 and 32 million tonnes of avoided greenhouse gas emissions per
year. The annual projected cost of conducting the SRI assessments and annual energy
savings also depend on the preferred implementation pathways.

Across the EU-28, SRI assessment costs are projected to range from €560m in 2050
(under pathway A1) to just €2m (under pathway C), yet the value of annual avoided
energy bills in 2050 is projected to range from €16.8 billion (under pathway A1) to €5.3
billion (under pathway C). The annual net cost savings from implementing the SRI in
2050 are projected to range between 12.9 billion (for pathway A1) and 3.9 billion (for
pathway C) – note these costs are the sum of the investments in smart ready
technologies, the SRI assessment costs and the value of the energy bill savings. Co-
benefits of the SRI roll-out are also assessed in the study. For example, the projected
value of health & wellbeing benefits as a result of the SRI-induced investments are
estimated to be up to €3.8 billion in 2030 higher compared to BAU (for pathway A1),
while the incremental net employment created is up to 72 thousand jobs (for pathway
A1). Details on the material circularity impacts and the findings of a detailed sensitivity
analysis are presented in the main report.

7 GENERAL CONCLUSION
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) introduced the concept of a Smart
Readiness Indicator (SRI) which is expected to become a cost-effective measure that can
effectively assist in creating healthier and more comfortable buildings with a lower energy
use and carbon impact, and can also facilitate the integration of renewable energy
sources. Within the scope of the first and second technical study on the SRI, the following
definition has been adopted:
“Smartness of a building refers to the ability of a building or its systems to sense,

interpret, communicate and actively respond in an efficient manner to changing
conditions in relation the operation of technical building systems or the external
environment (including energy grids) and to demands from building occupants,”
The SRI aims to raise awareness of the benefits of smarter building technologies and
functionalities and their added value for building users, energy consumers and energy
grids. Thereby it can support technology innovation in the building sector and become an
incentive for the integration of cutting-edge smart technologies into buildings.
A first technical study developed a definition and draft methodology for the SRI. The
second technical support study has built further on the available knowledge of the first
technical study to deliver the technical inputs needed to refine and finalise the definition
of the SRI and the associated calculation methodology. Furthermore, it explored possible
options for the implementation of the SRI and evaluated their impact at the EU level in
order for the Commission Services and Member States to be informed on the possible
modalities for an effective implementation of the SRI scheme and related potential
impacts.
Throughout this work the consortium partners of both technical studies have consulted
with relevant stakeholders and used the findings to inform the analysis while helping to
build awareness and consensus with regard to the project’s aims and the most viable
approach to achieve them.
In the final report the technical study team propose a consolidated methodology to
calculate the SRI of a building. The methodology is a flexible and modular multi-criteria
assessment method which builds on assessing the smart ready services present in a
building. Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready technologies but are
defined in a technology neutral way. The proposed calculation methodology is structured
amongst 9 technical domains and 7 impact criteria. For each of the services several
functionality levels are defined. A higher functionality level reflects a “smarter”
implementation of the service, which generally provides more beneficial impacts to
building users or to the grid compared to services implemented at a lower functionality
level.
In the proposed method, the smart readiness score of a building or building unit is
expressed as a percentage which represents the ratio between the smart readiness of
the building or building unit compared to the maximum smart readiness that it could
reach.

The disaggregated scores can express smart readiness for one or more of the following:
• Three key smart readiness capabilities as highlighted in Annex Ia, point 2 of the EPBD:
1. Energy performance and operation
2. Response to the needs of the occupants; and
3. Energy flexibility.
• The seven smart readiness impact criteria:

1. Energy efficiency
2. Maintenance and fault prediction
3. Comfort
4. Convenience
5. Health and wellbeing
6. Information to occupants
7. Energy flexibility and storage.
• The nine smart readiness technical domains:

1. Heating
2. Cooling
3. Domestic hot water
4. Controlled ventilation
5. Lighting
6. Dynamic building envelope
7. Electricity
8. Electric vehicle charging
9. Monitoring and control.
A smart service catalogue for both a detailed and a simplified assessment method was
elaborated in extensive consultation with stakeholders. The simplified Method A would be
mainly oriented towards small buildings with low complexity (single family homes, small
multi-family homes, small non-residential buildings, etc.), whereas the more detailed
Method B is mainly oriented towards buildings with a higher complexity (typically large
non-residential buildings, potentially large multi-family homes). For either method an
informative self-assessment could be made available as an alternative to a formal
certificate. The final report of the study also includes a proposal for weighting factors, a
methodology for normalisation of the scores and a suggested triage process which details
how to deal with absent services.
The SRI calculation methodology was successfully tested in a public beta test comprising
112 cases across Europe, which proved the viability of the approach. The feedback from
the stakeholders participating in this test led to further finetuning and harmonisation of
the SRI calculation methodology and the delivery of two consolidated service catalogues
which are distributed as annex C and annex D of the full report. The proposed SRI
calculation methodology is flexible to allow for adaptations to specific local contexts and
allows for future updates in order to keep pace with new innovations in smart products
and technologies available on the market.

The study also investigated the potential pathways for the effective implementation of
the SRI in the EU. The review of various schemes and initiatives on which the SRI could
build or connect to has led to the development of a set of six primary potential
implementation pathways and the identification of various trigger points in the building
lifecycle that the SRI deployment could link to. The SRI is expected to exert an influence
on the market adoption of smart services and technologies by both a “market pull” and
a “market push” effect. The market pull effect is driven by the impact that SRI
assessments on properties have on the deployment of smart services and technologies,
through raising awareness among stakeholders in the value chain at the property level.
The market push effect is a result from the common framework that the SRI provides for
service providers to self-organise and promote their service offers on a common basis in
line with the SRI criteria across the EU. Research was initiated to determine potential
designs for the format of the SRI. This recognises that for the scheme to be effective it
will need to have an attractive and recognisable format that gives visibility to the SRI
and effectively conveys information to users of the scheme.
Building on the outcomes of this work, the study provides technical guidelines and
recommendations addressing (1) the operational, organisational and legal design of the
SRI scheme, (2) the efficient and cost-effective assessment of the SRI and (3) the
management of the SRI after adoption. These were informed by considerations of costs,
data needs, training for assessors, etc. which helped to shape the development of the
methodology and implementation pathways in an iterative manner.
Finally, the study quantified the costs and benefits of implementing an SRI in the EU
building sector for the horizons of 2030, 2040, 2050. The impact analysis reveals that
rolling out the SRI across the EU would be strongly beneficial, with the greatest net
benefits arising from linking the SRI assessments to the Energy Performance Certification
(EPC) assessments of buildings, or the article 8 requirements under the EPBD. The SRI
could lead to 5% higher final energy savings by 2050, unlocking an increase in
investment of 181 billion euro over 30 years compared to a business-as-usual case and
up to 32 million tonnes of avoided greenhouse gas emissions per year.
The study team concludes that the roll-out of the SRI would result in a strongly beneficial
impact and observes a broad consensus among stakeholders on most of the key principles
and methodological choices of the proposed SRI developments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………… - 1 –
1 TASK 1 - TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE

DEFINITION AND THE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY OF THE SRI ................. - 3 -
1.1. Activity 1: A targeted state-of-the-art review .............................................. - 4 -
1.1.1 Review of stakeholder comments on the first technical study and since
................................................................................................ - 4 -
1.1.2 Targeted review of other relevant works and initiatives .................. - 16 -
1.2 Activity 2: Technical recommendations for the definition of the SRI .............. - 62 -
1.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................. - 62 -
1.2.2 Scope of the SRI........................................................................ - 63 -
1.2.3 EU streamlining of SRI methodology vs need for diversification ....... - 67 -
1.2.4 Degree of complexity of the method ............................................. - 73 -
1.2.5 Data protection & cybersecurity ................................................... - 85 -
1.2.6 Interactions with other schemes .................................................. - 87 -
1.2.7 Interoperability.......................................................................... - 88 -
1.2.8 Connectivity .............................................................................. - 96 -
1.2.9 Standardisation and codification of services and functionality levels . - 97 -
1.2.10 The process of updating the methodology ..................................... - 98 -
1.3 Activity 3: Technical recommendations for the development of the calculation
methodology of the SRI ......................................................................... - 100 -
1.3.1 Domains ................................................................................. - 100 -
1.3.2 Impact criteria......................................................................... - 105 -
1.3.3 Multi-criteria assessment method .............................................. - 106 -
1.3.4 Smart services and Ordinal scores ............................................. - 123 -
1.3.5 Triage process ......................................................................... - 126 -
1.3.6 Concluding proposal for SRI calculation methodology ................... - 129 -
2 TASK 2 - INVESTIGATION OF SRI IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS AND OF THE

FORMAT OF THE SRI .................................................................................. - 133 -
Task summary & objectives ............................................................................. - 133 -
Task approach and proposed methodology:....................................................... - 133 -
2.1 Activity 1: SRI implementation pathways ................................................ - 133 -
2.1.1 Identification of the schemes and initiatives on which the SRI could
build, or connect to .................................................................. - 133 -
2.1.2 Identification and analysis of the potential options for implementing
the SRI at EU-level and at Member State-level ............................ - 146 -
2.1.3 Defining a set of robust and flexible implementation pathways for the
roll-out of the SRI in the EU ...................................................... - 151 -
2.2 Activity 2: Investigation of the format of the SRI ..................................... - 155 -
2.2.1 Communicating the scope of the scheme in a transparent manner . - 155 -
2.2.2 Clarification of intrinsic concepts embedded within the SRI ........... - 157 -
2.2.3 The set of information to be communicated ................................. - 158 -
FINAL REPORT ON THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS I
2.2.4 Targeting information to the nature of the audience ..................... - 161 -
2.2.5 Targeting information to the nature of the building stock .............. - 162 -
2.2.6 A hierarchy of informational needs ............................................. - 162 -
2.2.7 Visual presentation of the information ........................................ - 163 -
2.2.8 Choice of media used to present the information ......................... - 164 -
2.2.9 Branding ................................................................................. - 166 -
2.2.10 Conditionality of the format with other schemes .......................... - 167 -
2.2.11 Trial graphical designs to illustrate the SRI ................................. - 167 -
2.2.12 Findings of consumer research .................................................. - 171 -
2.2.13 Conclusions ............................................................................. - 175 -
3 TASK 3 - GUIDANCE FOR EFFECTIVE SRI IMPLEMENTATION...................... - 179 -

3.1 Activity 1: Operational, organisational and legal design options for the SRI
scheme ............................................................................................... - 179 -
3.1.1 Options for the organisation of the scheme ................................. - 180 -
3.1.2 Options for the operation of the scheme ..................................... - 188 -
3.2 Activity 2: Technical recommendations for the efficient and cost-effective
assessment of the SRI ........................................................................... - 195 -
3.2.1 Data needs and data collection method ...................................... - 195 -
3.2.2 SRI data processing ................................................................. - 197 -
3.2.3 Procedures on storing and updating SRI data .............................. - 198 -
3.3 Activity 3: Guidelines for the management of the SRI after adoption ........... - 199 -
3.3.1 Regular periodic review and related development work ................. - 200 -
3.3.2 Fast track pathway to consider the merits of promising emergent
smart technologies and services ................................................ - 205 -
3.3.3 Process to agree and issue version changes and associated reporting
requirements .......................................................................... - 206 -
3.3.4 Implications for the managerial structure of the SRI..................... - 207 -
4 TASK 4 - QUANTITATIVE MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE

SRI AT EU LEVEL ........................................................................................ - 209 -
4.1 Activity 1: Determining the building-level impact of smart technologies and
services ............................................................................................... - 210 -
4.2 Activity 2: Definition of impact scenarios reflecting policy options ............... - 230 -
4.3 Activity 3: Aggregation of individual variants and calculation scenarios ........ - 236 -
4.3.1 Methodology ........................................................................... - 236 -
4.3.2 Impact for different implementation scenarios ............................. - 238 -
4.4 Activity 4: Sensitivity analysis ................................................................ - 265 -
4.4.1 Sensitivity analysis on the amount of SRI assessments ................ - 265 -
4.4.2 Sensitivity analysis of the uptake of smart ready technologies ....... - 271 -
4.4.3 Sensitivity analysis for the energy use, CO2 emission reductions and
energy cost savings ................................................................. - 278 -
4.4.4 Sensitivity for costs and benefits ............................................... - 283 -
4.4.5 Sensitivity for employment ....................................................... - 287 -
4.4.6 Sensitivity for Material circularity and health & wellbeing .............. - 287 -
4.4.7 Summary and conclusions ........................................................ - 288 -

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS II
5 TASK 5 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND STUDY WEBSITE................. - 290 -
5.1 Activity 1: Organisation of stakeholder consultation meetings and other
stakeholder interactions ........................................................................ - 290 -
5.1.1 Plenary stakeholder consultation meetings .................................. - 290 -
5.1.2 Topical Stakeholder Working Groups .......................................... - 291 -
5.1.3 Public testing of the SRI ........................................................... - 299 -
5.1.4 Consumer focus groups ............................................................ - 309 -
5.1.5 Written comments on deliverables ............................................. - 309 -
5.1.6 Targeted public consultation ...................................................... - 310 -
5.1.7 Dedicated stakeholder interactions upon request ......................... - 310 -
5.2 Activity 2: Development and maintenance of project website ..................... - 311 -
6 GENERAL CONCLUSION .............................................................................. - 312 -
ANNEX A. GLOSSARY ........................................................................... - 317 -
ANNEX B. STANDARDISATION RELATED TO SMART BUILDINGS .......... - 320 -

a. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), the Construction
Products Regulation (CPR) and its relationship to standardisation and Mandate
(M/480)............................................................................................... - 320 -
b. Interaction with the electrical grid and the Smart Grid Standardization Mandate
(M/490)............................................................................................... - 320 -
c. Interaction with Ecodesign product regulation and standardisation mandate
(M/495)............................................................................................... - 321 -
d. Background information on European and international standardization bodies- 321 -
e. A selection of the most relevant standards for SRI .................................... - 323 -
i. At European Level (EN) related to EPBD calculation methods......... - 323 -
ii. Examples of implementation of EPBD calculation methods at Member
State level .............................................................................. - 330 -
iii. Standards related to electrical installation ................................... - 331 -
iv. Standards related to SRI equipment ........................................... - 333 -
v. Standards at European Level (EN) related to construction works and
products that bear the CE Marking. ............................................ - 334 -
ANNEX C. BUILDING STOCK DESCRIPTION AND SELECTION OF

REFERENCE BUILDINGS .................................................................................. 335
a. Building stock description .......................................................................... 335
i. Building stock data sources ........................................................... 335
ii. Disaggregation of building stock .................................................... 336
b. Selection of reference buildings .................................................................. 341
i. Geometry ................................................................................... 341
ii. Building physical and HVAC system characteristics ........................... 342

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS III
ANNEX D. SRI AND SRT UPTAKE MODEL ................................................... 346
a. Modelling the evolution of SRI assessments ................................................. 346
i. Methodology ............................................................................... 346
ii. Definition of trigger events............................................................ 349
iii. SRI assessments for the trigger events as a function of the
implementation pathways ............................................................. 352
b. Modelling the uptake of SRT ....................................................................... 354
c. Data sources for costs and benefits ............................................................. 359
d. Results for implementation pathway A1 and C .............................................. 362
i. SRI deployment rate .................................................................... 363
ii. SRT uptake ................................................................................. 365
iii. Relative energy savings ................................................................ 369
iv. Employment impacts .................................................................... 371
v. Material circularity ....................................................................... 377
ANNEX E. SRI METHOD A: SIMPLIFIED SERVICE CATALOGUE ................... 392
ANNEX F. SRI METHOD B: DETAILED SERVICE CATALOGUE ...................... 399
ANNEX G. SRI ASSESSMENT PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ................................. 410

a. Before you begin… .................................................................................... 410
b. The “Building information” tab .................................................................... 410
i. Assessor information .................................................................... 410
ii. General building information ......................................................... 410
iii. Triage Process ............................................................................. 411
iv. Heating ...................................................................................... 412
v. Domestic Hot Water ..................................................................... 413
vi. Cooling ....................................................................................... 413
vii. Controlled ventilation ................................................................... 414
viii. Dynamic Envelope ....................................................................... 415
ix. Electricity: renewables & storage ................................................... 415
x. Electric Vehicle Charging............................................................... 416
c. The “Calculation sheet” tab ........................................................................ 417
d. The “Results” tab ...................................................................................... 417
e. Partial implementation of services............................................................... 417
ANNEX H. SUMMARY OF DG ENERGY TARGETED PUBLIC CONSULTATION . 419

a. Context ................................................................................................... 419
b. Respondents data ..................................................................................... 419
c. SRI target audience and scope ................................................................... 420
d. Adapting the SRI to context and future evolutions ........................................ 420
e. SRI relations to other topics and schemes.................................................... 420
f. SRI formatting ......................................................................................... 421
g. SRI implementation and assessment ........................................................... 422

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS IV
ANNEX I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES .............................................................. 424
a. The audience for the SRI ........................................................................... 424
b. The SRI value proposition .......................................................................... 425
c. Policy objectives ....................................................................................... 425
d. The information to be conveyed.................................................................. 426
e. Communication of the information .............................................................. 427
f. The integrity of the SRI ............................................................................. 427
g. The credibility of the SRI ........................................................................... 427
h. Adaptability to context .............................................................................. 427
i. Smart ready and smart now ....................................................................... 428
j. Future proofing – allowing and encouraging innovation.................................. 428
k. Fairness and a level playing field for market actors ....................................... 428
l. The potential usage of qualifying preconditions ............................................. 428
m. Interaction with other policy instruments ..................................................... 428
n. Treatment of fixed (static) versus transportable (mobile) smartness features ... 429
o. Time and cost requirements ....................................................................... 429
p. Building-specific features ........................................................................... 429
q. The SRI assessment process and aides to assessment ................................... 429
r. Data protection ........................................................................................ 430

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Building Renovation Passport – overview of components. Source: BPIE _______ - 22 -
Figure 2 – Applications of BIM along the engineering and construction value chain. Source: Shaping
the Future of Construction ______________________________________________ - 24 -
Figure 3 - For preferential boiler space heaters and preferential boiler combination heaters, element
of the fiche for a package of space heater, temperature control and solar device and a package
of combination heater, temperature control and solar device, respectively, indicating the
seasonal space heating energy efficiency of the package offered _________________ - 51 -
Figure 4 - Components of a lighting system and the most relevant performance parameters related
to energy efficiency ____________________________________________________ - 54 -
Figure 5 - Inter-relationships in smart buildings (Source: SBA website 2019) __________ - 56 -
Figure 6 - Semantic integration distance for interoperability (source: Offis) ____________ - 59 -
Figure 7 - Stakeholder questionnaire: adaptation to specific conditions ________________ - 68 -
Figure 8 - Stakeholder questionnaire: adapting to building type _____________________ - 70 -
Figure 9 - Stakeholder questionnaire: additional services for specific building types ______ - 71 -
Figure 10 - Stakeholder questionnaire: importance of non-residential building types _____ - 71 -
Figure 11 - Stakeholder questionnaire - light versus detailed assessment ______________ - 74 -
Figure 12 - Stakeholder questionnaire: self-assessment and 3rd party assessment ______ - 74 -
Figure 13 – Three potential assessment methods _________________________________ - 75 -
Figure 14 - Changes to the domains __________________________________________ - 104 -
Figure 15 - Changes to the impact criteria _____________________________________ - 106 -
Figure 16 - overview of the SRI calculation methodology __________________________ - 108 -
Figure 17 - Proposed approach for domain weighting factors _______________________ - 112 -
Figure 18 - Seven impact criteria as suggested by the first technical study on the SRI ___ - 115 -
Figure 19 - Three impact criteria aligned to the EPBD functionality domains ___________ - 115 -
Figure 20 - Seven impact sub-criteria (SRI1) that are aggregated to three impact criteria (EPBD) -
116 -
Figure 21 - Aggregation of impact scores to a single score _________________________ - 118 -
Figure 22 - overview of weighting scheme _____________________________________ - 119 -
Figure 23- relative importance of a domain by climate zone, for residential buildings (αdomain)- 121
-
Figure 24 - relative importance of a domain by climate zone, for non-residential buildings (αdomain)
__________________________________________________________________ - 121 -

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS
Figure 25 – Archetypal assessment methods ___________________________________ - 162 -
Figure 26 – Example mnemonics_____________________________________________ - 163 -
Figure 27 – Samples of trial logos ___________________________________________ - 168 -
Figure 28 – Single mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score and/or rank __________ - 169 -
Figure 29 – Tri-partite mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score/rank and subscore/ranks for
the three SRI “pillars” _________________________________________________ - 171 -
Figure 30 – Matrix showing SRI scores by domain and impact criterion, aggregate scores per
impact criterion and the overall SRI score _________________________________ - 171 -
Figure 31 – Schematic Illustration of the calculation methodology. Source: CEN/TR 15615. - 212 -
Figure 32 – Example of the calculation tool for residential buildings __________________ - 214 -
Figure 33 – Specific annual energy cost savings resulting from energy efficiency gains from SRT
uptake for the example of single-family houses in Northern Europe as a function of
construction year and renovation level ____________________________________ - 215 -
Figure 34 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for the example of offices in
Northern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level __________ - 216 -
Figure 35 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for the example of offices in
Southern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level _________ - 216 -
Figure 36 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for wholesale and retail buildings
in Southern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level _______ - 217 -
Figure 37 – Specific annual energy cost savings through energy efficiency gains from SRT uptake
for the example of offices in Northern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation
level ______________________________________________________________ - 218 -
Figure 38 – Specific annual energy cost savings through energy efficiency gains from SRT uptake
for the example offices in Southern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation
level ______________________________________________________________ - 218 -
Figure 39 – Relative CO2 emission savings gained through SRT upgrades for the example of office
buildings in Northern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level - 219 -
Figure 40 – Environmental cost of material use. Source: Trigaux, 2017 _______________ - 227 -
Figure 41 – Share of adults in the EU reporting “poor general health” when perceiving good or bad
thermal comfort in winter (left) and summer (right). Source: Hermelink & John, 2017 (Ecofys)
__________________________________________________________________ - 230 -
Figure 42 – Evolution of the SRI deployment rate for the implementation pathways as defined in
Activity 2 ___________________________________________________________ - 239 -
Figure 43 – Evolutions of buildings that have undergone an increase by 1 level of smartness- 240
-
Figure 44 – Evolution of buildings that have undergone an upgrade to smartness level A _ - 241 -
Figure 45 – Annual investment cost in SRT upgrades by 1 level of smartness __________ - 242 -
Figure 46 – Annual investment cost in SRT upgrades to smartness level A ____________ - 242 -

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS I
Figure 47 – Cumulative total investment in SRTs ________________________________ - 243 -
Figure 48 – Evolution of EU28 building stock final energy use as result of different implementation
scenarios for the SRI __________________________________________________ - 244 -
Figure 49 – Annual final energy savings as compared to the BAU scenario ____________ - 244 -
Figure 50 – Annual primary energy savings as compared to the BAU scenario__________ - 245 -
Figure 51 – Annual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) compared to the BAU SRT
integration scenario __________________________________________________ - 246 -
Figure 52 – Increase in flexible capacity (GW) compared to the BAU SRT integration scenario __ -
249 -
Figure 53 - Annual value of increased demand side flexibility compared to the BAU SRT integration
scenario ____________________________________________________________ - 249 -
Figure 54 – Net additional employment created compared to the BAU SRT integration scenario _ -
254 -
Figure 55 – Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock for which an
SRI assessment is available. Results for the high SRI uptake rate scenario ________ - 267 -
SRI assessment is available. Results for the low SRI uptake rate scenario ________ - 267 -
SRI assessment is available. Results for the high market push and pull effect scenario- 268 -
SRI assessment is available. Results for the low market push and pull effect scenario - 269 -
Figure 59 - Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock. Results for
positive scenario promoting self-assessment _______________________________ - 270 -
Figure 60 - Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock. Results for
scenario promoting expert-assessment ___________________________________ - 270 -
Figure 61 - Results for the high uptake rate scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1 level (top) and
to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an upgrade.- 272 -
Figure 62- Results for the low uptake rate scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1 level (top) and to
level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an upgrade._ - 273 -
Figure 63 - Results for the high market push and pull effect scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1
level (top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an
upgrade. ___________________________________________________________ - 274 -
Figure 64 - Results for the low market push and pull effect scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1
level (top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an
upgrade. ___________________________________________________________ - 275 -
Figure 65 - Results for the positive impact scenario (promoting self-assessment), showing SRT
upgrades by 1 level (top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock
that has had an upgrade. ______________________________________________ - 276 -
Figure 66 - Results for the negative impact scenario (promoting expert-assessment), showing SRT
that has had an upgrade. ______________________________________________ - 277 -

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS II
Figure 67 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the additional cumulated investment in SRTs by 2030
__________________________________________________________________ - 279 -
Figure 68 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the additional cumulated investment in SRTs by 2050
__________________________________________________________________ - 279 -
Figure 69 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the primary energy savings for the different
implementation pathways by 2030 _______________________________________ - 280 -
Figure 71 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the CO2-emission savings for the different
Figure 73 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the energy cost savings for the different
Figure 75 – Buildings participation to public testing by method and member state ______ - 300 -
Figure 76 - Detailed description of the tested buildings ___________________________ - 301 -
Figure 77 - Distribution of the total SRI score by method (left) and building type (right) _ - 302 -
Figure 78 - Box plot of the total SRI score by method and building type ______________ - 302 -
Figure 79 - Comparison of methods A and B, applied to the same buildings during the public beta
test _______________________________________________________________ - 303 -
Figure 80 - Analysis of the mean impact score by method _________________________ - 304 -
Figure 81 - Analysis of the mean domain score by method_________________________ - 304 -
Figure 82 - Is the SRI score in line with initial expectations by the assessor or building owner/user?
__________________________________________________________________ - 306 -
Figure 83 - How much time did the assessment process take you (excluding travel, administration,
intake discussions)? __________________________________________________ - 308 -
Figure 84 - Which information was missing to complete the assessment? _____________ - 308 -
Figure 85 - Overview of applicable standards in the ongoing review of EPB (Hoogeling, 2016) __ -
325 -
Figure 86 - Structure of German EPBD calculation standard DIN V 18599 Important EN product
and/or smart building system standards ___________________________________ - 330 -
Figure 87 – Geographical regions of Europe _______________________________________ 337
Figure 88 – Monthly outdoor temperatures for the selected climate regions ______________ 337
Figure 89 – Distribution of EU building stock among building types [source: EU Building Stock
Observatory] ___________________________________________________________ 338

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS III
Figure 90 – Disaggregation of building stock across building type and climate region _______ 339
Figure 91 – Share of retrofitted residential buildings. Source: First technical study on the SRI based
on [ECOFYS, 2012], based on [Euroconstruct, 2005] with further updates and assumptions
for 2005–13. ___________________________________________________________ 340
Figure 92 – Share of retrofitted non-residential buildings. Source: First technical study on the SRI
for 2014 based on [Euroconstruct, 2005]. ____________________________________ 340
Figure 93 – Example of market push and pull effect on SRI assessment _________________ 348
Figure 94 – Example market push and pull effect on SRT uptake _______________________ 355
Figure 95 – SRI deployment rate for single-family houses, under implementation pathway A1 363
Figure 96 – SRI deployment rate for single-family houses, under implementation pathway C _ 363
Figure 97 – SRI deployment rate for office buildings, under implementation pathway A1 ____ 364
Figure 98 – SRI deployment rate for office building, under implementation pathway C ______ 364
Figure 99 – Distribution of SRT classes (A–D) among single-family houses (SFH) in Northern
Europe, under implementation pathway A1 ___________________________________ 365
Europe, under implementation pathway C ____________________________________ 365
Figure 101 – Distribution of SRT classes (A–D) among single-family houses (SFH) in Western
Europe, under implementation pathway A1 ___________________________________ 366
Europe, under implementation pathway C ____________________________________ 366
Figure 103 – Distribution of SRT classes (A–D) among office buildings in Northern Europe, under
implementation pathway A1 _______________________________________________ 367
implementation pathway C ________________________________________________ 367
Figure 105 – Distribution of SRT classes (A–D) among office buildings in Western Europe, under
Figure 107 – Cumulative relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrades in single-family
houses, under implementation pathway A1 ___________________________________ 369
houses, under implementation pathway C ____________________________________ 369
Figure 109 – Cumulative relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrades in offices, under

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Example of BREEAM section weightings for common project types (BREEAM Technical
Manual 2016) ________________________________________________________ - 33 -
Table 2 – Example of the BREEAM rating overview (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016) _____ - 35 -
Table 3– The six BREEAM building environmental performance classes and associated scoring
thresholds (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016) ________________________________ - 35 -
Table 4 – Example of a check of minimum standards (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016) ___ - 36 -
Table 5 – The impact criteria and weightings applied in the DGNB building environmental rating
system _____________________________________________________________ - 41 -
Table 6 – Default environmental footprint (EF) impact categories (with respective EF impact
category indicators) and EF impact assessment models for PEF studies ____________ - 43 -
Table 7- Weighting matrix for non-residential buildings in Western Europe ____________ - 122 -
Table 8 - Subject, Scope, Maturity and Scale of initiatives or actions the SRI could link to - 137 -
Table 9 - Assessment, Site/visits, Audience, Actors and Certification of initiatives or actions the SRI
could link to_________________________________________________________ - 139 -
Table 10 - Quality, Mandate, Organisation, Governance initiatives the SRI could link to __ - 141 -
Table 11 – Screening of linkage factors by scheme or action _______________________ - 149 -
Table 12 – Actors involved in on-site assessment ________________________________ - 190 -
Table 13 – Overview of the literature on self-consumption _________________________ - 221 -
Table 14 - Estimated material related environmental impacts (from manufacture, distribution, EOL)
compared to BAU for implementation pathway A1 ___________________________ - 255 -
compared to BAU for implementation pathway C ____________________________ - 257 -
Table 16 - Estimated Value of incremental SRI health & wellbeing benefits compared to BAU in
2023 (€m) __________________________________________________________ - 259 -
2030 (€m) __________________________________________________________ - 260 -
2040 (€m) __________________________________________________________ - 261 -
2050 (€m) __________________________________________________________ - 262 -
Table 20 – Incremental SRT cost of the SRI compared to the BAU (€m per year) _______ - 263 -
Table 21 –SRI assessment costs (€m per year) _________________________________ - 263 -
Table 22 –Value of SRI induced energy bill savings compared to the BAU (€m per year) _ - 264 -

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS V
Table 23 –Value of net SRI induced cost savings compared to the BAU (€m per year) ___ - 264 -
Table 24 - rate of SRI assessment per triggers under high impact scenario (in %) ______ - 266 -
Table 25 - rate of SRI assessment per triggers under low impact scenario ____________ - 266 -
Table 26 - Overview of sensitivity scenarios ____________________________________ - 278 -
Table 27 - Incremental SRT costs compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030 _______________ - 283 -
Table 28 - Assessment costs (external) (€m) in year 2030 ________________________ - 284 -
Table 29 – Energy bill savings compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030 _________________ - 285 -
Table 30 – Net cost savings compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030 ___________________ - 286 -
Table 31 - Incremental net employment compared to BAU (no. of jobs created) in yr 2030 - 287 -
Table 32 - Summary of the main modular structure of the EPB Standards _____________ - 324 -
Table 33 - Table 1 on lighting controls defined in EN 15232 ________________________ - 328 -
Table 34 – Definition of climate regions __________________________________________ 336
Table 35 – Geometry parameters for the selected reference buildings. Source: iNSPiRe, 2014. 342
Table 36 – U-values (W/m²K) for reference buildings after retrofit _____________________ 343
Table 37 – Solar transmittance data as a function of window U-value ___________________ 343
Table 38 – Effective ventilation rates and heat recovery factors for the different reference buildings
and renovation levels ____________________________________________________ 345
Table 39 – Specific energy use by ventilation systems _______________________________ 345
Table 40 – Example of triggers and rate of action for single-family houses in Northern Europe for
Table 41 – Default rates (%) of SRI assessments following trigger events________________ 353
Table 42 – Default maximum effect sizes for the market push and pull effects on the SRI
assessment rate ________________________________________________________ 353
Table 43 – Default parameters for SRT uptake linked to SRI assessments ________________ 355
Table 44– Default factors to express the influence of the assessment method and assessment
methodology on the push and pull effects ____________________________________ 358
Table 45 – Initial distribution of SRT configurations (%) _____________________________ 359
Table 46 – Investment costs (€/m²) for SRTs per building type and region _______________ 361
Table 47 - Incremental employment impacts of the SRI compared to the BAU for implementation
pathway A1 ____________________________________________________________ 371
pathway A2 ____________________________________________________________ 371
pathway A3 ____________________________________________________________ 372

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS VI
pathway B _____________________________________________________________ 372
Table 51- Incremental employment impacts of the SRI compared to the BAU for implementation
pathway C _____________________________________________________________ 373
pathway D _____________________________________________________________ 373
pathway E1 ____________________________________________________________ 374
pathway E2 ____________________________________________________________ 374
pathway E3 ____________________________________________________________ 375
pathway F1 ____________________________________________________________ 375
pathway F2 ____________________________________________________________ 376
pathway F3 ____________________________________________________________ 376
compared to BAU for implementation pathway A1 ______________________________ 377
compared to BAU for implementation pathway B _______________________________ 383
compared to BAU for implementation pathway C _______________________________ 384
compared to BAU for implementation pathway D _______________________________ 385
compared to BAU for implementation pathway E1 ______________________________ 386
Table 68 - Estimated material related environmental impacts (from manufacture, distribution,

EOL) compared to BAU for implementation pathway F1 __________________________ 389
compared to BAU for implementation pathway F2 ______________________________ 390

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS VII
compared to BAU for implementation pathway F3 ______________________________ 391
Table 71 – Summary of services and functionality levels of simplified service catalogue for method
A ____________________________________________________________________ 392
Table 72 – Summary of services and functionality levels of detailed service catalogue for method
B ____________________________________________________________________ 399

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS VIII
LIST OF MAIN ACRONYMS
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process

BACS Building Automation and Control Systems
BEMS Building Energy Management System
BIM Building Information Model
BRP Building Renovation Passport
DBE Dynamic Building Envelope

DER Distributed Energy Resource
DG Directorate-General (of the European Commission)
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DMS Distribution Management System
DPC Data Protection Class
DSM Demand-Side Management
EC European Commission
EED Energy Efficiency Directive
EMS Energy Manegement System
ENISA European Union Agency for Network and Information Security

EOL End Of Life
EPC Energy Performance Certificate

EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
GHG Green House Gas
HEMS Home Energy Management System
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IoT Internet of Things

IPW Implementation pathway
LENI Lighting Energy Numerical Indicator
LCA Life Cycle Analysis

MV Mechanical Ventilation
MS Member States
M&C Monitoring & Control

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS IX
MCDA Multi-criteria decision analysis
MCDM Multi-criteria decision making
MFH Multi-Family Home
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
PEF Product Environmental Footprint
PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

PM Particulate Matter
POP Persistent Organic Pollutants
RES Renewable Energy Systems
SAREF Smart Appliances REFerence (ontology)

SFH Single Family Home
SME Small- or medium-size enterprise
SRI Smart Readiness Indicator

SR Smart Ready
SRT Smart Ready Technologies
TBS Technical Building Systems
TES Thermal Energy Storage
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS X
OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS XI
INTRODUCTION
CONTEXT
Buildings consume 40% of the European Union’s final energy. Around 75% of the
current EU housing stock is considered to be energy inefficient; annual renovation
rates are low (0.4–1.2%) and the renovation depth is generally considered too
shallow. There is a clear need to accelerate and finance building renovation
investments and leverage smart, energy-efficient technologies.
One of the focus points of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) 5
is to better tap the potential of smart ready technologies (SRT). A greater uptake
of smart technologies is expected to lead to significant energy savings in a cost-
effective way, meanwhile improving comfort in buildings and allowing a building
to be adjusted to the needs of the user. Additionally, smart buildings have been
identified and acknowledged as the key enablers of future energy systems, in
which there will be a larger share of renewables, distributed supply and energy
flexibility that is also managed on the demand side (e-mobility infrastructure, on-
site electricity generation, energy storage). Smart technologies, such as building
automation and control systems or smart meters, allow to flexibly adapt the
energy consumption of buildings, thereby contributing to the development of
smart grids and to a better integration of renewable energy 6 e.g. through self-
consumption.
The EPBD aims to provide additional support to information and communication

technologies (ICT) and smart systems by:
• introducing building automation and control systems (BACS) as an alternative

to physical inspections of technical building systems
• reinforcing building automation by introducing additional requirements on
room temperature controls, building automation and controls, and enhanced
consideration of typical operating conditions
• using building codes to support the roll-out of the recharging infrastructure for
e-mobility
• introducing a ‘Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) for Buildings’ to assess the
technological readiness of buildings to interact with their occupants and the
energy environment and to operate more efficiently.
Introducing such an SRI will raise awareness of the benefits of smarter building
technologies and functionalities and their added value for building users, energy
consumers and energy grids. It can support technology innovation in the building
sector and become an incentive for the integration of cutting-edge smart
technologies into buildings. The SRI is expected to become a cost-effective
measure that can effectively assist in creating more healthy and comfortable
buildings with a lower energy use and carbon impact and can facilitate the
integration of renewable energy sources (RESs). Besides providing a framework
to rate the level of smartness of individual buildings, the SRI will also contribute
5
Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings as amended by Directive (EU)
2018/844.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2018.156.01.0075.01.ENG
6
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/markets-and-consumers/smart-grids-and-meters/overview

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS -1-
to standardise across the EU the way information on smart readiness of buildings
and technical building systems is rated and presented, thus ensuring the
information is common and easy to understand.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT STUDIES
In order to support the establishment of the SRI, the Commission Services

contracted two technical support studies. A first technical study to support the
establishment of the SRI was launched in March 2017 and conducted by a
consortium consisting of VITO NV, Waide Strategic Efficiency, Ecofys and Offis7.
This first study aimed at investigating the possible scope and characteristics of
such an indicator. It explored the concept of smart ready buildings and compiled
a catalogue of smart ready services as well as a provisional methodological
framework for the calculation of the SRI score via assessment of these smart ready
services. It also presented a provisional EU impact assessment of the SRI
A second technical support study started in December 2018 and was conducted
by a consortium consisting of VITO NV and Waide Strategic Efficiency Europe. This
second study builds upon the knowledge acquired via the first study, and aims to
deliver the technical inputs needed to refine and finalize the definition and
calculation methodology for the SRI. This study also explores several options for
the implementation of the SRI and evaluates their potential impact at the EU level
so that the Commission Services may assess the technical modalities for the
effective implementation of the SRI scheme.
Throughout the process, the consortium partners of both technical studies have
consulted extensively with relevant stakeholders and used these findings to inform
the analysis while helping to build awareness and consensus over the aim and the
most viable approach to develop and implement a Smart Readiness Indicator for
Buildings.
This final report summarises the outcomes of the second technical support study,
thereby integrating the main findings of the first technical support study.
This report is structured amongst the main tasks undertaken in the technical
support study:
• Task 1: Technical support for consolidation of the definition and the

calculation methodology of the SRI.
• Task 2: Investigation of SRI implementation pathways and the format of the
SRI.
• Task 3: Guidance for effective SRI implementation.
• Task 4: Quantitative modelling and analysis of the impact of the SRI at EU
level.
• Task 5: Stakeholder consultation and study website.
7
“Support for setting up a Smart Readiness Indicator for buildings and related impact assessment -
final report”; August 2018; Brussels. Authors: VITO: Stijn Verbeke, Yixiao Ma, Paul Van Tichelen,
Sarah Bogaert, Virginia Gómez Oñate; Waide Strategic Efficiency: Paul Waide ; ECOFYS: Kjell
Bettgenhäuser, John Ashok, Andreas Hermelink, Markus Offermann, Jan Groezinger ; OFFIS:
Mathias Uslar, Judith Schulte

1 TASK 1 - TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE DEFINITION AND
THE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY OF THE
SRI
TASK SUMMARY AND OBJECTIVES
The objective of Task 1 is to extend and consolidate the technical

recommendations for the definition and underlying calculation method of the SRI
in line with the technical framework given by the Directive. Hereto, this task
critically reviews and builds further on the outcomes of the first technical study on
the SRI. In the process of doing so, it includes input from relevant national,
European and international research projects, stakeholder consultation (Task 5)
and simulations outcomes (Task 4) that can fill identified gaps in standards. As
such, it aims to deliver technical recommendations that will support the
Commission Services to draft a definition and calculation methodology of the SRI
which can be applied in practice in an efficient and cost-effective way while being
open for innovation. In addition to a unique and consistent definition and
underlying calculation method at the EU level, specific attention is given to
identifying and drafting possibilities to tailor the calculation method to specific local
context, if and where relevant.
In all the activities of this task, specific attention is paid to the formulation of
technical recommendations that are technology-neutral and are designed not to
constrain the implementation of the scheme.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of Task 1 is to provide extended and finalised technical

recommendations on the definition of the SRI and the corresponding catalogue of
smart ready services as well as the SRI calculation methodology. As such, it sets
out to review, extend and consolidate the work performed in the first technical
study on the SRI. To this end, the consolidated SRI framework should:
• cover the key functionalities highlighted in the SRI technical annex of the
amended EPBD – ability to maintain energy performance and operation of the
building through the adaptation of energy consumption; ability to adapt a
building’s operation mode in response to the needs of the occupant; flexibility
of a building’s overall electricity demand
• be complementary to relevant existing initiatives, including policy initiatives
such as Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), Ecodesign and energy
labelling, Level(s), Building Renovation Passports (BRPs) and broadband-ready
label, but potentially also to other market initiatives such as voluntary labelling
schemes for buildings or specific product segments
• be practically applicable in an efficient and cost-effective manner
• provide a fair and well-balanced representation of smart technologies in
buildings while remaining technology-neutral
• reflect the potential and added value of advanced and innovative technologies
• pay attention to interoperability, connectivity of buildings and cybersecurity.

TASK APPROACH AND PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
The activities conducted under Task 1 are:
• a targeted state-of-the-art review

• derivation of technical recommendations for the definition of the SRI
• derivation of technical recommendations for the development of the calculation
methodology of the SRI.
1.1. ACTIVITY 1: A TARGETED STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
The targeted state-of-the-art review involves conducting a critical review covering

the aspects of interest for the definition of the SRI and its calculation methodology.
Specifically, it involves:
• analysing the output of the first technical study in relation to the definition of
the SRI, the draft calculation methodology and the preliminary analysis of
impacts and carrying out a detailed assessment of the feedback collected from
stakeholders in the scope of the first technical study
• reviewing other relevant initiatives (at the EU, Member State, local/regional
and wider international level when relevant) that are aimed at characterising
smart buildings
• reviewing other initiatives that could be related to the SRI or that the SRI could
have an impact upon (including certification and labelling schemes, such as
EPCs, voluntary building passports, etc.)
• conducting an analysis and synthesis of the findings within a report that will
be used to inform the direction and activities taken in the rest of the study.
1.1.1 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TECHNICAL STUDY

AND SINCE
To do this work the study team of the second technical support study began with
a review of the first technical study and the stakeholder comments received, which
largely covered the following topics:
• the guiding principles to develop the SRI as set out in the first study (included
as ANNEX I in this report)
• the scope of the SRI including whether or not to broaden it, and the most
pertinent parameters
• treatment of absent services
• the quality and reliability of the assessment process
• guidance and training of the assessors
• streamlining the assessment procedure
• the scoring system applied
• weightings and weighting systems and the need for also reporting
disaggregated scores
• relevance of SRI outputs to specific target groups
• the potential for quantified, rather than ordinal, assessment
• evolving towards remote quantified assessment
• the catalogue of services and functionality levels within them
• the proper interpretation of “smart ready” versus “smart now” capabilities
• commissioning

• cost and cost-benefits
• country/region specificities and implications for the methodology
• climatic specificities
• building type or intrinsic specificities
• data protection
• definitions and terminology (see ANNEX A for a glossary of the main
terminology used)
• treatment of specific services, including district heating and electric vehicles
(EVs)
• how to best treat demand-side management (DSM) services
• interactions with other schemes such as EPCs, Level(s), building renovation
passports, etc.
• testing and validating the methodology
• implementation guidance and protocols
• interoperability of SRTs
• consistency in application of the SRI, including ensuring a level playing field
and closing loopholes
• ensuring that the most appropriate terminology and language is used in the
definitions
• how to best update the methodology and address innovation
• standardisation and codification of services and functionality levels.
The responses were documented and organised by theme so that the range of
views and suggestions per topic are clear, and were summarised prior to
discussion with the Commission. The findings were also communicated to the team
members responsible for any activity covered by these comments (especially those
in the Tasks 1 to 3) so that their work could consider and build upon these
comments. Note that to a large extent the stakeholder comments mirrored and
informed the set of activities to be conducted in the study and hence it was
essential for the study team to be fully cognisant of these. Note, as consortium
members also conducted much of the first study they had established
communication channels with key stakeholders, they were well aware of their
views which had substantively informed the first study.
In addition to this the study team conducted a survey of stakeholder views on a

variety of topics prior to the first stakeholder meeting of the second technical study
(held on 23 March 2019) and also surveyed opinion on some topics in the first
meeting of the two expert Topical Stakeholder Working Groups (see 5.1.2 - Topical
Stakeholder Working Groups):
• Group A: SRI value proposition and implementation

• Group B: SRI calculation methodology.
Each Topical Stakeholder Working Group was comprised of a diverse and

representative group of expert stakeholders who had been selected through the
study consultation process to provide input into key issues for the study. The first
meeting of both groups was held on 26 March 2019.
The ensemble of stakeholder comments received after the conclusion of the first
technical study are summarised by theme below.

1.1.1.1 Overall approach
The overall approach expounded in the first SRI study was broadly supported by
stakeholders both during and after the study period. Some key stakeholders
expressed strong support for the initiative and approach adopted by the study
team. Other stakeholders representing an array of interests (equipment and
service providers, construction sector, property owners or managers, the energy
efficiency services sector, consumers associations and NGOs) all expressed
support for the initiative and basic approach. No stakeholders said they were not
in support, although some expressed views about certain aspects of the approach
and or scheme, as will be summarised below.
1.1.1.2 Scope of the SRI
In general, stakeholders did not express any reservations about the scope of the
SRI as defined in the EPBD and only had comments about interpretation or areas
that are potentially open to interpretation.
With regard to the scope of the SRI, including whether or not to broaden it and
the most pertinent parameters, several stakeholders representing property and
landowners indicated that:
• they do not favour linking the concept and eligibility of smart buildings to
nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) or very efficient buildings, but rather see
smartness as mostly linked to system functionalities
• although the scope of the SRI (as given by the EPBD) focuses on energy, their
members did not see energy as the first area where smartness has impact;
rather, security is mentioned first, although comfort and sustainability are also
important aspects.
The issue of whether a building would need to attain a high energy efficiency – as,
for example, determined by an EPC assessment – before it becomes eligible for
the SRI divides stakeholder opinion. In general, stakeholders representing the
insulation sector and energy efficiency interests believe that it should do, while
those representing other groups – for example property owners, consumers,
service suppliers and manufacturing – tended to argue for the opposite. This is
the aspect of SRI eligibility where there is most division in stakeholder views.
The other area of scope where some stakeholders have expressed different
perspectives is the treatment of smart building aspects that are not explicitly
referenced in the EPBD. These can include smart security features, smart
accessibility services and smart safety features, e.g. addressing fire safety as well
as other systems (e.g. lifts) and services (e.g. water services). In general,
suggestions that these factors should be considered have only been made by a
small number of stakeholders who were not engaged in the first study’s
stakeholder consultation process. This implies that they may not have been
following the EPBD process and were unaware of the constraints its focus imposes;
however, as these issues are undoubtedly of interest to building owners and
occupants, clarity in the delineation of the SRI could be important to avoid
confusion about what it addresses.

1.1.1.3 Value proposition
Considering that the SRI is voluntary (at least in terms of Member State adoption),
several stakeholders have stressed the importance of clearly identifying its target
groups and clarifying their needs so that the SRI can be positioned to respond to
these and hence be sufficiently enticing to be adopted.
Stakeholders interviewed in between the two technical studies – by the technical

study team or the Commission Services – generally had little to say about the SRI
value proposition beyond that which was expressed in the first technical study and
the wording in the EPBD itself. Their comparative silence on this topic may imply
that they broadly agree with how the earlier work framed the SRI value
proposition, albeit that it left open many issues with regard to target groups and
their specific interests. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have made additional
suggestions following the first study’s conclusion and consultation process.
Stakeholders from different sectors have independently suggested that the SRI
would present a stronger value proposition were it to be supported by linkages
that access energy efficiency financing, and that were these to be established it
would strengthen motivation to engage with the scheme. One stakeholder also
hoped that the SRI could be used to help assess the impact of refurbishments.
The members of Topical Group A, which was convened as part of the present SRI
technical study to address the value proposition and implementation of the SRI,
were asked their opinions on the SRI’s value proposition. In general, they
suggested that two benefits of smart buildings are the most important:
• extra comfort for the occupier

• monetary benefits (decrease in energy costs).
In addition, it was said that for a successful market uptake, the SRI must have an
impact on the value of the property. A group member also commented that the
theme of the overall environmental performance of the building was not very well
highlighted in the current proposal for the SRI but argued that this is inherently
the background of the SRI’s development.
Audience
With regard to the intended audience of the SRI, several stakeholders from the
property sector asserted that building occupiers, bill payers and owners are the
most important audiences and thus their needs should take precedence, not least
because of the need to get them to grant permission to access the related data.
In contrast, one stakeholder from the same sector proposed that the SRI should
target investors more than consumers themselves, particularly for social housing.
These responses imply that the target audience(s) could vary as a function of the
building type.
In the Topical Group A meeting, which comprised over 20 stakeholders

representing a diverse range of interests, including several Member State
representatives, the following suggestions on the potential audiences for the SRI
were received:
• real estate investors can be a very important part of the success

• cities and municipalities should be considered as a potential user
• it might be sensible to separate occupant-owners and tenants
• potentially add insurance companies

• separate contractors from designers
• include building valuators
• utilities and grid operators might become more interested when zero energy
buildings emerge.
It was also remarked that small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) could be
treated as a separate category of buildings, including pubs, restaurants, etc., as
they are a group apart from the residential and non-residential sector split.
Overall, however, the group expressed the view that the important audiences for
the SRI are facility managers, owners and occupants.
Relative importance of impact criteria

Topical Group A members were asked to approach the topics from the “user”
perspective rather than their own or that of their organisations. They were asked
to consider the eight impact criteria in the first SRI study and to determine whether
they were sufficient, or if any more should be considered. Apart from a proposal
to also score reliability of the SRI as an indicator (which the discussion then
acknowledged was a horizontal issue somewhat apart from the impact criteria per
se), the group members were content that the eight impact criteria covered the
main value propositions of the SRI. When asked to vote to indicate which of the
criteria they thought end users would deem to be most important, they concluded:
• comfort was the most important

• energy efficiency was the second most important
• health and well-being, and convenience and flexibility also scored highly
• self-generation was the least important.
This implies that all the eight impact criteria considered in the first study, except
potentially the self-generation parameter, could be taken forward into the
technical definition work of the SRI. Section 1.3.2 of this report discusses how this
input was used to consolidate the proposal to seven impact criteria.
1.1.1.4 Definition
The issue of what would fall within the definition of the SRI and what would belong
elsewhere (e.g. within an EPC) was probed in the first meeting of Topical Group
B, when members were asked to vote for or against in response to the statement:
‘The SRI should only score the added value of smarter controllability,
information gathering, communication features and interoperability, and not
the (energy) performance of the technical building systems themselves (e.g.
lighting control irrespective if these are LED or incandescent lights) since the
goal of the SRI should be primarily to illustrate the current level of smartness
compared to the maximum potential of that specific building rather than to
form a comparison framework among buildings.’
Twenty voted to agree, and none to disagree, which suggests that there is
unanimity that the SRI should only aim to address the value-added that is brought
by smart technologies and services rather than the inherent energy performance
of the TBS away from its control.

Ensuring the most appropriate terminology and language is used in the
definitions
Since the first SRI technical study no additional stakeholder comments were
received on this issue.
The proper interpretation of “smart ready” versus “smart now” capabilities

As discussed in the first technical study, the distinction between the two concepts
“smart ready” and “smart now” is potentially important in the design of an
indicator. The term “smart ready” implies that the building itself is smart but its
potential to realise the benefits from smart services may be constrained by limiting
factors in the capability of the services it connects to at its boundary (e.g. smart
meters). This recognises the distinction between smart readiness as opposed to
operational smart capability.
The definition of “readiness” was raised in a discussion with Topical Group B 8. It

was argued that having a service does not guarantee that the building is working
properly and that this can only be assessed when auditing the building. The study
team clarified that commissioning is out of scope of the proposed scope for the
SRI at this moment. Only the availability of services would be assessed, not the
actual performance.
It was also mentioned that different levels of readiness exist: some services can
react to signals from the BEMS, whereas others can also react to external signals.
These differences in readiness are captured in the functionality levels of a service:
services that can respond to external signals have higher functionality levels (and
thus a higher SRI score) than services which only interact with the BEMS.
In a discussion with Topical Group B on the triage process, a related discussion

was opened about whether or not the absence of a domain should be penalized.
In the context of the triage process, “smart ready” relates to the smartness of the
services already present in the building (hence not penalising absent services),
whereas “smart possible” relates to the possibility of having (smart) services in
the building (hence penalising absent services). More information on the
discussion can be found in section 1.3.5.
Cost and cost-benefits

Since the first SRI technical study there have been no additional stakeholder
comments received on this issue.
1.1.1.5 Calculation methodology
Those stakeholders interviewed between the first and second technical studies
generally expressed support for the SRI calculation methodology set out in the
first study; however, some proposed some amendments. When comments were
proffered, they tended to be either to support the approach in the first study or to
stress the need to keep the process simple – which might imply some
simplification. Some proposed starting with a simple method and evolving towards
a more detailed approach in a second version of the SRI. The use of a checklist,
as is the case in the first study’s methodology, was generally supported. While
some stakeholders emphasised the need to “keep things simple” they did not put
forward suggestions on how the first study’s methodology could be further
8
Topical Group B: Calculation methodology – web meeting 7/5/2019

simplified, except with regard to the choice of impacts to be evaluated (see section
1.2.4). Also, while many stakeholders see the value of having a simplified method,
the same stakeholders have sometimes proposed that additional services or
functionalities be included (or conversely have only reacted if a suggestion is made
not to count a service or functionality that they believe if important), so it was not
fully clear where an acceptable balance lies.
Treatment of services
Most stakeholders provided comments on the services to be included in the first
technical study, so in general stakeholders interviewed between the studies had
little to say on the choice of services, which suggests a relative level of satisfaction
with the list proposed. Nonetheless, the following suggestions were made:
• one stakeholder expressed a desire to see more focus on smart metering

• one expressed particular interest in energy flexibility and fulfilment of users’
needs, but did not propose changes to the services to be evaluated
• another proposed that systemic benefits should not be reduced to the
electricity system, e.g. solutions for a smart integration (load management) of
buildings in district heating are already available and being deployed in Europe
• one wanted more emphasis on services related to system monitoring/user
feedback, particularly in relation to indoor environmental quality (IEQ).
Impact criteria
A number of stakeholders interviewed between the studies suggested that one
means of simplifying the methodology would be to reduce the eight impact criteria
set out in the first technical study to the three aspects set out in the EPBD text:
• The ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the
occupant, paying due attention to the availability of user-friendliness,
maintaining healthy indoor climate conditions and ability to report on energy
use.
• The ability to maintain energy efficiency performance and operation of the
building through the adaptation of energy consumption, e.g. through use of
energy from renewable sources.
• The flexibility of a building’s overall electricity demand, including its ability to
enable participation in active and passive as well as implicit and explicit
demand-response, in relation to the grid, e.g. through demand side
flexibility and load-shifting capacities.
It should be noted that while stakeholders seem to have made this suggestion
primarily to simplify the SRI, practically it would not lower the assessment effort
as the methodology would still involve assessing the TBSs to determine their basic
type and functionality, and once that is done the assessment tool automatically
calculates the impacts (whether there are eight or three). Therefore, the real value
of this suggestion is in regard to whether it would assist communication (or not)
of the SRI value proposition.
As mentioned previously under the value proposition discussion, this topic was
also surveyed during the Topical Group A meeting, where each participant was
asked to vote up to four times to express which of the impact criteria they thought
the target audience for the SRI would find most important. It was concluded that:
• comfort was the most important

• energy efficiency was the second most important

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS - 10 -
• health and well-being, and convenience and flexibility also scored highly
• self-generation was the least important.
Interestingly, prior to voting, this same group was invited to propose impacts that
had not been considered in the first technical study or comment on whether the
eight were the impacts that the SRI should assess. In that discussion nobody
proposed to add or remove impacts from this list. The voting, however, suggests
that self-generation has the least impact.
The scoring system applied

Stakeholders interviewed between the technical studies were generally supportive
of the fundamental aspects of the approach to scoring the SRI put forward in the
first technical study, which uses ordinal rankings of functionality per domain and
service and aggregates them up to attain scores at the domain, impact or whole
building level. Some, however, expressed a desire to migrate towards a
performance-based calculation method where possible. When the topic was
probed further, they conceded that a performance-based approach might only
currently be possible for some SRI aspects. One stakeholder wished for more
precise, quantified indicators for load-shifting capacity yet acknowledged that in
practice this is very hard to do as the calculation of such indicators would require
more information/data than is normally available. To this end they suggested that
a blended approach could be appropriate where:
• for buildings and projects where detailed information and models are available
(typically, new and major renovations of large non-residential buildings),
quantitative indicators could be included in the SRI
• for ‘average’ existing buildings and building units (in particular apartments and
houses), a more basic approach such as the one proposed by the first study
would be acceptable.
Another stakeholder said they would favour an SRI based on performance data
and not only on the assessment of available smart ready services/functionality:
• if the SRI is to be based on functionalities and not on real performances, they

would like to see a disclaimer that makes it clear
• they explained that functionalities of smart systems are evolving, and the SRI
should not ‘lead’ to a freeze in this evolution (this is related to the feedback on
an innovation-friendly SRI that the study team has received from other
stakeholders).
Aggregation of services into service domains

This topic was not spontaneously raised by any of the stakeholders interviewed
between the two technical studies and was not addressed in the stakeholder
survey or Topical Groups associated with the first stakeholder meeting in March.
The lack of spontaneous reaction implied that stakeholders may be content with
the approach put forward in the first technical study.
Weightings and weighting systems

Stakeholders interviewed between the two technical studies generally supported
the flexibility of the weighting framework (i.e. the option to consciously apply
weightings) set out in the first technical study, but the following observations were
also made:

• one stakeholder generally supported the framework proposed by the first study
but saw many points where further discussion and consolidation would be
needed (e.g. individual scoring of services and domain impact weights)
• several stakeholders expressed the view that weightings should be fixed at the
overall scheme implementation level and that assessors should not have the
liberty to apply weightings
• some stakeholders challenged the specific (actually purely illustrative)
weightings by service domain given in the worked examples shown for the first
technical study. These weightings specifically applied to the energy balance
and hence were only applied when determining the energy savings impacts of
SRTs. While the stakeholders suggested that different weightings would be
more representative of the actual average energy balance, they all supported
the principle that the examples were intending to illustrate.
Building type or intrinsic specificities

Stakeholders representing property and landowners interviewed between the
technical studies expressed the opinion that the type of building, ownership and
occupancy needs to be taken into account better in the calculation of the SRI. The
comments were short on detail but there seems to be an appetite for the SRI
calculation (and possibly the related assessment) framework to be tailored to the
characteristics of specific building types as appropriate.
Treatment of absent services

The first technical study included extensive discussion about why there could be a
need to exclude absent services from the calculation process and how to go about
doing this. Stakeholders did not volunteer views on this topic since the conclusion
of the first study, except to express agreement that it can be appropriate and
necessary to discount absent services in an initial triage process, and to assert
that it is important that there are clear guidelines/protocols about how this should
be done. The aim would be for the decision on what to include or exclude to be
clearly laid out rather than be the prerogative of the assessor.
1.1.1.6 Assessment method and process
The assessment method and process are critical to the success of the SRI and
stakeholder views, as set out below, were canvassed between the studies and
during the first stakeholder meeting.
On-site or remote assessment

Stakeholders canvassed between the two technical studies representing property
and landowners expressed the view that on-site inspections are probably
unavoidable if the SRI is to be reliably assessed, but they also envisage
prospective forward-looking evolutions, e.g. links to digital models, such as
building information modelling (BIM). They also stressed that the assessor should
be free to evaluate whether on-site inspection is needed. There are many
residential buildings with standard, well-known technical solutions, and they see
no need to go to the trouble and expense of conducting inspections for these. This
may especially be the case if a good BIM or digital model is available for the
building.
Who should do the assessment?

Generally, stakeholders interviewed between the technical studies were supportive
of the notion of having an independent third-party expert assessment for the SRI;
however, one stakeholder suggested considering more forward-looking

approaches to the SRI assessment, based on self-evaluation and/or data obtained
directly from the TBSs. On this latter point, they emphasised that constraints
resulting from compliance with GDPR should be taken into account.
Streamlining the assessment procedure

The first technical study followed a streamlining process that reduced an initial set
of almost 100 smart services to 50 to facilitate the assessment process and
improve the viability of the scheme. Stakeholders interviewed between the
technical studies did not comment on this specifically, which implies they most
likely approved of the streamlining in the first study; however, without mentioning
limiting the number of services to be assessed, several stakeholders expressed
the importance of keeping the scheme simple, which might imply approval of
further reductions in the number of smart services to be assessed.
Evolving towards remote quantified assessment; the quality and reliability

of the assessment process; commissioning
Each of these topics was discussed at least partially in the first technical study but
few specifics were added in the inter-study stakeholder review process, other than
confirming that the quality and reliability of the assessment process is considered
to be a very important success factor for the SRI. For that reason, most
interviewed stakeholders expressed support for an independent third-party
assessment process.
Guidance and training of the assessors

Several stakeholders commented on the importance of ensuring that adequate
guidance and training be made available for third-party SRI assessors.
Role of system suppliers

Several stakeholders mentioned that assessment would be facilitated and made
more reliable if system suppliers provided readily accessible information on the
functionality of their products in a manner that is aligned with the SRI ordinal
classification. This could involve suppliers highlighting relevant system capabilities
in technical documentation, but perhaps even better could involve application of
an easily scannable code (such as a QR code) that an assessor could use to
instantly determine the product/system’s functionality ranking. From a practical
perspective this implies that the system-level functionality is knowable either at
the factory (in which case the manufacturer could add the information) or at the
point of installation (whereupon the installers would need to supply the
information).
1.1.1.7 Data protection
Several stakeholders mentioned the importance of respecting data protection and

GDPR provisions but did not comment explicitly about what this might mean for
implementation of the SRI.
1.1.1.8 Interoperability of SRTs
At a meeting on the SRI hosted by a stakeholder and held on 15 May 2018, work
was presented on what ETSI is doing on standards for interoperability, in particular
with regard to SAREF ontologies. It is noted that this is mainly targeted towards
interoperability between novel TBSs and the energy grid. In the scope of the SRI,
operability among various TBSs can also be of importance, and equally legacy
systems should be considered.

1.1.1.9 Interactions with other schemes
Several stakeholders commented on the need to clarify how the SRI will interact
with other schemes such as EPCs, Level(s), BRPs, etc. As mentioned previously,
some proposed that in the case of the EPC a minimum EPC level should be set
below which it is not permitted to have an SRI, whereas others would like buildings
to be eligible for the SRI whatever their energy performance. One stakeholder
suggested that the SRI could be used as a tool to assess the impact of
refurbishments and thereby be linked to energy efficiency financing. A more
common comment is to ensure that the SRI is complementary to other building
initiatives, such as BRPs, Level(s) and tools/technologies such as digital logbooks
and BIM.
Aside from the well-known schemes discussed above, the SRI will be operating in
a context wherein major private sector players are aiming to roll out digitalisation
services in households. For example, one stakeholder of the utility sector is
reported to be developing a new offer for “future energy hubs” – smart homes
with PV, batteries, EVs, smart thermostats, etc. – wherein they intend to create a
digital customer experience around an advanced software environment for
monitoring and control of home energy. This would also include a dashboard to
maximise user interaction. They have asserted that they see a link between this
type of offer and the SRI, which could give customers a simple and easy-to-
understand picture of home smartness (in an analogy with EPCs and energy
labels). They think the SRI could contribute to helping to market the benefits of a
smart ready home.
1.1.1.10 Testing and validating the methodology
Several stakeholders offered their support to assist in the testing and validation of
the SRI methodology. To support this process, the study team initiated an open
public testing phase of the draft SRI methodology to capture this feedback from
the stakeholder community (see section 5.1.3 for more details).
1.1.1.11 Implementation
Implementation was one of the key foci of Topical Group A. At the meeting held
on 26 March 2019 various implementation issues were touched upon briefly.
It was mentioned that implementation pathways can be dependent on local

conditions, e.g. the regulatory framework for energy supply can feature
differences depending on Member States, and therefore the most viable
implementation pathways are dependent on the type of building and the
circumstances applicable in each Member State. It was also mentioned that as
some Member States already require independent commissioning of large non-
residential buildings, the SRI could tie into that process. The most common
suggestion, both with Topical Group A and in more widespread stakeholder
consultation, is that the SRI should/could be implemented at the same time as an
EPC assessment. In many cases this would exploit the synergies that: access to
the building is granted; a trained third-party assessor is available; the information
gathered in the rest of the EPC could help inform the SRI (e.g. for energy balance
weightings) and vice versa; an assessment (and hence coverage of a large part of
the building stock) would be guaranteed; communication of both instruments
could be managed in a complementary and consistent manner; and costs would
be minimised as there would be no duplication of setting up and travel time. Some
stakeholders would prefer that the SRI is mandatory at the Member State level,

i.e. that Member States decide to implement it in a mandatory manner within their
jurisdictions (this is an option within the EPBD formulation).
Aside from the above, many other suggestions were forthcoming. There was a
lively discussion, with some advocating that the SRI be focused on new-builds only
in its early stages as this would allow system designers and commissioners to
factor it into their design deliberations and would also allow it to be piloted on a
small part of the building stock before it is rolled out to a large proportion of the
stock.
One stakeholder suggested that the SRI could provide answers to tangible
questions posed by users and service providers, for example:
• “This building is ready for energy performance contracting”

• “This building is ready to communicate performance data to users”.
One stakeholder suggested that the SRI could be promoted effectively by smart
energy solution providers; in particular, aggregators and cities/municipalities
could also be involved.
Implementation options and pathways have been explored in much more depth
with Topical Group A (see 5.1.2.1).
Consistency in application of the SRI

Some stakeholders expressed the importance of the SRI being applied consistently
across the EU for the scheme’s integrity and impact to be assured. They argued
that this would ensure there is a level playing field and help close loopholes. The
establishment of common guidelines and protocols are required to achieve this as
well as establishing clarity about which elements are fixed centrally versus which,
if any, would be locally determined.
1.1.1.12 Standardisation and codification of services and

functionality levels
The need to establish a common technical basis for the codification of services and
their functionality levels was raised in the first technical study. Some stakeholders
commented that this is important but that reliance on formally adopted technical
standards risks being too unresponsive to the rapidly evolving nature of smart
services. While this is recognised, stakeholders did not proffer any specific
suggestions on how the technical consistency and clarity that can be provided by
technical standards can be achieved by other means that would be sufficiently
responsive. This topic was therefore to be explored by Topical Group A.
1.1.1.13 How best to update the methodology and to address

innovation?
This topic was raised as an issue in the first technical study and many stakeholders
have since also expressed the importance of the methodology being capable of
rapid update so that emerging smart solutions are not impeded due to their not
being catalogued and recognised within the SRI methodology. While all agreed on
the importance of the issue, no specific suggestions of how best to do this were
put forward, apart for some stakeholders suggesting that this was a reason why
the SRI should aim to evolve to a quantified performance-based assessment
methodology as quickly as possible. It should be noted that many schemes face

the same challenge and that the approaches used in other initiatives (see the
section 1.2.2) could also be applied.
1.1.2 TARGETED REVIEW OF OTHER RELEVANT WORKS AND INITIATIVES
The next step of the targeted review was the conduct of research into other
relevant works and initiatives (at the EU, Member State, local/regional and wider
international level when relevant) that are aimed at characterising the smartness
of buildings or related aspects. To conduct this work, the study team:
• performed desk research into relevant projects, studies and initiatives

(including standards, labels, EU collaborative projects, etc.) and whenever
appropriate directly contacted the organisations involved in these activities to
discuss the nature of the initiatives, establish their characteristics and consider
to what extent they could inform the development of the SRI
• performed desk research into all the initiatives mentioned in the tender
document (e.g. EPCs, “broadband ready” label , Level(s), voluntary European
Cybersecurity Certification scheme, BIM, a future European industrial digital
platform for construction, the digital building logbook, SAREF common
ontology for smart appliances, well-established international and national
building labelling and certification schemes (e.g. BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, etc.)
and emerging initiatives for the promotion of smart buildings (e.g. SBA in
France etc.) and whenever appropriate directly contacted the organisations
involved in these initiatives to discuss the nature of the initiatives, establish
their characteristics and consider to what extent they could overlap with, be
pertinent to or interact with the SRI
• performed broader desk research and networking activities to establish details
of any other relevant initiatives not mentioned directly in the tender document
• consulted with registered stakeholders to request insights into any pertinent
initiative in addition to those mentioned above to ensure that they are
considered and addressed in the same manner.
The findings of this review are reported in the sections below together with the
outputs of the review of other initiatives that could relate to the SRI.
1.1.2.1 Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs)
EPCs provide information for consumers on buildings they plan to purchase or rent.
They include an energy performance rating and recommendations for cost-
effective improvements. Certificates must be included in all advertisements in
commercial media when a building is put up for sale or rent. They must also be
shown to prospective tenants or buyers when a building is being constructed, sold
or rented. After a deal has been concluded, they are handed over to the buyer or
new tenant. Under the EPBD, all EU countries have established independent
control systems for EPCs.
EPCs are mandated under the EPBD but are implemented in different ways at
Member State level. Most Member States require EPCs to be produced via a third-
party inspection. Many use an asset-based assessment where the inspector enters
details of the building’s energy characteristics into a software tool that then
calculates the energy performance of the building as an asset. Usually these
software tools have encoded calculations from building energy performance
standards – the tools themselves may or may not be proprietary but are generally
approved by a managing authority. Some Member States permit energy

performance classifications to be derived from metered energy data and basic
building characteristics such as floor area. In some cases, the approach varies
depending on the building type, e.g. Germany normally requires asset ratings but
permits ratings calculated from energy consumption data for multi-family housing.
Third-party assessment is usually conducted via qualified independent assessors,
but the degree of training and qualifications required varies by Member State.
Member States are also encouraged to conduct quality verification checks on the
EPCs issued, but the degree of conformity is not usually reported (see “EPC
quality” sub-section below).
Coverage and renewal periods

All Member States require EPCs to be issued for new buildings. In the case of
existing buildings, Member States require EPCs to be issued whenever a building
changes ownership or tenancy. Some Member States also require it to be done
whenever a building undergoes a major renovation (e.g. defined in terms of the
percentage of total floor area being renovated) or as a proof to grant support
mechanisms. If an EPC has previously been issued for a building undergoing
change of ownership or tenancy, the Member State may allow the same EPC to be
used without rechecking up to a maximum period (usually 10 years but sometimes
as low as 6; Member States sometimes have a shorter renewal period for non-
residential building EPCs).
The rules applied make a large difference to the coverage (i.e. share of the total
building stock having an EPC) that is achieved. From data reported in the public
domain, the UK seems to have the highest annual issuance of EPCs with ~2.5
million issued per year, as compared to ~850,000 in France, ~420,000 in Italy,
~320,000 in Germany, and fewer in smaller Member States. In part, the
differences in numbers are explained by:
• whether a fresh EPC must be issued every time a building changes tenancy or
ownership, or whether it is only when the validity of a previous EPC has
expired, or it is only every time there are major renovations
• whether a single EPC is issued for a multi-family building or a separate one for
each apartment within it
• the number of buildings in the national building stock
• the average frequency that buildings change occupancy or ownership
• the share of single- versus multi-family dwellings
• the coverage of EPCs in the non-residential sector
• compliance with the requirements
• how long the scheme has been in effect.
Among eight countries surveyed in 20189 (Belgium [Flanders], Bulgaria, Germany,

Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden), the total share of the building stock
that had received an EPC ranged from as little as 1% (in the case of Bulgaria circa
2017) to 29% (in the case of Flanders circa 2017). The share may be significantly
higher in some other Member States, notably the UK. Compliance with
requirements is another factor that will have a big impact on the coverage
9
https://ibroad-project.eu/news/8-country-factsheets/

achieved: while some Member States report compliance in the upper 90% range,
others seem to have poor compliance.
Cost
Based on an analysis reported for 8 Member States, the cost of issuing an EPC
varies from as much as ~€4.5/m2 (Germany) to as little as €0.10/m2 (Romania).
Of course, the level of effort required for the appraisal is likely to vary
considerably, as is the expertise required by the assessor.
Availability of assessors
All Member States that have data available report a large number of qualified
assessors available to conduct the EPC assessments, e.g. there are reported to be
over 1000 such assessors in Flanders, over 7000 in France, and over 17,000 in
Germany.
Quality of EPCs
The quality of EPCs is sometimes challenged by stakeholders and appears to be
quite variable. A survey10 conducted by the Commission in 2014 asked Member
States to indicate the number of EPCs they had subject to validation checks.
Among the 19 Member States for which data are reported, the share of EPCs
subject to validation checks averaged at about 2.4%, but the share varied
considerably by Member State. The nature of these validation checks was unclear
(e.g. from as little as checking that data were entered correctly and results
calculated properly, to as much as revisiting the same properties and validating
that the data collection and entry was done correctly), as was the percentage of
checks that revealed problems, so the overall quality is unknown except by
individual Member State authorities.
Impact of EPCs
The European Commission published a study on the impact of EPCs in 2013 11.
Based on an analysis of residential markets in Europe, the study found that higher
energy savings resulted in substantially higher sale or rental prices on average.
National reports
EU countries have produced reports on the independent control systems they use
for energy performance certificates12.
In addition, a study on a voluntary common EU certification scheme for non-

residential buildings has also been conducted for DG Energy13.
10
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ics_art18_epbd_recast.zip
11
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20130619-
energy_performance_certificates_in_buildings.pdf
12
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ics_art18_epbd_recast.zip
13
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final%20report%20-
%20Building%20Certification%20Schemes%20-%20FINAL%2026112014.pdf

Relevance to the SRI
The experience of EPCs is mostly relevant to the SRI with regard to implementation
but it also has methodological relevance. For the latter EPC data could potentially
be used to inform aspects of the SRI calculation. With regard to implementation
the EPCs involve direct on-site assessment by qualified (3rd party) assessors and
hence provide a useful template and lessons with regard to what can be expected
were such an assessment method to be used for the SRI in terms of the time and
costs of assessment, gaining access to the property, training assessors,
establishing an adequate pool of assessors and quality assurance of the
assessments.
1.1.2.2 Level(s)
Level(s) is a framework produced by the European Commission, using voluntary

reporting to improve building sustainability. Level(s) is intended to allow for a
commonality in the EU’s approach to environmental performance assessment of
buildings and provide a simple jumping-off point for sustainability. The framework
uses a series of indicators to compare and link building impacts with the wider EU-
level sustainability priorities, thus giving the user a more manageable set of
essential indicators and concepts at a lower level that help to achieve EU and
Member State environmental policy goals.
Level(s) can also be used to aid design and construction of sustainable buildings
– which are not only more comfortable and healthier, but also use less energy and
fewer materials. Sustainable buildings have a reduced environmental impact, and
due to their lower running costs are more profitable over longer time periods. The
initiative seeks to move away from the “take, make and waste” economic model
in favour of greater resource efficiency in sustainable buildings. The initiative
recognises that the buildings sector accounts for approximately half of total energy
consumption, half of all material extraction, one third of generated waste and one
third of water consumption, making it one of Europe’s most resource-consuming
sectors.
The built environment is therefore a central target of the European Commission’s

circular economy policy: a regenerative economic system with minimal resource
and energy consumption. Level(s) is a tool of this circular economy for the built
environment, intended to stimulate life cycle thinking at the level of a whole
building, and support users from the design stage all the way through to a
building’s operation and occupation.
Policy background
In 2014, the European Commission adopted the Communication “Resource
Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector”. This initiative’s objective is to
improve resource efficiency, thus reducing the environmental impact of buildings
and improving the related competitiveness of businesses in the sector.
A need was identified for a commonality in the EU approach to the assessment of

buildings’ environmental performance: a “common framework of core indicators”,
with the intent to drive performance improvements and simplify comparison
between buildings.
In 2015, the Circular Economy Action Plan reiterated this objective and added that,
given the extended lifetime of buildings, it is key to encourage improvements in
design in order to reduce their impact on the environment and increase the
recyclability and durability of their components.

Since then, the work started the Level(s) framework – a flexible system of
indicators that can be incorporated into new and/or pre-existing assessment
schemes, or be used in their own right by a variety of stakeholders, such as design
teams, property investors and local authorities.
Level(s) aims to draw attention to the key aspects of a building’s performance,

providing a simple entry point to a potentially very complex area.
Users
Level(s) is intended to be used by:
• clients (developers and investors)

• design teams (architects, engineers, quantity surveyors)
• construction management (construction manager, lead contractor)
• facilities managers
• asset managers
• buildings occupants (households or organisations).
Both building professionals and clients can use Level(s) to develop their
understanding of how buildings have an impact on the environment. Level(s)
explains techniques to reduce environmental impact and can be used to prepare
users for other, more advanced tools and assessment schemes.
Level(s) can also be used by certification and assessment schemes to make sure
that their criteria reflect the most important priorities for circular economy at a
European level, and to enable the comparability of data and results across different
building performance rating systems.
Pilot testing
Level(s) is currently undergoing pilot testing following a conference held on 4
December 2017, wherein 80 pioneering organisations committed to test Level(s)
and joined a workshop organised by the European Commission, to learn more
about the testing phase, how other organisations plan to test Level(s) and what
the benefits of the tool can be according to building certification schemes 14. A
recently released report details the test’s progress 15.
Information sources
An introduction to Level(s) is provided on line16 ,17. The Joint Research Centre
(JRC) website details all information related to the study 18.
14
Conference report: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Level_publication_EN.pdf
15
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/LEVEL(S)%20CONFERENCE%20REPORT.pdf
16
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Efficient_Buildings/docs/
170816_Levels_EU_framework_of_building_indicators_Parts.pdf
17
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Efficient_Buildings/docs/
170816_Levels_EU_framework_of_building_indicators.pdf
18
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Efficient_Buildings

In the preparation of the 2014 Communication, the Commission organised a public
consultation on sustainable buildings (2013).

The Level(s) initiative is potentially relevant to the SRI with regard to
implementation. At a minimum the SRI has to be complementary to Level(s);
however, in principle it should be possible for the SRI to be incorporated as a
component within the Level(s) framework and thus potentially issued whenever a
Level(s) assessment is undertaken. As Level(s) is designed as a voluntary tool for
private sector actors who may wish to apply the methodology to demonstrate the
environmental performance of their buildings the SRI could complement this
framework through offering insight into an additional element of building
performance that also addresses some environmental impacts. If the SRI were
offered as part of a package with Level(s) it might increase overall value and
engagement for both initiatives; however, this seems most consistent with a self-
assessment implementation pathway.
1.1.2.3 Building Renovation Passports (BRPs)
A BRP is defined as a document in electronic or paper format that outlines a long-

term (up to 15 or 20 years) step-by-step renovation roadmap for a specific
building, resulting from an on-site energy audit fulfilling specific quality criteria
and indicators established during the design phase and in dialogue with building
owners. The expected benefits in terms of reduced heating bills, comfort
improvement and CO2 reduction are a constitutive part of the BRP and are
explained in a user-friendly communication. The renovation roadmap can be
combined with a repository of building-related information (log book) on aspects
such as energy consumption and production, executed maintenance and building
plans.
On-site data gathering is the first step towards the creation of a BRP. The data
processing can change according to each model (e.g. by using a dedicated
software tool or by adapting existing energy auditing software). The outcome of
steps 1 and 2 is a comprehensive step-by-step renovation roadmap, with tailored
solutions aiming at achieving deep-staged renovation. This step-by-step
renovation roadmap (or staged renovation) involves a renovation plan with a
horizon of up to 15–20 years that, by looking at the building as a whole, suggests
the installation of selected measures in a certain order to avoid the situation that
at any stage of renovation the installation of additional measures is precluded.
Some common principles are applied in the various national/local BRP schemes
currently being trialled. These include:
• taking a long-term perspective – the integration of a long-term thinking is

essential for the success of BRPs
• timing and sequencing of actions – BRPs include both short-term and long-
term measures and clearly indicate the correct order in which to install them
(e.g. sequencing of the measures’ installation over time) to avoid lock-ins,
increase building owners’ confidence and enhance the rate of deep renovation
• customer engagement and consideration of the individual renovation context
– the wishes, needs (particularly expectations regarding comfort) and the
financial situation of the occupants must be considered
• attractiveness and motivation – BRPs should be very attractive and user-
friendly for both the auditors and the users, to help them confidently take
action without being discouraged by the complexity of the renovations

• automation – experts should be able to perform the audit, input data and
deliver the results as easily as possible (modular blocks, indicate default values
and highlight errors in cases of incorrect inputs, etc.)
Figure 1 - Building Renovation Passport – overview of components. Source: BPIE
In addition to the renovation roadmap, the BRP can include a separate element, a
storage log book where the building’s features and information (e.g. stability,
durability, water, installations, humidity, maintenance requirement, etc.) can be
collected and regularly updated, becoming a proper repository of information and
data related to a specific building. The log book could also include other sets of
information related to each individual building, such as the financing options
available in the area for renovation projects (e.g. green loans, incentives, tax
credits) as well as energy bills, equipment maintenance recommendations,
insurance and property obligations. All this information could be inventoried in a
digital register available to property owners.
The main user of the log book will be the building owner. Depending on the type
of log book or its intended use, owners could grant access to some information to
public authorities (e.g. municipality, property tax office), building professionals
and craftsmen, and make some information publicly available, while keeping other
data private or restricted (semi-public upon authorisation to third parties). In its
most sophisticated form, the log book could also be used as an interactive tool to
monitor (both at individual building level and building stock level) and compare
real energy consumption with designed energy consumption, sending alerts in
instances of unusual consumption patterns or flaws in technical installations. It
could also be linked to market actors (such as building professionals, craftsmen or
financial institutions) to provide information regarding (certified) contractors and
installers, facilitate invoicing and simplify the process for subsidies or loans
repayment.

BRP schemes are currently being implemented or trialled in at least Germany,
France and Flanders.

Like the Level(s) initiative building renovation passports are a new initiative that
is still being elaborated and trialled. As with the Level(s) initiative building
renovation passports are potentially relevant to the SRI with regard to
implementation. At a minimum the SRI needs to be complementary to them, in
that it can happily co-exist; however, in principle it should be possible for the SRI
to be incorporated as a component within the building renovation passport
framework and thus potentially issued whenever a BRP assessment is undertaken.
In practice BRPs involve a kind of rolling assessment of a building and therefore
an SRI assessment could be integrated within this process and potentially add
value to the BRP users. The most obvious time to incorporate an SRI assessment
into a BRP would be when the first BRP assessment occurs as this initial
assessment would be comprehensive and readily adapted to include the SRI
information. In principle as future changes are made the extent to which the BRP
is updated could also apply to the SRI for the affected domains. This naturally
raises the topic of what type of actor would be doing the initial and update
assessments and implementation topics related to shared assessment cost and
competence.
1.1.2.4 Digital log books and Building Information Modelling (BIM)
Digital log books for buildings are usually intended to provide a simple, easily
accessible summary of a new or refurbished building rather than the detail
contained in operation and maintenance manuals. In some Member States the
provision of such information to building owners has become mandatory through
the form of a building log book (which needn’t necessarily be electronic but
increasingly is). The log books will typically cover how a building is intended to
work and how it is meant to be maintained and serviced. They also provide a
means to record the energy use and maintenance of the services within the
building. The information in such log books is generally aimed at:
• facilities managers
• building and building services designers
• those replacing or altering building services plant in existing buildings
• building owners/clients.
A typical building log book might include:
• a description of key responsibilities

• a schedule of contacts
• a description of the overall building, including zoning and occupancy
• a description of the building’s operational strategy
• a description of the building’s services plant, controls and management
systems
• changes that have been made to the building
• health and safety considerations
• maintenance requirements
• metering and monitoring strategy
• the recommendations report produced along with the construction EPC
• building performance in use investigations and targets
• references to other documents.

In general, initial preparation of the building log book would be co-ordinated by
the lead designer and would be issued to the building’s facilities manager at
handover. If updates are required during any defects liability period, these would
normally be done by the designers. The facilities manager would then take over
responsibility for its ongoing development with the common intention that the
building log book would be reviewed and updated annually by the facilities
manager.
In addition to a building log book, it may also be prudent to prepare a non-

technical ‘building users guide’ with information for users about environmental
controls, access, security and safety systems, etc.
BIM is a digital tool aimed at the construction industry as a platform for central
integrated design, modelling, and asset planning, running and cooperation. It
provides all stakeholders with a digital representation of a building’s characteristics
in its whole life cycle and thereby holds out the promise of large efficiency gains.
Figure 2 – Applications of BIM along the engineering and construction value chain.
Source: Shaping the Future of Construction19
The range of BIM ‘maturity levels’ can be categorised as:
• Level 0 – unmanaged CAD (Computer Aided Design)

• Level 1 – managed CAD in 2D or 3D
• Level 2 – managed 3D environment with data attached, but created in separate
discipline models
19
World Economic Forum, Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and
Technology, 2016

• Level 3 – single, online, project model with construction sequencing, cost and
life-cycle management information.
The uptake and sophistication of BIM vary considerably from country to country
and from company to company, according to their size and position in the value
chain. For some large engineering companies, BIM is already part of business as
usual, but most small companies across the value chain have little BIM experience;
in fact, even some of the major contractors have never used BIM on any of their
projects. The difference in adoption rates within Europe is reported to be
considerable but also highly dynamic; for example, according to information
published on the JRC website20, “16% of E&C companies in the United Kingdom
are reported never to have used BIM, while in Austria it is 49%”; however, this
statement is already out of date. The National Building Specification in the UK
conducts an annual survey of BIMs adoption that draws on the views of more than
1000 construction industry professionals. In the most recently published 2016
survey21 it was found that 54% of respondents were aware of and using BIM (up
from 48% the previous year) whilst 42% were just aware of BIM; 86% expected
to be using BIM in a year’s time, and 97% in 5 years’ time. Some 70% had
produced 3D digital models in the last year, and 74% had worked collaboratively
on design; however, 28% were not confident or not at all confident in their
knowledge of and skills in BIM. There was more use of BIM on public sector
projects, but there was also significant BIM adoption in the private sector for
housing, offices and leisure facilities.
In the UK survey, immediate colleagues were the most commonly used source of
information about BIM, along with external professionals and the UK BIM Task
Group. Standards used included the RIBA Plan of Work 2013, PAS 1192-2:2013,
PAS 1192-3:2014 and BS 1192:2007. However, 65% believed BIM had not been
sufficiently standardised. Some 80% did not generate COBie (Construction
Operations Building Information Exchange) output or did not know whether they
did. COBie is a data format for the publication of a sub-set of building information
models focusing on delivering asset data rather than geometric information and is
one of the key outputs required by level 2 BIM.
The JRC has identified the same problem at the European level and is arguing that
what the industry needs is “big and open” BIM, which integrates the entire value
chain and is characterised by full interoperability of software and open access to
it. While the technical challenges are likely to be overcome in the near future, it
might prove more difficult to change existing processes and to increase
collaboration, including data sharing.
One particular area where standardisation on BIM is needed is the exchange of

information between software applications used in the construction industry. The
leading organisation in this domain is buildingSMART 22, which has developed and
maintains Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as a neutral and open specification
for BIM data models. Other standardisation work includes data dictionaries
(International Framework for Dictionaries Libraries) and processes (data delivery
20
Building Information Modelling (BIM) standardization, Martin Poljanše, JRC Technical Reports 2017
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC109656/jrc109656_bim.standardiza
tion.pdf
21
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/NBS_National_BIM_Report_2016
22
https://www.buildingsmart.org/

manuals). ISO/TC 59/SC 13 on the “Organization of Information About
Construction Works”, a sub-committee of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) on the worldwide and CEN/TC 442 “Building Information
Modelling” is a technical committee of the European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN) which operates at the European level to develop and
maintain standards in the BIM domain. Liaisons with a plethora of different
institutions ensure the completeness and inclusiveness of the process as well as
the smooth acceptance of adopted standards.
In addition, the EU is sponsoring projects that aim to develop a common European

approach to BIM, such as the EUBIM network23.
BIM and digital logbooks are relevant to the SRI with regard to implementation as
the information they contain can overlap with SRI needs and in utilising a digital
platform opens the possibility of sharing relevant datasets in a manner that is
beneficial to both. Acquiring the data needed by BIM entails a site visit and
inspection for existing buildings and in principle this process could be done in
common for both BIM and an SRI. Once the data has been acquired it is stored
digitally and this could facilitate future updates as systems are added or amended
as from a technical perspective only a partial assessment (of the part which has
changed) is needed. BIM also entails management of data confidentiality in a
digital environment and hence has lessons for potential implementation pathways
that could be used by the SRI.
BIM is a voluntary private sector practice and is a tool used to manage building
projects more efficiently. Therefore, an SRI assessment conducted within a BIM
framework would not ordinarily be a 3rd party assessment. For it to have value,
even in a B2B capacity it would imply that the BIM assessor would have acquired
the requisite skills to conduct the assessment.
1.1.2.5 Cybersecurity and the Voluntary European Cybersecurity

Certification scheme
Traditional energy technologies are becoming progressively more connected to

modern, digital technologies and networks. This increasing digitalisation makes
the energy system smarter and enables consumers to better benefit from
innovative energy services. At the same time, digitalisation creates significant
risks as an increased exposure to cyberattacks and cybersecurity incidents
potentially jeopardises the security of energy supply and the privacy of consumer
data. Digital technologies are the backbone of smart ready services in buildings.
They might also bring about new risks related to data theft, fraud and system
hacking. Ensuring cybersecurity is therefore a key issue to foster trust in digital
technologies and prevent their exploitation as a means of compromising the
cybersecurity of energy networks and infrastructure.
The European Commission has adopted a series of measures to raise Europe’s

preparedness to ward off cyber incidents. Securing network and information
systems in the EU is an essential aspect of the EU’s Digital Agenda. The Network
and Information Security (NIS) Directive on security of network and information
systems was adopted by the European Parliament on 6 July 2016 and entered into
force in August the same year. Member States were given 21 months to transpose
23
http://www.eubim.eu

the Directive into their national laws, as well as 6 months more to identify
operators of essential services.
Recently the EU has set out its approach towards ensuring cybersecurity in the
energy sector24, including the establishment of a comprehensive legislative
framework. The framework builds on the EU Cybersecurity strategy (JOIN
(2013)01 final25) and the Directive on Security of Network and Information
Systems (the NIS Directive) (EU) 2016/1148 26 and from September 2017 has
been reinforced by the Cybersecurity Package (JOIN (2017) 450 final), which also
includes the Cybersecurity Act. In April 2019, the European Commission adopted
sector-specific guidance (recommendation C(2019)240 final 27 and staff working
document SWD (2019)1240 final28) to implement horizontal cybersecurity rules.
This guidance aims to increase awareness and preparedness in the energy sector.
The above were informed by a study on cybersecurity in the energy sector that
highlights the risks and mitigation options29.
These measures potentially have consequences with regard to the SRTs that could
be included within the SRI framework, especially with regard to requirements that
energy network operators are likely to aim to impose to assure the cybersecurity
of their networks.
Specifically, recommendation C(2019)240 advises that energy network operators

should:
‘(a) apply the most recent security standards for new installations wherever
adequate and consider complementary physical security measures where
the installed base of old installations cannot be sufficiently protected by
cybersecurity mechanisms;
(b) implement international standards on cybersecurity and adequate
specific technical standards for secure real-time communication as soon as
respective products become commercially available;
(c) consider real-time constraints in the overall security concept for assets,
especially in asset classification;
…
Where available, energy network operators should also:
(a) choose a secure communication protocol, taking into consideration real-
time requirements, for example between an installation and its
management systems (Energy Management System – EMS / Distribution
Management System – DMS);
(b) introduce an appropriate authentication mechanism for machine-to-
machine communication, addressing real-time requirements.
…
24
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-security/critical-infrastructure-and-cybersecurity
25
https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf
26
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/1148 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 July 2016
concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems
across the Union https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/1148/oj
27
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/commission_recommendation_on_cybersecurity_in_th
e_energy_sector_c2019_2400_final.pdf
28
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/swd2019_1240_final.pdf
29
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/studies/study-evaluation-risks-cyber-incidents-and-costs-
preventing-cyber-incidents-energy-sector

In particular, energy network operators should:
(a) ensure that new devices, including Internet of Things (IoT) devices,
have and will maintain a level of cybersecurity appropriate to a site's
criticality…’
These are not unique, however, as the other cybersecurity actions have been
initiated or are pending.
In 2004 the EU set up the European Union Agency for Network and Information
Security (ENISA)30. ENISA works closely together with Member States and the
private sector in facing network and information security challenges, as well as
delivering advice and solutions on cybersecurity.
On 13 September 2017, the Commission issued a proposal for a regulation on

ENISA, the “EU Cybersecurity Agency”, and on ICT cybersecurity certification
(“Cybersecurity Act”)31. This “package” builds upon existing instruments and
presents new initiatives to further improve EU cyber resilience and response. This
includes the establishment of an EU cybersecurity certification framework that is
designed to ensure the trustworthiness of the billions of connected devices (in
terms of “Internet of things”32) in diverse sectors such as telecom, energy and
transport networks, and new consumer devices, such as connected cars, smart
buildings and many others.
The proposed certification framework is intended to provide EU-wide certification

schemes as a comprehensive set of rules, technical requirements, standards and
procedures33. This will be based on agreement at the EU level for the evaluation
of the security properties of a specific ICT-based product or service.
The rationale for this is that certification plays a critical role in increasing trust and
security in products and services that are crucial for the digital single market. At
the moment, a number of different security certification schemes for ICT products
exist in the EU. Without a common framework for EU-wide valid cybersecurity
certificates, there is an increasing risk of fragmentation and barriers in the single
market.
The proposed certification framework is intended to provide EU-wide certification

schemes as a comprehensive set of rules, technical requirements, standards and
procedures. This will be based on agreement at EU level for the evaluation of the
security properties of a specific ICT-based product or service, e.g. smart cards.
The certification will attest that ICT products and services that have been certified
in accordance with such a scheme comply with specified cybersecurity
requirements. The resulting certificate will be recognised in all Member States,
making it easier for businesses to trade across borders and for purchasers to
understand the security features of the product or service.
30
https://www.enisa.europa.eu/
31
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on ENISA, the
"EU Cybersecurity Agency", and repealing Regulation (EU) 526/2013, and on Information and
Communication Technology cybersecurity certification (''Cybersecurity Act'')
32
The Internet of things is the extension of Internet connectivity into physical devices and everyday
objects. Embedded with electronics, Internet connectivity, and other forms of hardware, these
devices can communicate and interact with others over the Internet, and they can be remotely
monitored and controlled.
33
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eu-cybersecurity-certification-framework

The schemes proposed in the future European framework will rely as much as
possible on international standards as a way to avoid creating trade barriers and
ensuring coherence with international initiatives.
Specifically, the proposal states:
“Cybersecurity certification of ICT products and services in order to

establish and preserve trust and security, ICT products and services need
to directly incorporate security features in the early stages of their technical
design and development (security by design). Moreover, customers and
users need to be able to ascertain the level of security assurance of the
products and services they procure or purchase. Certification, which
consists of the formal evaluation of products, services and processes by an
independent and accredited body against a defined set of criteria standards
and the issuing of a certificate indicating conformance, plays an important
role in increasing trust and security in products and services. While security
evaluations are quite a technical area, certification serves the purpose to
inform and reassure purchasers and users about the security properties of
the ICT products and services that they buy or use. As mentioned above,
this is particularly relevant for new systems that make extensive use of
digital technologies and which require a high level of security, such as e.g.
connected and automated cars, electronic health, industrial automation
control systems (IACS)14 or smart grids.
Currently, the landscape of cybersecurity certification of ICT products and

services in the EU is quite patchy. There are a number of international
initiatives, such as the so-called Common Criteria (CC) for Information
Technology Security Evaluation (ISO 15408), which is an international
standard for computer security evaluation. It is based on third party
evaluation and envisages seven Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL). The CC
and the companion Common Methodology for Information Technology
Security Evaluation (CEM) are the technical basis for an international
agreement, the Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA), which
ensures that CC certificates are recognized by all the signatories of the
CCRA. However, within the current version of the CCRA only evaluations
up to EAL 2 are mutually recognized. Moreover, only 13 Member States
have signed the Arrangement.”
The proposed Regulation aims to establish a European Cybersecurity Certification

Framework for ICT products and services and specifies the essential functions and
tasks of ENISA in the field of cybersecurity certification. The present proposal lays
down an overall framework of rules governing European cybersecurity certification
schemes. The proposal does not introduce directly operational certification
schemes, but rather creates a system (framework) for the establishment of
specific certification schemes for specific ICT products/services (the “European
cybersecurity certification schemes”). The creation of European cybersecurity
certification schemes in accordance with the Framework will allow certificates
issued under those schemes to be valid and recognised across all Member States
and to address the current market fragmentation.
The general purpose of a European cybersecurity certification scheme is to attest

that the ICT products and services that have been certified in accordance with the
scheme comply with specified cybersecurity requirements. This would include their
ability to protect data (whether stored, transmitted or otherwise processed)
against accidental or unauthorized storage, processing, access, disclosure,
destruction, accidental loss or alteration. In addition to outlining a specific set of

security objectives to be taken into account in the design of a specific European
cybersecurity certification scheme, the proposal provides what the minimum
content of such schemes should be. Such schemes will have to define, among
others, a number of specific elements setting out the scope and object of the
cybersecurity certification. This includes the identification of the categories of
products and services covered, the detailed specification of the cybersecurity
requirements (for example by reference to the relevant standards or technical
specifications), the specific evaluation criteria and methods, and the level of
assurance they are intended to ensure (i.e. basic, substantial or high).
European cybersecurity certification schemes will be prepared by ENISA, with the

assistance, expert advice and close cooperation of the European Cybersecurity
Certification Group (see below) and adopted by the Commission by means of
implementing acts. When the need for a cybersecurity certification scheme is
identified, the Commission will request ENISA to prepare a scheme for specific ICT
products or services. ENISA will work on the scheme in close cooperation with
national certification supervisory authorities represented in the Group. Member
States and the Group may propose to the Commission that it requests ENISA to
prepare a particular scheme.Recourse to European cybersecurity certification will
remain voluntary, unless otherwise provided in Union legislation laying down
security requirements of ICT products and services.
In order to ensure harmonisation and avoid fragmentation, national cybersecurity

certification schemes or procedures for the ICT products and services covered by
a European cybersecurity certification scheme will cease to apply from the date
established in the implementing act adopting the scheme. Once a European
cybersecurity certification scheme is adopted, manufacturers of ICT products or
providers of ICT services will be able to submit an application for certification of
their products or services to a conformity assessment body of their choice.
Under the proposal, the monitoring, supervisory and enforcement tasks lie with
the Member States. Member States will have to provide for one certification
supervisory authority. This authority will be tasked with supervising the
compliance of conformity assessment bodies, as well as of certificates issued by
conformity assessment bodies established in their territory, with the requirements
of this Regulation and the relevant European cybersecurity certification schemes.
Finally, the proposal establishes the European Cybersecurity Certification Group ,

which is comprised of national certification supervisory authorities of all Member
States. The main task of this group is to advise the Commission on issues
concerning cybersecurity certification policy and to work with ENISA on the
development of draft European cybersecurity certification schemes. ENISA will
assist the Commission in providing the secretariat of the group and in maintaining
an updated public inventory of schemes approved under the European
Cybersecurity Certification Framework. ENISA will also liaise with standardisation
bodies to ensure the appropriateness of standards used in approved schemes and
to identify areas in need of cybersecurity standards.
The European Cybersecurity Certification Framework (‘Framework’) is intended to

provide several benefits for citizens and for undertakings. In particular:
• The creation of EU-wide cybersecurity certification schemes for specific

products or services
The Framework aims to establish the primacy of European cybersecurity
certification schemes over national schemes such that the adoption of a European

cybersecurity certification scheme will supersede all existing parallel national
schemes for the same ICT products or services at a given level of assurance.
The SRI will need to be mindful of this framework and ensure that it is
complementary to its development. In particular, it will be necessitate to monitor
the work programme established for the Voluntary Cybersecurity Certification
scheme to see if it is targeting SRTs and smart services related to the SRI and
exploring mechanisms to engage with it if it is.

Cybersecurity is highly relevant to the SRI in terms of data protection and ensuring
no action associated with the SRI is responsible for compromising cybersecurity.
As the SRI concerns smart technologies which are likely to be connected and hence
potentially exploitable through cyberattacks the SRIs implementation needs to be
mindful of these risks and take all reasonable steps to minimise them. The nascent
European Cybersecurity Certification scheme is thus potentially an initiative that
could help to minimise such risks to the extent that it develops criteria that are
applied to SRTs and enables cybersecurity status to be communicated to market
actors. At the current time this scheme is just being initiated and its initial focus
in terms of technology types is yet to be clarified. Therefore, it is more the case
that the SRI implementation process needs to monitor developments with this
scheme and examine how they could complement or potentially integrate with
future editions of the SRI if and when it becomes appropriate to do so.
1.1.2.6 “Broadband-ready” label
Installing physical infrastructure that enables high-speed internet access is more

cost-effective and less disturbing for residents if done at the time of construction
or implementation of major renovation. If buildings are equipped with the
necessary infrastructure, companies can install cables or other active equipment
more quickly and at significantly lower costs, allowing them to offer their services
faster and to more citizens. With this thought in mind, Articles 8 and 9 of the
Directive on “Measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic
communications networks”34 ensure high-speed-ready, accessible in-building
physical infrastructure in all newly constructed and majorly renovated buildings.
To achieve this objective, the buildings for which permits are submitted after 31
December 2016 must be equipped with physical infrastructure, such as mini-ducts
capable of hosting high-speed networks, and an easily accessible access point for
the providers of public communications networks who wish to terminate their
networks at the premises of the subscriber. Such buildings shall be eligible to
receive the voluntary “broadband-ready” label in Member States where this is
available.
Moreover, without prejudice to property rights, every provider of public

communications networks shall have the right to access any in-building physical
infrastructure under fair and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, if
duplication is technically impossible or economically inefficient.
For buildings not equipped with high-speed-ready in-building infrastructure, every

public communication network provider can terminate its network at the premises
34
Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and the Council https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/news/directive-201461eu-european-parliament-and-council

of the subscriber subject to the subscriber’s agreement and provided that it
minimises the impact on the property of third parties.
Specifically, Article 8 states:
“1. Member States shall ensure that all newly constructed buildings at the
end-user's location, including elements thereof under joint ownership, for
which applications for building permits have been submitted after 31
December 2016, are equipped with a high-speed-ready in-building physical
infrastructure, up to the network termination points. The same obligation
applies in the event of major renovation works for which applications for
building permits have been submitted after 31 December 2016.
2. Member States shall ensure that all newly constructed multi-dwelling

buildings, for which applications for building permits have been submitted
after 31 December 2016, are equipped with an access point. The same
obligation applies in the event of major renovation works concerning multi-
dwelling buildings for which applications for building permits have been
submitted after 31 December 2016.
3. Buildings equipped in accordance with this Article shall be eligible to

receive the voluntary ‘broadband-ready’ label in Member States that have
chosen to introduce such a label.
4. Member States may provide for exemptions from the obligations

provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 for categories of buildings, in particular
single dwellings, or major renovation works in cases in which the fulfilment
of those obligations is disproportionate, such as in terms of costs for
individual or joint owners or in terms of type of building, such as specific
categories of monuments, historic buildings, holiday homes, military
buildings or other buildings used for national security purposes. Such
exemptions shall be duly reasoned. The interested parties shall be given
the opportunity to comment on the draft exemptions within a reasonable
period. Any such exemption shall be notified to the Commission.”
A report in 2018 on the implementation of the Directive asserted that Portugal and
Italy have introduced broadband-ready labels and that Spain and Germany are
considering following suit. In France there is a standard to indicate fibred zones 35.
As building connectivity is a necessary precursor to many SRTs the “broadband

ready” label is also relevant to the SRI with regard to how ready the building is to
apply such technologies and the services they offer. Furthermore, the
implementation process has several parallels with the SRI’s in that the scheme is
initiated through an EU Directive but is voluntary for EU Member States and entails
an inspection process to determine compliance with the nationally adopted
specifications. In theory, where such schemes exist they could potentially be
implemented in common with the SRI to share assessment costs and improve the
net value proposition of both schemes, albeit that while the focus of both schemes
overlap they are not the same.
35
https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/7534-berec-report-
on-the-implementation-of-the-broadband-cost-reduction-directive

1.1.2.7 Private sector sustainability certification schemes – BREEAM
The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

(BREEAM) was introduced by BRE in 1990 in the UK. The rationale behind the
introduction of the methodology was to allow a holistic building sustainability
assessment of a broad variety of criteria related to the performance of the building.
Detailed information about the method can be found in the technical manual 36.
Table 1 shows the environmental sections that are used to determine the
sustainability assessment. For each environmental section, a weighting factor for
the different building types is given. The weighting and ranking exercise is
performed by an expert panel. The weightings may be adapted to local conditions.
This adaptation has to be reviewed and approved by BREEAM 37.
Table 1 – Example of BREEAM section weightings for common project types (BREEAM
Technical Manual 2016)
Within those sections a range of criteria are defined for which the building in
question may be awarded credits. For most criteria, one or two indicators can be
achieved. Credits are always discrete numbers; fractions of credits do not exist.
Therefore, for most criteria, the compliance is a discrete (Yes/No) choice of
compliance. This compliance is either the presence of a technology, concept or
practice or the quantitative fulfilment of a threshold value.
36
http://www.breeam.com/BREEAMInt2016SchemeDocument/
37
Note, this is not done on a case-by-case basis, but via an updated version of the "standards and
weightings" file which is published regularly. This file indicates for each country which weightings
should apply. Also it contains a set of standards which may be applied for the calculations. When
a project is first registered to BREEAM, the latest version of this file is assigned to the project and
remains unchanged during the course of the project.

The energy performance of the building is the most influential single indicator,
being awarded up to 15 credits and thus contributing to a maximum of ~5% of
the overall result. The evaluation of the energy use is done by a proprietary metric
taking into account a variety of impact factors such as:
• building floor area (m2)

• notional building energy demand (MJ/m2)
• actual building energy demand (MJ/m2)
• notional building primary energy consumption (kWh/m2)
• actual building primary energy consumption (kWh/m2)
• notional building emission rate (kgCO2/m2)
• actual building emission rate (kgCO2/m2).
These impact factors must be calculated with accredited building software. The
resulting indicator, the “Energy Performance Ratio for International New
Constructions (EPRINC)”, is then calculated with a proprietary tool. The outcome
of this tool is mapped to a discrete credit scale, or alternatively, a checklist
approach by which up to 10 credits can be awarded is used.
Other criteria with a discrete scale are:
• the accessibility index, which is evaluated with a proprietary tool

• life-cycle impacts.
Both criteria are also evaluated with a proprietary tool.
Table 2 shows an example of a BREEAM rating for a specific building. For each
section, the credits achieved are related to the credits available, resulting in a
relative performance within this section. The section score can be calculated in
combination with the weighting factor, and the sum of all section scores gives the
relative performance of the building.

Table 2 – Example of the BREEAM rating overview (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016)
The overall rating of a building is given on a 6-level rating ranging from “Pass” to
“Outstanding” as pass grades, and “Unclassified” as a fail grade. This relative
performance is mapped to this rating according to the values in Table 3.
Table 3– The six BREEAM building environmental performance classes and associated
scoring thresholds (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016)
For each rating, minimum requirements for individual criteria can be defined. This
ensures that a poor performance in crucial criteria cannot be compensated with
an excellent performance in other criteria. Therefore, it is ensured that certain
minimum criteria which are regarded as mandatory for a BREEAM certified building
are fulfilled.

A certain set of criteria are mandatory for the pass grade and are therefore
mandatory to get certified at all. These criteria are:
• all national health and safety legislation and regulations for construction sites
are considered and implemented
• all fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps are fitted with high frequency
ballasts
• materials containing asbestos are prohibited from being specified and used
within the building
• all water systems in the building are designed in compliance with the measures
outlined in the relevant national health and safety best practice guides or
regulations to minimise the risk of microbial contamination, e.g. Legionella
• all timber and timber-based products used on the project are legally harvested
and traded timber.
An outstanding rating requires at least 10 of the 15 credits available in the energy-

use criterion.
For each indicator, evidence is required to demonstrate compliance. This evidence

may be presented in the form of a report, filled checklists, etc.
In the example shown in Table 4, all minimum criteria for the “very good” rating
are achieved; therefore, this rating can be awarded.
Table 4 – Example of a check of minimum standards (BREEAM Technical Manual 2016)
Structure
The structure used in the BREEAM system is to define impact categories, apply
scoring up a maximum value within each of these and then to aggregate points to
give an overall total via the application of weightings to the impact category
scores. This structure can be said to be akin to a standard Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP)38 impact category weighting system. Like many AHP models it
combines qualitative (Yes/No) and quantitative impact categories (where the score
is derived on a linear scale and either calculation software based on quantified
physical simulation is used or metered data is used and ranked via a normalisation
38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process

process). The method applied to derive the maximum scores and weightings per
impact category is proprietary to the BRE and is not explained to the end users.
Method of evaluation
The BREEAM methodology represents an effective and largely transparent
methodology to assess the sustainability performance of a building. Through the
inclusion of a broad range of sustainability indicators covering the whole life cycle
of the building, a holistic assessment is enabled.
Effectiveness
The methodology uses a very straightforward approach to integrate the broad
range of impact criteria into one overall rating. In principle the setting of minimum
requirements for crucial indicators ensures that a balanced assessment is attained,
although expert judgement is clearly required to determine which indicators are
deemed to be crucial and which are not.
Accuracy
For most criteria, discrete choices are the basis for credit assignment. Discrete
choices lack the ability to represent the potential range of criteria achievement.
Nevertheless, when the broad number of criteria is considered, this issue is of

lower importance for the overall result.
Reproducibility
The use of a discrete-choice approach for the credit assignment allows easy
reproduction for most of the criteria. Some of the criteria require the use of
proprietary tools relying on rather detailed building information. In principle, the
reproducibility for those criteria should be high, although the use of detailed input
data could lead to differing assumptions for the calculation.
Enforceability
BREEAM ratings are required by some local authorities as well as private sector
companies in the UK. In the public sector a variety of institutions require a
minimum BREEAM rating for all new buildings. In practice the energy performance
rating process used in BREEAM is aligned with that used in mandatory building
energy performance requirements such as building codes and energy performance
certificates, and thus takes advantage of the same type of compliance
infrastructure and market surveillance mechanisms as have been developed for
these. From a technical level the enforceability of BREEAM specifications is roughly
the same as for building code requirements, but as BREEAM is a private initiative
it relies on the quality of the initial BREEAM assessment to ensure its integrity –
rather than ex post evaluations.
No formal legal requirements for BREEAM ratings appear to be in place, although

BRE reserves the right to remove licenses to BREEAM users who breach their usage
guidelines.
Transparency
The method to be applied is very transparent as the guide is publicly available and
the assessment can be followed step by step. Nevertheless, for some criteria, the
use of proprietary tools is inevitable, especially for energy use, for which a
proprietary indicator that is incompatible with common metrics is used.

The assessment of a broad range of indicators can make interpretation of the
results more difficult than for single indicator-based assessments.
The rationale behind the section weightings and the selection of those criteria
where it is mandatory to pass are not in the public domain and hence are not
transparent.
Ease and readiness

The methodology has been used for almost 30 years and is commonly used on the
market. The wide acceptance and international adoption of the scheme suggests
that it is sufficiently straightforward to implement.
Capacity to be implemented
A priori the impact assessment methods used within BREEAM are not inconsistent
with the methodological aspects of the SRI and both could be adapted to fit within
the other’s assessment process. The BREEAM approach entails the application of
implicit environmental impact criteria aggregator functions based on panel
weightings of which criteria should be assessed and the scoring that they can
attain. This approach is inherently similar to the SRI methodology.

BREEAM is relevant to the SRI both in terms of its approach to apply a multi-
criteria assessment methodology for buildings and in how it is implemented. The
multi-criteria assessment method has many similarities with the SRI’s in that
criteria are identified, mapped to impacts, aggregated and weighted to attain an
overall score while also providing information on scores at the sub-level. The
overall score requires relative weightings across impact criteria to be developed
and applied. The process used to develop and maintain the calculation
methodology is proprietary and is only partly transparent. However, the methods
used to communicate the methodology, manage versions, and conduct appraisals
are transparent and instructive for the SRI.
1.1.2.8 Private sector sustainability certification schemes – LEED
The rating system Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was
developed by the non-profit US Green Building Council in 1994. The LEED system
has evolved over time, with the most recent update LEED v4 being introduced in
2013. The use of LEED v4 has been mandatory since November 2016.
Although the general principles of the system are comparable to those of the
BREEAM system, some methodological differences exist. Whereas the BREEAM
system uses points to calculate a relative target achievement, LEED is a “pure”
points system: no weighting factors between the different categories exist, but the
weighting is made implicitly by the allocation of points to the different criteria.
Within LEED, buildings can qualify for four levels of certification:
• Certified: 40–49 points

• Silver: 50–59 points
• Gold: 60–79 points
• Platinum: 80 points and above.

As is the case for the BREEAM system, LEED has mandatory prerequisites to
ensure a balanced fulfilment of the criteria. Those prerequisites are mandatory for
all certification levels. The overlap of the criteria used in both systems is
considerable, but differences exist in the concrete implementation of the
indicators.
Structure
The structure used in the LEED points system is to define impact categories, apply
scoring up a maximum value within each of these and then aggregate the points
to give an overall total. In general, this structure can be said to be akin to a
standard AHP model, except the application of bounded maximum points per
category is akin to an AHP impact category weighting system. The method used
to derive weightings per impact category appears to be proprietary and is not
explained to the end users.
In general, the evaluation comments that apply to the BREEAM method also apply
to LEED because its features are so similar. Differences arise because to some
extent the methodology is more complex due to its broader scope and the need
for a full life-cycle analysis of the materials used. Nor does it use weighting
between impact categories and hence it might be deemed to be slightly less
accurate as a result.
On the other hand, the holistic approach goes beyond the BREEAM and LEED
approaches and hence could be considered to be more thorough and accurate. The
flip side of this is that it will be more demanding to implement as more factors are
accounted for and require calculation.
Again, the system used to derive the weighting factors is not explained and is
proprietary.

Like BREEAM, LEED is relevant to the SRI both in terms of its approach to apply a
multi-criteria assessment methodology for buildings and in how it is implemented.
The multi-criteria assessment method has many similarities with the SRI’s in that
criteria are identified, mapped to impacts, aggregated and weighted to attain an
overall score while also providing information on scores at the sub-level. The
overall score requires relative weightings across impact criteria to be developed
and applied. The process used to develop and maintain the calculation
methodology is proprietary and is only partly transparent. However, the methods
used to communicate the methodology, manage versions, and conduct appraisals
are transparent and instructive for the SRI. LEED is also interesting in that it
awards credits for building performance monitoring and reporting capabilities.
1.1.2.9 Private sector sustainability certification schemes – DGNB
The rating system of the German Society for Sustainable Building (Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen; DGNB) is the youngest of the building rating
systems described in this report.
The current version of the system is the result of a revision in 2015. The general
principle of the methodology is comparable to the BREEAM and LEED approach,
though there are some differences.

The DGNB system has been designed as a sustainability assessment system. This
is clearly reflected in the indicators and their weighting, as shown in Table 5.
Compared to the other schemes, energy issues play a minor role in the
assessment. Their major impact is on criterion ENV1.1, which considers life-cycle
impacts of the building with a relative relevance of ~8%, and ENV2.1, which
considers primary energy use with a relative relevance of 5.6%.
Economic criteria, which are not relevant in BREEAM and LEED, contribute more
than 20% to the overall result. As life-cycle costs are considered, energy costs are
also relevant in this category.
A point system is used, in which credits are assigned for the individual criteria.
The credits are weighted and aggregated to achieve a final score.
Structure
The structure applied in the DGNB points system (see Table 5) is to define impact
categories, apply scoring up a maximum value within each of these and then to
aggregate the points to give an overall total via the application of weightings to
the impact category scores. This structure can be said to be akin to a standard
AHP model using impact category weightings, although the application of bounded
maximum points per category is akin to a second layer to a standard AHP impact
category weighting system. The method applied to derive the maximum scores
and weightings per impact category is proprietary to the scheme developers and
is not explained to the end users.
In general, the evaluation comments that apply to the BREEAM method also apply
to DGNB because its features are similar. Differences arise because to some extent
the methodology is more complex due to its broader scope and the need for a full
life-cycle analysis of the materials used. However, like BREEAM, it uses weighting
between impact categories.
On the other hand, the holistic approach goes beyond the BREEAM approach and
hence could be considered more thorough and accurate. Conversely, it will be
more demanding to implement as more factors are accounted for and require
calculation. As a consequence, the reproducibility and capacity to implement
scores given by the team are one point lower than for BREEAM.
Again, the system used to derive the weighting factors is not explained in publicly
accessible documents and is proprietary.

DGNB’s relevance to the SRI is very similar to the cases of BREEAM and LEED, but
in practice is focused on implementation within Germany and German speaking
communities.

Table 5 – The impact criteria and weightings applied in the DGNB building environmental
rating system

1.1.2.10 Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)
In April 2013 the European Commission launched a Recommendation on the use

of common methods to measure and communicate the life-cycle environmental
performance of products, also known as Product Environmental Footprint (PEF),
as part of their Single Market for Green Products Initiative39. The method was
developed by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre based on existing,
extensively tested and used methods. The Commission also launched a 3-year
testing period through an open call for organisations to volunteer to participate in
a PEF pilot programme40. The call was addressed to stakeholders who wanted to
propose a product category for which to develop specific Product Environmental
Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs). Such rules have now been developed for a
variety of product types, including batteries and IT products.
The Commission published recommendations on the PEF in the form of guidelines

in 2013 (CEC 2013) that set out the process by which specific PEFCR are to be
developed. It includes the derivation of 15 default environmental impact
categories (Table 6; note that although this table only lists 14 impact categories,
“Eutrophication – aquatic” is to be calculated for both freshwater and marine
environments, thus giving 15 impact categories in total).
In the framework of the environmental footprint pilot phase, the use of

normalisation and weighting factors has been tested. Prior to the establishment of
an agreed set of European weighting factors, all impact categories were to receive
the same weight (weighting factor = 1). Alternative weighting approaches may
also be tested as “additional” compared to the equal weighting approach (the
baseline approach). In the event that alternative weighting systems are also
tested, a sensitivity analysis will be carried out and the results documented and
discussed through a stakeholder consultation process.
For any specific PEFCR, the intention is that a benchmark and performance grades
will be established. The benchmark shall be calculated for all 15 impact categories
separately. The final PEFCRs also describe the uncertainties common to the
product category and identify the range in which results could be seen as not being
significantly different in comparisons or comparative assertions.
Next to the calculated benchmark, each pilot defines five classes of environmental
performance (from A to E, with A being the best performing class). The benchmark
is the characterised results of the PEF profile of the representative product(s) and
always represents class C. The definition of the remaining classes should be taken
into account the estimated spread around the benchmark results, which might
differ from one impact category to another, and an estimation of the expected
environmental performance for the best and worst in class products. All relevant
assumptions regarding the identification of the benchmark and the classes of
environmental performance are documented in the PEFCR and are part of the
virtual consultation and review processes.
39
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/
40
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ef_pilots.htm

Table 6 – Default environmental footprint (EF) impact categories (with respective EF
impact category indicators) and EF impact assessment models for PEF studies

Structure
The PEF is essentially aimed towards a points system application of the life-cycle
analysis process as set out in ISO 14040 and 14044: (i) selection of impact
categories, category indicators and characterisation models; (ii) classification:
assignment of inventory data to impact categories; (iii) characterisation:
calculation of category indicator results; (iv) normalisation: calculating the
magnitude of the category indicator results relative to a chosen reference
information dataset; (v) grouping: sorting and possibly ranking of the impact
categories; and (vi) weighting (valuation): converting and possibly aggregating
indicator results across impact categories using numerical values based on value
choices is akin to the elements found in a standard AHP model.
The PEF method has certain similarities with other multi-criteria assessment
methods such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process 41. Both begin with multiple
criteria, where the criteria in the PEF method are the various environmental impact
categories. In both cases, indicator scores are ascribed to each of the assessment
criteria (impact categories). The normalisation and grouping steps are directly
equivalent to the process within the AHP of ascribing alternatives to each criterion
and providing normalised scores. The weighting of the criteria is also directly
analogous to the AHP, thus the PEF can be said to be an example of the application
of the more generic AHP approach to environmental impact assessment.
Methodology
Some general observations about the status of the PEF methodology are now
given.
Robustness of indicators: The PEF methodology requires the assessment of a

total of 15 impact indicators. The PEF guidance document v.5.2 indicates that
some of these cannot currently be determined in a sufficiently reliable manner. If
it is decided in the pilot to publish the normalised and weighted results, then the
following disclaimer shall be added to the screening report:
“Within the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase normalisation and

equal weighting were foreseen to be used in the EF screenings to identify
the most relevant impact categories. The use of normalisation and
weighting for this purpose remains the objective for the EF pilots and
beyond. However, currently PEF screening results after the normalisation
and equal weighing present some inconsistencies stemming from errors at
various levels of the assessment. Therefore, screening results after
normalisation and equal weighting are not sufficiently robust to apply for
product comparisons in an automatic and mandatory way in the
Environmental Footprint (EF) pilots, e.g. to identify the most relevant
impact categories. The interpretation of the results reflects these
limitations. To avoid potential misinterpretation and misuse of the EF
screening results we highlight that the results after normalisation and equal
weighting, – without further error checking and possibly corrections, – are
likely to overestimate or underestimate especially the relevance of the
potential impacts related to the categories Human toxicity – cancer effect,
Human toxicity – non-cancer effect, Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water,
water depletion, resource depletion, ionising radiation and land use.”
41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process

This finding implies that the listed impact parameters cannot yet be adequately
evaluated to be used within a regulatory policy instrument.
Application of weighting factors: the JRC is currently developing a weighting

method that is intended for use in the derivation of PEFCR. The current approach
in the PEF pilot phase is the use of equal weighting factors (all impact categories
are considered equally important).
Effectiveness
The method is effective for the indicators that can be reliably measured but not so
much for those which are difficult to measure or for which impacts are challenging
to quantify. In principle the PEF should be an effective instrument from a technical
methodological perspective, but it faces challenges in the derivation of consensual
weightings between the impact categories and in establishing the magnitude of
some of the impacts.
Accuracy
The level of accuracy is good for readily measurable impact parameters and less
so for those that are less readily measured or established. As with the SRI, the
initial default application of equal weighting between impact categories is arbitrary
and hence potentially inaccurate or subjective; however, were suitable weighting
processes to be developed this limitation would be overcome.
Reproducibility
Reproducibility should be reasonable when the impact parameters are readily
measurable with an acceptable degree of accuracy (however, this is not presently
the case for all of the impact parameters) and when PEFCR have been developed.
In cases where such a PEFCR is unavailable the reproducibility is likely to be low.
Enforceability
The PEF should be reasonably enforceable from a technical perspective when the
impact parameters are readily measurable with an acceptable degree of accuracy;
however, this is not presently the case for all of the impact parameters. The large
number of impact parameters will make verification of test results and
documentation more challenging than for schemes that require fewer parameters
to be assessed.
Transparency
The method is transparent in principle and is being fully documented in a publicly
accessible manner.
Readiness and capacity to be implemented

The PEF methodology has currently only been finalised for a limited number of
product types.
The PEF method is transparent and in principle should be suitable for

implementation once rules have been developed for a given product group;
however, the large number of diverse impact parameters add complexity and will
always make it more challenging to implement than other product evaluation
systems such as Ecodesign regulations, which are focused on a narrower set of
parameters.

A priori the life-cycle analysis methods embedded within the PEF are consistent
with the legally enshrined methodological aspects of the Ecodesign regulations and
would fit, in a legal sense, within the Ecodesign and energy labelling procedural
and decision-making process. They are broadly compatible with the MEErP 42 and
Ecoreport tool approaches, which constitute slightly simplified implementations of
a full life-cycle analysis approach.

The PEF is mostly relevant to the SRI as another example of a voluntary EU
initiative entailing a multi-criteria assessment methodology.
1.1.2.11 Ecolabelling
The European Ecolabelling scheme is established through legal instruments:
• Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel
• Commission Regulation (EU) No 782/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Annex
III to Regulation (EU) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the EU Ecolabel Text with EEA relevance.
The EU Ecolabel covers a wide range of product groups, from major areas of
manufacturing to tourist accommodation services. Key experts, in consultation
with main stakeholders, develop the criteria for each product group in order to
decrease the main environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of the product.
Because the life cycle of every product and service is different, the criteria are
tailored to address the unique characteristics of each product type.
Every 4 years on average, the criteria are revised to reflect technical innovation
such as evolution of materials, production processes or emission reduction and
changes in the market. The intention is that the EU Ecolabel will represent the
highest environmental performance for the product or services it is applied to.
Currently, EU ecolabelling criteria have been established for the following products
and services:
• rinse-off cosmetic products

• absorbent hygiene products
• all-purpose cleaners
• all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners
• detergents for dishwashers
• industrial and institutional automatic dishwasher detergents
• hand dishwashing detergents
• laundry detergents
• industrial and institutional laundry detergents
• textiles
• footwear
• paints and varnishes
42
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26525/attachments/1/translations/en/rendit
ions/pdf

• imaging equipment
• personal computers
• notebook computers
• televisions
• wooden floor coverings
• hard coverings
• wooden furniture
• growing media and soil improvers
• growing media, soil improvers and mulch
• heat pumps
• water-based heaters
• lubricants
• bed mattresses
• sanitary tapware
• flushing toilets and urinals
• converted paper
• newsprint paper
• printed paper
• copying and graphic paper
• tissue paper
• holiday accommodation
• campsite services
• tourist accommodation services.
Structure
The approach taken to derive the Ecolabel criteria can vary from product to product
as the development group determines what best fits the needs of the product. In
practice, the first stages of a standard life-cycle analysis approach are followed
wherein a set of pertinent environmental impact criteria are established and typical
impact magnitudes established. These may subsequently be screened for their
potential to be reduced and for the viability of application and potentially limited
to a smaller set of impact criteria that will be used within the Ecolabel award
system. Once the set of criteria has been established it is common practice to set
requirements for each of them. Although aggregation via weighting is not
precluded from the EU Ecolabel, thus far there has been no example of it being
used. Rather, in the case of quantifiable criteria the practice is to use normalisation
and benchmarking to establish minimum values that must be met to be eligible to
receive the Ecolabel.
The Ecolabel criteria are binary in the sense that a product/service either satisfies
them and hence is eligible to apply for the use of the Ecolabel, or it does not and
hence is ineligible. In all instances of the label as currently implemented, all criteria
must be met for a product or service to be eligible for the label. However, not all
the criteria are quantitative. For example, some may concern the presence or
absence of a feature or service.
Thus, for most products the Ecolabel criteria are similar in structure to Ecodesign
criteria but tend to address more environmental impact parameters. Furthermore,
unlike for Ecodesign regulations, the energy efficiency requirements set within
Ecolabels are not guided by an objective of minimising the life-cycle cost.
The EU criteria are developed by ad hoc working groups established for each
product of interest and are subject to approval by the Ecolabel Board, which is
comprised of a set of notified bodies. Usually the Commission hires an impartial
technical consultancy to conduct analysis and develop draft criteria. These are

scrutinised and discussed by the ad hoc working group who provide comment that
the consultancy then applies to amend the criteria. Consequently, the criteria are
developed using a “panel type” assessment process. The resulting draft ecolabel
criteria document is then put forward to the Ecolabel board for scrutiny and
approval. As with other multicriteria evaluation frameworks the EU Ecolabel
sometimes requires trade-off choices to be made between partially conflicting
impact criteria and hence the application of values and judgement through the ad
hoc groups and Ecolabel Board.
Effectiveness
The Ecolabel has been awarded to over 30,000 products and services across the
EU and hence is effective at influencing part of the market. As it is a voluntary
scheme it does not have the same scale of impact that is associated with the
mandatory energy label or Ecodesign requirements, but it applies to a diverse set
of products and services that would not be entirely suited to those instruments.
Furthermore, it addresses a broader set of environmental impacts.
Accuracy
In principle the accuracy by which the quantifiable criteria used within the
Ecolabelling scheme can be determined is similar to that found for other EU
environmentally related product regulations such as Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE, etc.
Reproducibility
In principle, the reproducibility of the quantifiable criteria measurements used
within the Ecolabelling scheme is similar to that found for other EU environmentally
related product regulations such as Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE, etc.
Enforceability
From a technical perspective, the enforceability of the Ecolabelling scheme is
similar to that for other EU environmentally related product regulations such as
Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE, etc. The fact that on average a greater number of
assessment criteria need to be evaluated implies that document inspection and
verification testing against Ecolabelling criteria is a more involved process than for
Energy labelling or Ecodesign regulations. From an organisational perspective it is
different, however, as Ecolabelling requirements are not mandatory within the
Single Market and hence Member States are not required to designate a specific
market surveillance body to check compliance with the requirements. Rather,
verification of conformity with the requirements would usually be the responsibility
of the same trading standards entities that have a broad mandate to enforce truth
in advertising and consumer protection legislation – in practice alleged non-
conformity is usually brought to the attention of such agencies by other parties
rather than through an active market monitoring process.
Transparency
The scheme criteria are fully transparent and within the public domain.

The scheme is up and running and relatively straightforward to use; however, the
fact that on average a greater number of assessment criteria need to be met than
for energy labelling or Ecodesign regulations implies that it requires a greater
product design and administrative effort to attain the Ecolabel requirements.

The Ecolabel is most relevant to the SRI with regard to its implementation and
especially its management. It is a voluntary initiative that is founded in an EU legal
text, it involves issuance of a label to qualified goods and services based on their
satisfaction of eligibility criteria which are established at the EU level through a
governance process that combines Member State representation with expert and
stakeholder input. Methodologically it also involves a multicriteria evaluation
process where diverse impacts are organised into a common evaluation
framework.
1.1.2.12 Extended Product Approaches - The “installer energy label”

for heating systems
The EU energy label for space heating systems applies to packages of space
heater, temperature control and solar device offered for sale, hire or hire-
purchase43.
Methodology and structure

The space heating installer energy label is innovative compared to conventional
energy labels in two principal respects:
It is essentially an extended product approach which ranks and displays the energy
efficiency of the heating system as a system and not just for each individual
component within it.
It is to be implemented by the installer of the system using component ratings

supplied by the product component manufacturers.
Ostensibly the method used considers the seasonal heating efficiency of the boiler
at the location in isolation, it then adds efficiency credits depending on the nature
of controls used (note these only concern the direct control of the boiler not the
control of the heating distribution system, which is often where larger energy
savings are possible), the impact of using an additional boiler, the impact of using
a solar heating device, the impact of using a heat pump, the impact of using a
solar heating device and a heat pump, and takes all of this through the calculation
structure shown in Figure 3 to derive an overall heating system efficiency score.
This approach is a classic example of a modular approach to determining the

energy efficiency of a system. It indicates how the energy performance of
individual system modules (components) can be assessed in isolation and then
their collective performance, as a specific assembly of components within an
overall heating system, can be determined via a set of logical calculations (using
credits and multiplicative efficiencies). Although each component has a distinct
function and a distinct efficiency in performing that function this does not prohibit
European Commission. 2013b, COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No

43
811/2013 of 18 February 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the

European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the energy labelling of
space heaters, combination heaters, packages of space heater, temperature
control and solar device and packages of combination heater, temperature control
and solar device

their collective efficiency from being estimated in a sufficiently robust manner to
permit an overall energy labelling class to be determined for the heating system.
Although the method is relatively innovative, implementation has only recently

begun and hence it is too early to be able to report findings on how it is working
in practice.
From a technical perspective, the method makes considerable progress in being

able to reveal the efficiency of the heating system, but it has the following
limitations:
• it does not address the heat losses in the distribution system and hence gives
no reward to the use of distribution loss reduction measures such as: zoning,
TRVs, individually programmable heat emitter controls and actuators linked to
a room thermostat, learning the thermal response of rooms and optimum
stop/start controllers, weather compensation controls.
• it does not address the impact of heating system sizing on its overall
performance
In practice, these latter two factors (especially the first) can have a very large
impact on the overall efficiency of the heating system.
Nonetheless, despite these system boundary analysis limitations the labelling

scheme has considerably broadened the extent of the heating system that is taken
into account when rating its efficiency and hence has amplified the visibility of the
energy savings possibilities. From a technical and policy-making perspective it is
a successful example of a workable compromise being struck between technical
precision and the overarching policy need to present the public with information
on the energy efficiency of the heating systems they are considering procuring.

Figure 3 - For preferential boiler space heaters and preferential boiler combination
heaters, element of the fiche for a package of space heater, temperature control and solar
device and a package of combination heater, temperature control and solar device,
respectively, indicating the seasonal space heating energy efficiency of the package
offered

This example is also interesting from a technical perspective because it addresses
one of the key challenges for complex products, namely, how to characterise the
performance of modules (components) that have more than one function? In this
case the boilers, solar heaters and heat pumps may well serve dual space and
water heating functions. The approach taken is to determine their efficiency for
doing each function uniquely and then to separately label the system space
heating efficiency and the system water heating efficiency. It does not go so far
as to integrate a duty cycle for each function in isolation to derive a combined
functional duty cycle, although in principle such an approach could be imagined.
Method evaluation
Effectiveness
The scheme has only recently entered into force and thus there is currently no
evidence of its effectiveness, however, if it has even a modest proportion of the
impact of other energy labels it will likely lead to energy savings and as a minimum
it allows the energy efficiency of the heating system to be made visible in such a
manner than it can readily be completed by other policy instruments such as EPCs,
building codes, incentives etc.
Accuracy
In principle, the accuracy by which the quantifiable criteria used within the heating
system energy label can be determined is similar to that experienced for other
labelled products except that because the overall systems efficiency rating is
effectively a multiplicative sum of the efficiencies of its individual components
compound errors will be propagated through to the system level. This is
unavoidable when dealing with multiple components, however, and is not
indicative of any methodological weakness.
Reproducibility
The reproducibility of the quantifiable criteria measurements used within the space
heating energy label should be similar to that experienced for other EU
environmentally-related product regulations such as Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE etc.
Enforceability
From a technical perspective the enforceability of the space heating energy
labelling schemes is similar to that experienced for EU environmentally-related
product regulations such as Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE etc.; however, it introduces
a different challenge because it requires the actions of system installers, as well
as component suppliers to be addressed.
Transparency
The criteria applied and the process of deriving the space heating systems energy
label are fully transparent and within the public domain.

The system for installers to determine and apply the space heating systems energy
label is readily available and relatively straightforward to use. Nonetheless
anecdotally teething issues were reported in the early stages of the scheme’s
deployment as a large number of heating systems installers needed to become
familiarised with the scheme.

The space heating energy label is probably most relevant to the SRI in terms of
its implementation. It requires qualified space heating installation professionals to
issue an energy label on site to the customer based on the characteristics of the
installed system. This entails the imposition of additional obligations, duties and
competences on the affected profession. It is an EU managed scheme which
includes Member State input and stakeholder consultation. As it is mandatory
Member States are required to implement a market surveillance process under a
designated market surveillance agency but organisationally this poses a challenge
because verifying conformity with the requirements entails ensuring all concerned
products and components within the supply chain meet the requirements,
including the installed system as a whole as well as products leaving the factory.
1.1.2.13 Ecodesign Lot 37 lighting systems study
The recent Lot 37 lighting study into lighting systems 44 has established how the
energy performance of each separate module of a lighting system can be analysed
in a compartmentalised manner and fed into a calculation to determine the overall
energy efficiency of the lighting system.
Methodology and structure

In the case of in-door lighting the study presents a technically viable pathway by
which the characteristics of each component within a lighting system are combined
to give an overall energy performance indicator.
This compartmentalisation and causative flow is shown in Components of a lighting

system and the most relevant performance parameters related to energy
efficiency wherein each system level element has its own colour code as follows:
electrical efficiency (dark green), installation (dark blue), luminaire (sky blue),
lamp (orange), control system (light green), control gear (red), and design process
(yellow). This demarcation is done to help delineate the various aspects of a
lighting system and to enable their contribution to the overall eco-efficiency of the
system to be analysed and determined. In the case of non-residential lighting the
EN 12464 standard series on indoor lighting is used to define minimum
recommended lighting service levels for any given lighting service application and
these allow normalised service levels to be established. The energy consumption
and efficiency of any given lighting system can then be derived for each required
application and normalised against the required lighting service levels. For any
given lighting service level requirement, the indicator of the energy performance
of the lighting system is given by the Lighting Energy Numerical Indicator (LENI)
which is expressed in kWh/year per m2 (see far left of Figure 4). The LENI value
for any given in-door lighting system is derived by the application of the standards
EN 15193 and EN 13201-5 in conjunction with the light levels required for the
specific application under EN 12464.
44
http://ecodesign-lightingsystems.eu/

Figure 4 - Components of a lighting system and the most relevant performance
parameters related to energy efficiency
By comparing the available average and best available technology (BAT) solutions
for each application it’s possible to determine the range of viable LENI values per
application. If life cycle cost optimisation were to be incorporated into this process
it becomes technically possible to devise a specific LENI target for each class of
typical lighting system, in a manner that could meet the aims of the Ecodesign
regulatory process. However, a priori this would be applicable at the application
level rather than the sub-system level and thus this raises the question of on
whom regulatory requirements could be placed. The space heater energy label
demonstrates that it is at least legally permissible for system labelling
requirements to be imposed on installers and not just component manufacturers.
Methodology evaluation
Effectiveness
The LENI approach described above is already adopted in European standards, is
incorporated in lighting design software and is embedded in some Member State
building codes. While it works from a technical perspective it is voluntary to apply
in most of the EU and thought to only being applied by a limited proportion of
market actors as a consequence.
Accuracy
In principle the accuracy by which the quantifiable criteria used within the LENI
approach can be determined is similar to that experienced for other products
subject to Ecodesign or energy labelling requirements except that because the
overall systems efficiency rating is effectively a multiplicative sum of the

efficiencies of its individual components compound errors will be propagated
through to the system level. This is unavoidable when dealing with multiple
components, however, and is not indicative of any methodological weakness.
Reproducibility
The reproducibility of the quantifiable criteria measurements used within the LENI
calculation at the component level is similar to that experienced for other EU
environmentally-related product regulations such as Ecodesign, RoHS, WEEE etc.
There are more calculation steps at the systems level necessary to derive the LENI
and hence there is more scope to introduce variance than for simple products.
Enforceability
The enforceability of the LENI approach is similar to that of other technical energy
using systems specified with the EPBD (Article 8) and has been demonstrated
through incorporation into building code requirements in countries such as the UK
and Switzerland. It introduces a different challenge compared to standard products
within Ecodesign because the actions of system specifiers and installers, as well
as component suppliers would need to be addressed.
Transparency
The criteria applied and the process of deriving the LENI calculation are fully
transparent and within the public domain.

The means to apply the LENI calculation method is readily available and relatively
straightforward to use in principle. Nonetheless it is more complex than some less
sophisticated lighting energy performance calculations such as the lighting power
density indicator.

The Lot 37 Lighting systems study is mostly relevant for the SRI from a
methodological perspective as it shows how various factors within a lighting
system can be evaluated to attain an overall performance ranking. Some of the
inputs are determined at component level (just as for SRTs within the SRI) and
some at the installed system level (again as for smart services within the SRI).
1.1.2.14 Smart Buildings Alliance
The Smart Buildings Alliance (http://www.smartbuildingsalliance.org) is a French

association concerned with promoting smart solutions in the French building
infrastructure.
Created in 2012, the SBA federates to date 253 organizations representing all
building related trades and Smart City stakeholders, to think and define the Smart
Building. Its ambition is to enable its members - manufacturers, service
companies, consultancy firms, architects, builders, developers, developers or
innovative start-ups - to contribute to developing the Smart Buildings sector and
derive the value of the building towards the future, for all stakeholders: owners,
users and communities.

The SBA has given itself a transversal mission that allows the different actors of
the building to exchange upstream taking into consideration the major issues that
are related to digital topics, but also the environment and sustainable
development.
Figure 5 - Inter-relationships in smart buildings (Source: SBA website 2019)
The SBA acts to brings together the entire Smart Building ecosystem and offers
stakeholders in the sector the opportunity to harmoniously integrate new
technologies, enable the development of new services, optimise the use of
resources (particularly energy), and to increase the use value and the financial
value of the building assets.
To do this, the development of Smart Buildings involves cooperation between 3

technical areas with different business logic:
• The world of equipment and building control

• The world of IT, Telecom and software
• The world of energy and flow infrastructure
According to the SBA this triptych, which unites the providers of solutions around
the concept of smart buildings, must in turn enter into dialogue with the historical
stakeholders of the building world:
• Designers (Developers, Developers, Architects, Design Offices, ...)

• Builders (General contractors, integrators, installers, ...)
• Operators (FM, Services, ...)
The SBA, building on the work of its commissions and working groups, develops
technical reference systems (Ready2Services, Ready2Grid, Digital Mock-up, Smart
Data, etc. ...), as well as smart building valuation models (i.e. Building as a
Service, Smart Building for Smart Cities, Asset Valuation, ...). The association
produces collaborative work by working together across the entire construction
sector from upstream to downstream, integrating new players from the world of
new technology.
Its work is structured in a set of commissions including the following:
• Digital building
• Smart buildings for smart cities
• Smart lighting
• Ready2services
• Ready2grids
• Safe city
• Continuous current
• Training

The SBA actions address a number of domains of relevance to the SRI, but most
notably their certification schemes for smart buildings (Ready2Services for
commercial buildings and Ready2Grids). These set out criteria that need to be
satisfied for a building to be considered smart ready under the scheme, including
interoperability criteria and readiness to react to grid signals specifications. The
SBA scheme is market driven and thus far has predominantly been adopted by
larger and more prestigious building projects for which market actors can monetise
value from being able to demonstrate 3rd party certification of smart capabilities.
Asides from the criteria themselves the nature of 3rd party assessments are
instructive for the SRI, as are the issues associated with training and accrediting
a cadre of qualified assessors.
1.1.2.15 Interoperability initiatives
The degree of interoperability of SRTs can be a limiting factor affecting the

functionality of the TBSs they manage and also their interaction with the grid.
Currently, a variety of proprietary and open-source communication systems are
used that can either hinder or facilitate the control of TBSs by SRTs. While the
pros and cons of interoperability can be complex, interoperability is important
when the TBSs need to facilitate overarching management – this is often the case
when they control the same service (for example heating, cooling, ventilation and
lighting).
The common solution to provide overarching control for TBSs is to add gateways
to the SRT system. Nevertheless, such gateways (e.g. via a Wide Area Network
(WAN)) come at extra cost, consume power to function, and can be a source of
system failure.
While systems and applications at buildings and utilities in the past were operated
separately, today interactions between multiple systems and applications are
increasingly important to operate buildings and their technical systems more
effectively and provide greater energy services, comfort, well-being and health to

the occupants. To do so, coupling of former separated and heterogeneous
technical systems is a prerequisite for a widespread adoption of smart services.
To boost greater market uptake and prevent vendor-lock-in effects, this will also
require connecting physical products and ICT systems from different vendors. The
smart services will be invoked from systems of third parties, therefore, also
latency, bandwidth45 and other properties have to be taken into account.
Interoperability will also be conditional on the building infrastructure such as
broadband connectivity46.
According to ISO/IEC 2382-01 on Information Technology Vocabulary,

Fundamental Terms, interoperability is defined as follows: "The capability to
communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units
in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique
characteristics of those units". Despite this definition there are also several other
definitions used in standardisation. For example, several levels of interoperability47
were identified in an ETSI white paper48 which is applied to a multitude of topics
and applications:
• Technical Interoperability is usually associated with hardware/software

components, systems and platforms that enable machine-to-machine
communication to take place. This kind of interoperability is often centred on
(communication) protocols and the infrastructure needed for those protocols
to operate. (e.g. KNX TP49, DALI50, oneM2M51, SHIP52; IPv653)
• Syntactical Interoperability is usually associated with data formats (e.g.
BACNET (ISO 16484-5), XML54, KNX TP36, DALI , SPINE55).
• Semantic Interoperability is usually associated with the meaning of content
and concerns the human rather than machine interpretation of the content
(e.g. KNX TP36, DALI , Smart Appliances REFerence (SAREF) ontology 56, etc.)
Unfortunately, today there is not one universal overarching SRT system but there
are several ecosystems on the market and a building often includes a multitude of
them (e.g. KNX, DALI, IP user interface server). Interoperability between those
systems is often a point of concern. The common solution for this is to add
gateways to the SRT system, for example a DALI-to-KNX gateway to integrate
lighting and KNX IP gateway and router for the user interface with a web browser.
45
E.g. the call for a voluntary broadband-ready label for buildings, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/building-infrastructure
46
Directive 2014/61/EU
47
http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/
IERC_Position_Paper_IoT_Semantic_Interoperability_Final.pdf
48
http://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/
IOP%20whitepaper%20Edition%203%20final.pdf
49
https://www.knx.org
50
https://www.digitalilluminationinterface.org/
51
http://www.onem2m.org/
52
https://www.eebus.org/en/technology/communication-channels/
53
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
54
https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/
55
https://www.eebus.org/en/technology/data-model/
56
https://sites.google.com/site/smartappliancesproject/ontologies/reference-ontology

Nevertheless, such gateways come at extra cost and complexity and are also
power consuming.
Figure 6 - Semantic integration distance for interoperability (source: Offis)
Figure 6 illustrates the different forms of interoperability; the integration distances

range from customised integrations to plug-and-automate integration. This
requires solutions to integrate those systems in a way their functionality is still
available and can be adapted to changing needs. This figure mainly motivates why
technical interfaces in the scope of the SRI shall be standardised in order to
achieve a high interoperability, lower integration costs and better operational
performance.
To address the issue of the multiple overlapping and competing standards within
the smart home -between the energy smart appliances and the home/building
energy management system- the European Commission/DG CONNECT ordered a
study on “Available Semantics Assets for the Interoperability of Smart Appliances:
Mapping into a Common Ontology as a M2M Application Layer Semantics" 57. The
study resulted in the development of a common ontology58 for this domain, called
SAREF (Smart Appliance Reference) and a standard based on it developed by
ETSI59.
“The Smart Appliances REFerence (SAREF) ontology is a shared model of

consensus that facilitates the matching of existing assets
(standards/protocols/data models/etc.) in the smart appliances domain,
57
Information sourced from: Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Smart Appliances (Lot 33) - Final report
58
Defining semantics for technologies and functions
59
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/smart-appliances

providing building blocks that allow separation and recombination of
different parts of the ontology depending on specific needs” 60 (…). A Device
in the SAREF ontology is also characterized by an (Energy/Power) Profile
that can be used to optimize the energy efficiency in a home or office that
are part of a building.”
SAREF is conceived as a shared model of consensus that facilitates the matching

of existing semantic assets in the energy smart appliances domain, reducing the
effort of translating from one asset to another. Using SAREF, different assets can
keep using their own terminology and data models, but still can relate to each
other through the common SAREF semantics which maps the same core concept
to each of the assets, instead of a dedicated set of mappings for each pair of
assets57.
The SAREF ontology thus enables semantic interoperability in the energy smart
appliances domain matching appliances and systems from different
manufacturers, exchanging energy related information and interacting with any
other Building Energy Management System. Extensions to the SAREF ontology for
smart machine-to-machine communication provide specifications for the energy
domain61 and the building domain62. SAREF focusses on an application-
independent ‘horizontal’ service platform with architecture capable of supporting
a very wide range of services including smart metering, smart grids, eHealth, city
automation (smart cities), consumer applications, car automation and smart
appliances 63. SAREF is however not the only attempt to achieve a common data
model and language for energy smart appliances. The Ecodesign study on smart
appliances also references amongst others the initiatives SPINE (Smart Premises
Interoperable Neutral-message Exchange), IEC TS 62950 ED1, ZigBee DOTDOT,
the IoT schema.org initiative and the IotTivity and oneIoTa Data Model Tool by
the Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF).
In the field of smart grids, a layered approach of the Smart Grid Architectural
Model (SGAM) has been developed by Cenelec and IEC 64. European
Standardization Organizations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI consolidate the
standardisation for smart grids through Mandate M/490 of the European
Commission65. Further details on the landscape of standardisation in relation to
smart grids and smart buildings is documented in Annex D of the final report of
the first technical support study to the establishment of the SRI.
Within the Ecodesign framework of the European Commission, further focus has
been given to interoperability in the product and service design of smart
60
http://ontology.tno.nl/saref/
61
SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 1: Energy Domain
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103400_103499/10341001/01.01.01_60/ts_10341001v0101
01p.pdf
62
SmartM2M; Smart Appliances Extension to SAREF; Part 3: Building Domain
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103400_103499/10341003/01.01.01_60/ts_10341003v0101
01p.pdf
63
https://www.etsi.org/technologies/smart-appliances
64
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/xpert_group1_reference_architecture.pdf
65
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=475#

appliances66 and BACS67. The Ecodesign smart appliance preparatory study has a
specific focus on electrical load flexibility for appliances or plug loads and domestic
hot water (DHW) storage tanks to cope with fluctuations in renewable energy
supply, and to manage and dispatch local energy production, such as photovoltaics
or storage. In the future there is expected to be an increasing need for Demand
Response Management (DRM) to support the Smart Grid68,69. In general, there are
two types of Demand Response (DR) service categories70:
Implicit Demand Response (iDR SRTs) refers to SRT services to participate in

the wholesale energy market, it is mostly price driven with variable tariffs or peak
load tariffs.
Explicit Demand Response (eDR SRTs) refers to SRT services that support the
grid operators to provide balancing or congestion management. It can be for
example curtailment based on line voltage or grid frequency.
DRM inherently requires interoperability of the various systems to share

information on the need and potential for shifting loads. The preparatory
Ecodesign smart appliance study investigates various pathways for DRM in
appliances or plug loads and domestic hot water (DHW) storage tanks. The study
does not however include the building and TBSs as a whole.
In the domain of smart appliances, a Customer Energy Manager (CEM) is proposed

as a central management unit that integrates control of distributed energy
resources (DER), interfacing with the building automation systems, the electricity
meter, etc. Such a central manager overcomes the need for direct interoperability
between all of the various connected appliances and TBS.
While this type of common framework or ontology is already in place for some
specific technologies such as smart appliances, this is not the case for all the
domains and technologies within the scope of the SRI. Non-energy related or
domain specific interoperability aspects are not part of the SAREF ontology, e.g.
indoor environment quality measurements or shading control. Furthermore, recent
developments such as SAREF are not applicable in a straightforward manner to
the legacy equipment that is mostly present in existing buildings.
Should any EU-wide certification schemes or labels indicating the interoperability

of TBS emerge in the future71, these could be introduced into the SRI methodology
in future iterations. In fact, the Smart Building Alliance’s voluntary Ready to
Service (R2S) label is already available for use in French building projects and
includes assessment and satisfaction of interoperability criteria as a requisite
condition for a building being awarded the label.
66
Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Smart Appliances (Lot 33) http://www.eco-smartappliances.eu
67
Ecodesign preparatory study for Building Automation and Control Systems (BACS)
http://ecodesignbacs.eu/
68
https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/SustainableEnergy/SmartGrids/Pages/d efault.aspx
69
http://smartgridstandardsmap.com/
70
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/119722/3_JStromback_ITRE_300517.pdf
71
As recommended by stakeholders in the consultation process

1.2 ACTIVITY 2: TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEFINITION OF
THE SRI
1.2.1 INTRODUCTION
The establishment of technical recommendations for the definition of the SRI

builds on the findings of the state-of-the-art review in Activity 1 and the first SRI
study to produce definitive recommendations on how the SRI should be defined.
To do this, the study team of the second technical support study has taken the
review findings from Activity 1 and conducted a structured assessment and
analysis of the implications against the findings of the first technical study. This
includes determinations on the following topics:
• the scope of the SRI including whether or not to broaden/narrow it and the
most pertinent parameters
• the approach for the treatment of absent services
• country/region specificities and implications for the methodology
• climatic specificities
• building type or intrinsic specificities
• the most appropriate level of streamlining necessary to deliver a viable scheme
as a function of the organisational pathway considered (see Activity 1 Tasks 2
and 3)
• data protection
• interactions with other schemes such as EPCs, Level(s), building renovation
passports, etc.
• appropriate terminology and language
• standardisation and codification of services and functionality levels
• how to allow updates of the methodology, e.g. to properly address innovation.
In particular, emphasis is given to consideration of the following aspects:
• the consistency of the SRI definition with the key functionalities highlighted in
the SRI technical annex of the amended EPBD, i.e. the ability to maintain
energy performance and operation of the building through the adaptation of
energy consumption, the ability to adapt a building’s operation mode in
response to the needs of the occupant, and flexibility of a building’s overall
electricity demand
• interoperability between systems (including treatment of data formatting
issues)
• connectivity of buildings (particularly the influence of existing communication
networks)
• Cyber-security.
Analysis of the findings from the review of initiatives in Activity 1 is also intended
to help in determining the extent to which the SRI definition will be complementary
to, or potentially overlap, those found in related initiatives, so that this information
can also be considered in the appraisal of the SRI definition. This feeds the
refinement and consolidation of the definition of the SRI, ready for Commission
services to address, with the twofold objective of (i) ensuring that the scope of the
SRI covers all aspects of interest and (ii) ensuring that the SRI is fully
complementary to relevant existing initiatives, in particular those linked to building
performance and those at the EU level.

The analysis and conclusions are presented with the study team’s initial proposals
for how to proceed with regard to the definition of the SRI and the methodology
applied to determine it. These frame the issue and reference stakeholder
comments72 and suggestions, and consider any pros and cons in the approaches
proposed before making a recommendation on how to proceed. When appropriate,
these are considered on a topic by topic basis; however, in some cases it is
possible that an issue, and the potential means of addressing it, might imply a
more fundamental alteration in the SRI approach. As such changes would be likely
to have much greater implications with regard to the SRI approach, these have
been identified as early as possible and assessed in a more holistic manner than
topics that can be treated incrementally within the existing SRI methodological
framework.
Throughout the study, provisional conclusions have been presented to the

Commission Services and their comments taken in, and the findings have been
presented to stakeholders via the website and stakeholder meetings to solicit their
feedback.
Following the processing of this feedback and the refinement of the

recommendations, a mature SRI definition has been established that:
• covers all aspects of interest as agreed with the Commission Services and
stakeholders
• is complementary to relevant existing initiatives (particularly those linked to
building performance and at EU level, hence EPCs, Ecodesign etc.).
1.2.2 SCOPE OF THE SRI
Interactions with stakeholders (Task 1 Activity 1) highlighted the need for clarity
regarding the scope of the SRI. In the feedback we received on the first study,
some stakeholders suggested adding domains such as safety and security
systems, material use and noise reduction, to name a few. This feedback reveals
valuable insight into their interpretation of the scope of the SRI:
• safety and security systems may have smart features: for the residential
sector, there are smart home applications that cover these features; for non-
residential buildings, we may expect to see these features as part of a building
management system (BMS)
• material use is an important theme in sustainability assessments, as it
significantly contributes to the carbon footprint of the built environment
• attention to themes such as noise pollution is increasing, given their link with
the health and well-being of building users.
First, the SRI should be well-positioned in the sustainability landscape. It should

be clear to all parties that the SRI fits within the EPBD and thus focuses on energy
72
Stakeholder feedback has been collected in various ways, including a questionnaire sent out to
stakeholders prior to the first Stakeholder Meeting, interactions during the first Stakeholder
Meeting and two Topical Group sessions on 26 March 2019 in Brussels, two teleconference calls
with Topical Group A on the implementation pathways and value proposition, four teleconference
calls with Topical Group B on the calculation methodology, written feedback and other bilateral
interactions.

performance. Other sustainability aspects, including material use, do not fit within
the scope of the SRI.
In relation to buildings, no universally accepted definition of ‘smartness’ or

‘intelligence’ is currently available. Many authors and organisations have proposed
their - sometimes conflicting - definitions of smart buildings73.
Within the scope of the first and second technical study on the SRI, the following
definition has been adopted:
“Smartness of a building refers to the ability of a building or its systems

to sense, interpret, communicate and actively respond in an efficient
manner to changing conditions in relation the operation of technical
building systems or the external environment (including energy grids)
and to demands from building occupants,”
On top of this definition, it is useful to refer to the three key ‘smartness’

functionalities given in the Annex 1a of the revised EPBD:
‘The methodology shall rely on three key functionalities relating to the

building and its technical building systems:
• the ability to maintain energy performance and operation of the building

through the adaptation of energy consumption for example through use
of energy from renewable sources;
• the ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the
occupant while paying due attention to the availability of user-
friendliness, maintaining healthy indoor climate conditions and the
ability to report on energy use; and
• the flexibility of a building’s overall electricity demand, including its
ability to enable participation in active and passive as well as implicit
and explicit demand response, in relation to the grid, for example
through flexibility and load shifting capacities.’
Second, the SRI should be clearly positioned in the field of smart ready
technologies (SRTs). Within the scope of the first and second technical study on
the SRI, the following definition has been adopted:
“Smart Ready Services are delivered to the building user or the energy grid
through the use of Smart Ready Technologies. These smart ready
technologies can either be digital ICT technology (e.g. communication
protocols or optimization algorithms) or physical products (e.g. ventilation
system with CO2 sensor, cabling for bus systems) or combinations thereof
(e.g. smart thermostats). The smart ready technologies referenced in this
study are considered to be active components which could potentially:
• raise energy efficiency and comfort by increasing the level of

controllability of the technical building systems – either by the occupant
or a building manager or via a fully automated building control system;
73
Amirhosein Ghaffarianhoseini, Umberto Berardi, Husam AlWaer, Seongju Chang, Edward Halawa, Ali
Ghaffarianhoseini & Derek Clements-Croome (2016), What is an intelligent building? Analysis of
recent interpretations from an international perspective, Architectural Science Review, 59:5, 338-
357, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2015.1079164

• facilitate the energy management and maintenance of the building
including via automated fault detection;
• automate the reporting of the energy performance of buildings and their
TBS (automated and real time inspections);
• use advanced methods such as data analytics, self-learning control
systems and model predictive control to optimise building operations;
• enable buildings including their TBS, appliances, storage systems and
energy generators, to become active operators in a demand response
setting.”
Given the fact that the SRI fits within the EPBD, its scope is (currently) limited to
those SRTs that affect the energy performance, indoor climate conditions and
energy flexibility of a building. As such, safety and security systems, for instance,
are deemed out of scope of the SRI as framed by the EPBD, despite their clear
potential to offer smart services to users and their potential to be integrated in
BMSs. However, this would not prevent extension to the SRI (e.g. with “optional”
domains) to encompass additional services that are not part of the scope set by
the EPBD, if it clearly adds value to the SRI from a user perspective.
In section 1.3.1 suggestions from stakeholders to add additional domains are

evaluated, keeping in mind the above rationale. Based on the evaluation, a final
recommendation for domains to be included in the SRI are presented.
In addition to the high-level discussion of domains fitting within the scope of the
SRI based on the three key functionalities in the EPBD, there is a discussion on
the scope of each of these key functionalities as such. It should be clear that the
SRI is not an evaluation of a building’s energy performance, but instead should
evaluate its smartness.
The following statement was presented to the members of Topical Group B (on
the SRI calculation methodology):
‘The SRI should only score the added value of smarter controllability,
information gathering, communication features and interoperability, and
not the (energy) performance of the technical building systems themselves
(e.g. lighting control irrespective if these are LED or incandescent lights)
since the goal of the SRI should be primarily to illustrate the current level
of smartness compared to the maximum potential of that specific building
rather than to form a comparison framework among buildings?’
The statement was unanimously accepted by the Topical Group B members 74 (20
votes), indicating that there is a correct understanding of the scope of the SRI
among these members. Clear communication towards the larger stakeholder
community, Member States and ultimately end users is highly important.
The issue also strongly relates to the positioning of the SRI within the landscape
of other initiatives, such as EPCs and Level(s). Complementarity of the SRI with
other initiatives is discussed in section 1.2.6.
Finally, there is a discussion whether a building would need to attain a high energy
efficiency as determined by an EPC assessment before it becomes eligible for the
SRI. As mentioned in section 1.1, the discussion divides stakeholder opinion:
74
Topical Group B: calculation methodology; Topical Group meeting on 26 March 2019 in Brussels.

stakeholders representing the insulation and energy efficiency sector tend to
agree, whereas others argue for the opposite.
The study team has identified a number of arguments. It should be noted that
these arguments are closely linked to potential implementation pathways, which
are discussed in section 2.1. These arguments aim to feed the discussion and
identify opportunities.
Advantages of introducing a minimum energy efficiency level for SRI assessments

include the following.
• Keeping in mind the aim of the EPBD – to increase the energy performance of
the building stock – a significant reduction in energy needs should always come
before the optimisation of the remaining energy use, e.g. through smart
controls. Without prerequisites on energy efficiency, the SRI could award
(potentially high) SRI scores to energy inefficient buildings that have
implemented a large number of smart services without having reduced the
energy needs by improving thermal insulation, for instance. In this case a high
SRI score may convey the unwanted message that the building has achieved
its maximum potential, thus leaving the remaining energy savings potential
untapped. Minimum energy performance requirements present an opportunity
to force building owners to prioritise reducing energy needs over implementing
smart services to optimise energy use.
• Imposing a minimum energy performance level holds a number of advantages
with respect to the assessment. Energy efficient buildings would have an EPC,
containing an inventory of TBSs. Having an EPC at their disposal or
simultaneously performing an EPC and SRI assessment would lead to a
significant reduction in the required assessment time – and thus the cost.
• Having a calculated energy balance at our disposal creates the opportunity to
calculate more accurately the impact of a certain smart service on the energy
performance of the building. As such, domain weighting factors for energy
performance could become redundant. For example, for an intelligently
designed building with a low cooling demand, the impact of SRTs for cooling
could be automatically reduced, given its low impact on the energy balance of
that particular building.
Disadvantages of introducing a minimum energy efficiency level for SRI

assessments include the following.
• Limiting the SRI assessment to buildings undergoing – or aiming for – an EPC

assessment would significantly reduce the potential uptake of the SRI. By
targeting only energy efficient buildings, a large share of the energy savings
potential would remain untapped.
• Energy inefficient buildings have the highest energy savings potential. An
update of technical installations with smart controls can significantly enhance
the energy efficiency of a building, and thus should not be discouraged. The
SRI could provide building owners with valuable insights into the current
smartness of their building and – more importantly – on potential
improvements that may improve the energy performance of the building. As
such, it could serve as a (pre-)design tool. Insights into current and potential
smartness were identified as key goals for the SRI in the stakeholder
questionnaire and should not be ignored.
Based on these arguments – and the investigated implementation pathways – the

study team recommends not to introduce a minimum energy efficiency level for

SRI assessments, to maximise the uptake of the SRI. However, this
recommendation in no sense contradicts an implementation pathway which seeks
to link the SRI and the EPC. Rather, making such a linkage would seem to provide
the highest net beneficial impacts (per the implementation pathway impact
assessment findings presented in section 4.3.2), would provide synergies with
existing EPC implementation infrastructure and practice (per the discussion in
section 3), and does not seem to pose any significant risk of confused messaging
(per the findings of the consumer research presented in section 2.2.12).
1.2.3 EU STREAMLINING OF SRI METHODOLOGY VS NEED FOR

DIVERSIFICATION
Intrinsically there is a tension between the notion of a centrally managed and

coordinated SRI and that of subsidiarity where each EU Member State may seek
to implement the SRI as they see fit. The legal framework for the SRI in the EPBD
clearly sets out the applicable legal basis, so this is beyond discussion, however,
practically, it is still important to consider the implications for the efficacy of the
SRI of a more or less harmonised methodology. On the one hand the SRI
methodology needs to appropriately cater to locally specific situations yet on the
other hand it needs to leverage the power of the EU Single Market. The sections
immediately below consider the importance of the methodology adequately
reflecting local specificities such as climatic and building type variations, and this
might imply settling on a greater diversity of approach. Conversely, though, there
is also a need for the SRI to adopt a methodological approach which is sufficiently
unified for it to leverage the power of the single market for goods and services. In
particular, this implies an approach which is common in the manner in which the
smart functionalities of goods and services are classified so that their providers
can position their offers in a common way across the Single Market and avoid the
need (and associated extra cost) of developing separate offers for each local
implementation of the SRI. The resultant methodology, and the degrees of
freedom it permits, thus need to be cognisant of both sets of concerns.
1.2.3.1 Tailoring the SRI to geographic conditions: country/region or

climatic specificities and implications for the methodology
It can be envisaged that the SRI score reflects differences in regard to geographic
conditions, such as the climate. For instance, the relative importance of heating
and cooling with respect to the energy balance varies significantly according to
climate conditions. In the first technical study it was suggested that weighting
factors could be used to reflect these regional differences.
Three options have been considered:
• a single set of weighting factors for the EU

• weighting factors defined by the Member States
• weighting factors for pre-defined climatic zones, defined within the SRI
methodology.
The main advantage of applying a single set of weighting factors across Europe is
the comparability of the SRI across Europe. However, user acceptance may suffer,
since the relative importance of domains based on uniform European weighting
factors may significantly deviate from the perceived relative importance given local
conditions.

The definition of weighting factors could also be part of the implementation by
Member States, meaning that each country or region would be able to develop its
own set of weighting factors. Differences in the approach to define these weighting
factors could, however, lead to significant differences in SRI results for buildings
in neighbouring countries with similar climatic conditions. This approach would
thus limit the comparability of buildings across Europe and could potentially harm
its credibility.
Alternatively, weighting factors could be defined for a set of predefined climatic

zones, as part of the SRI methodological framework. This solution would have the
advantage of being able to reflect the relative importance of certain domains given
the local situation, whilst limiting the comparability issues, as only a limited set of
weighting factors would be defined.
The stakeholder questionnaire sent out in preparation for the first stakeholder
meeting contained questions on various topics, including the tailoring of the SRI
calculation methodology to specific conditions, such as climate conditions. The
majority of the respondents (59.3%) supported the proposal to introduce
weighting factors for climate conditions.
Question: Do you see the need to adapt the calculation method to specific
conditions, e.g. using weighting factors? If so, which ones?
Figure 7 - Stakeholder questionnaire: adaptation to specific conditions
Essentially the same question was also raised during the first Topical Group B
meeting. The following statement was presented to the group members:
‘To balance homogeneity of the SRI while acknowledging not all buildings
are subjected to the same boundary conditions, the weight given to specific
services and domains in the impact scores should be specified on a climate
region level (rather than an overall EU or specific member state level).’
Out of 22 participants, 20 members agreed to this statement, with only 2

disagreeing.
Accordingly, the study team recommends defining different weighting factors for
a number of climate zones. Alternatively, it could be envisaged that for each
climate zone and each domain applicable range are defined, rather than fixed
values. Such an approach allows Member States to tailor the SRI to their policy,
within bounds set by the methodology. Finally, it could be envisioned that
weighting factors are (partially) linked to the energy balance of the actual building,
for instance using calculated data from EPCs. This approach implicitly takes into
account climatic conditions, as well as the building design.
Importantly, in any case the weighting factors or the approach to obtain them will
be predefined, based on guidelines by either the Commission or the Member
States. Under no circumstances should the assessor have the liberty to adapt

weighting factors freely, as this could undermine the credibility of the
methodology.
The definition of domain weighting factors – taking into account climatic conditions
– is discussed in section 1.3.3.2.
1.2.3.2 Tailoring the SRI to building type or intrinsic specificities
In addition to tailoring the SRI methodology to climate conditions, tailoring the

methodology to specific building conditions can also be envisaged.
First and foremost, there may be a distinction between residential and non-
residential buildings. These building types have significantly different needs
inherently associated with their use. For instance, in large parts of Europe,
residential buildings do not typically require active cooling, whereas generally this
is needed in non-residential buildings such as office buildings. Hot water provision,
on the other hand, has a higher relative importance in the energy balance of
residential buildings as opposed to most non-residential buildings such as office
buildings.
To reflect the relative importance of certain domains, the use of weighting factors
is proposed. The approach of using weighting factors – rather than omitting certain
domains or services – holds the advantage of still allowing the evaluation of certain
domains and services, although their impact maybe limited under current
circumstances.
Based on the results from the stakeholder questionnaire (Figure 7), it can be
concluded that there is much support for differentiating between residential and
non-residential buildings (86.4%).
Furthermore, in Topical Group A, it was suggested that small- to medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs) could be treated as a separate category of building, including
pubs and restaurants etc., because they comprise a group outside of the
residential and non-residential sector split. The concern is twofold. Firstly, the
energy consumption by end use (heating, cooling...) can differ from larger non-
residential buildings. This raises the need for a separate set of domain weighting
factors. Given the limited availability of data on the energy demand by end use in
SMEs, no separate building category will be introduced in the first iteration of the
SRI. The issue may be revaluated in future updates of the SRI. Secondly, the size
and complexity of SMEs in many cases resembles the complexity of residential
buildings, rather than non-residential buildings. To address the concern, it is
suggested to allow the application of a simplified calculation method – as is the
case for residential buildings – in case of small buildings. This is further addressed
in section 1.2.4.
Apart from different weighting factors for residential and non-residential buildings,
it can be argued that in the case of the latter, the relative importance of certain
domains will differ depending on the specific building type (i.e. distinguished by
function). For instance, the consumption of domestic hot water has a higher impact
on energy consumption in healthcare buildings than in office buildings.
The study team therefore envisages a differentiation of weighting factors for

different non-residential building usages. Results from the stakeholder
questionnaire support this approach (Figure 8).

Question: Should the SRI apply distinct weightings for different non-
residential building types?
Figure 8 - Stakeholder questionnaire: adapting to building type
In addition to weighting factors, certain specific buildings types could benefit from
having additional services that are specific to their usage, e.g. energy
management of refrigerated counters in supermarkets, or flexibility aspect of
heating water in swimming pools.
In the questionnaire, the majority of respondents indicated that they agree to the
inclusion of additional services for certain non-residential building types (Figure
9). This question was also put to the participants of Topical Group B. Out of 21
responses, 15 participants agreed, 3 disagreed and 3 did not have an opinion.
During the discussion, the Topical Group participants confirmed that additional
services for specific building types are relevant. One group explicitly mentioned,
however, that the definition of weightings for these building types is more
important than the introduction of additional services.
Question: Should the SRI be tailored to include additional services for

different non-residential building types?

Figure 9 - Stakeholder questionnaire: additional services for specific building types
To select the most relevant non-residential building types for further investigation,
the stakeholder questionnaire asked respondents to rank the importance of six
non-residential building types. They indicated that offices, healthcare buildings
and educational buildings should be prioritised.
Figure 10 - Stakeholder questionnaire: importance of non-residential building types
The suggestion of prioritising certain building types was introduced in Topical

Group B, where the following statement was presented:
‘If the calculation and assessment methodology would be tailored to

building types, the SRI can focus on a restricted set of priority building
types, leaving room for later updates on very specific functions (e.g.
hospitals, shopping malls, swimming pools).’
Out of 22 responses, 12 participants agreed, 9 disagreed, and 1 did not express

an opinion. Participants indicated that they consider the simplicity of this approach
to be an advantage. Considering the constrained timing, this was perceived as a
reasonable basis to enable moving forward faster. In Topical Group A, some group
members suggested that the SRI needs a good focus to get it started: “Rome is
not built in a day”. They suggested that what is needed is a very successful starting
point (e.g. new office buildings) from which the SRI’s implementation can evolve
further.

A downside of the proposal is its restriction to a more limited set of building types,
thereby potentially limiting the (initial) uptake of the SRI (or using less building
type adapted approaches for other building types). Careful communication would
also be needed on the roadmap of the SRI, explaining the current scope and future
development plans.
The study team has carefully investigated the possibility to tailor the SRI based
on building usage. Firstly, the most viable option is to define different sets of
weighting factors by building use. However, to define these weighting factors
highly granular data on energy consumption must be available, allowing a break-
down by geographical conditions (e.g. country), energy end use (e.g. heating,
cooling…) and building usage (e.g. offices, healthcare…). Analysis of various
valuable data sources – including the European Building Stock Observatory –
showed that the availability of qualitative data at this level of granularity is
currently insufficient to support the definition of separate domain weightings by
end use. Secondly, the development of a tailored set of services by building usage
is considered. However, investigating a multitude of different building usages and
developing a tailored set of services was not deemed feasible within the time
constraints of the second technical study. In order to support further tailoring in
future updates of the SRI, it could be envisioned to structurally capture feedback
from assessors (and the broader stakeholder community) to identify specific
services for future inclusion.
Based on the analysis, the study team suggests the following approach:
• In a first step, only distinguishing between residential and non-residential

buildings, but not add further differentiation between various types of non-
residential buildings (commercial, office, healthcare, various types of sport
facilities, etc.). The suggested differentiation between residential and non-
residential buildings can be realised in various ways, including the introduction
of a separate methodology (for instance, a simplified method for residential
buildings, see section 1.2.4) and a different appreciation of the relative
importance of various technical domains (for instance, separate weighting
factors, see section 1.3.3.2).
• In the case of mixed-use buildings – including both residential and non-
residential units – two main approaches may be considered: (1) a weighted
single score for the entire building or (2) separate assessments (and SRI scores
and labels) for building units of different types. The appropriate approach may
depend on the chosen implementation pathway. For instance, if a connection
to EPC is envisaged, alignment with national guidelines applicable to the EPC
assessment is desirable. The study team suggests that implementing bodies
define the appropriate guidelines to deal with mixed-use buildings.
• For multi-family buildings, a similar consideration can be made; residential
units can either be assessed individually, or the building can be assessed as a
whole. From a technical perspective, the desired approach may depend on the
TBS. For instance, in the case of shared systems for heating or ventilation, a
building-level assessment may be preferred to reduce the assessment time.
However, many other services are expected to differ across units. For instance,
this could be the case for lighting control. Similar to multi-use buildings, the
most appropriate approach may depend on the chosen implementation
pathway. The study team suggests that implementing bodies should define
appropriate guidelines to deal with multi-family buildings.

1.2.4 DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY OF THE METHOD
The level of streamlining for the service catalogue should be determined to deliver
a viable scheme. The most appropriate level of streamlining will be a function of
the organisational pathway considered. In order to obtain a viable scheme, it is
crucial to respond to the needs of the end user (see also Activity 1 Task 2 and
Activity 2 Task 3). This includes a careful balancing of the desired output (a reliable
SRI) and the required input (assessment time, and thus assessment cost).
Assessment time is strongly linked to the degree of complexity of the SRI

definition. At least two different SRI assessment types can be envisaged: a
simplified version with a limited set of services, and a detailed version.
Differentiating between a simplified version and a detailed version would allow
costs to be brought down for simple buildings, which in turn could increase uptake.
At the same time, the detailed version would permit validation of the added value
of advanced systems in complex buildings. On the downside, differentiation may
bring confusion, which could hamper the communication of the SRI.
Alternatively, to bring down costs it may be envisioned to allow self-assessment –

for instance, via use of assessment guidelines and an SRI calculator accessed
through the internet – in addition to a formal assessment performed by a third-
party (expert) assessor. Self-assessment has the benefit of being able to provide
an indication of the current smartness and the potential to improve, without
requiring the cost and inconvenience of a formal assessment. Its main purpose
would be to provide insight and raise awareness of the smartness of buildings. The
study team envisages that only a third-party assessment would deliver a formal
score (e.g. a certificate) to ensure the validity and credibility of the assessment.
The communication of the results would clearly state the type of assessment (self-
assessment or third-party assessment).
Finally, there is also a demand among certain stakeholders to take the SRI a step
further, rather than provide a simplified version. This demand is based on an issue
that is found across many labelling or certification initiatives, namely the
performance gap. Most initiatives, including the SRI, target the theoretical
performance of a building; however, experience has shown that in many cases the
actual performance of the building (e.g. energy performance, thermal comfort,
etc.) deviates from the theoretical predictions. Many causes can be identified for
the performance gap, including deviation from calculation assumptions (occupancy
rates, setpoints, etc.), occupant behaviour and execution errors in the technical
installations. As a result, a demand arises to have building scores based on actual
performance. Although for many services and impact criteria there is a clear
potential to derive performance on the basis of measured or metered data, the
implementation of a fully measured/metered SRI is not deemed feasible for a first
version of the SRI and should be further investigated for subsequent versions.
In the questionnaire send out to stakeholders, a majority of the respondents

supported the differentiation between a light and detailed assessment (Figure 11).

Question: which approach would you prefer?
Figure 11 - Stakeholder questionnaire - light versus detailed assessment
When asked to comment on their choice, some stakeholders suggested the

assessment approach should be pre-determined based on certain conditions:
• light assessment for residential; detailed assessment for non-residential

• mandatory light assessment; detailed assessment upon request
• light assessment for existing buildings; detailed assessment for new buildings
• start with light assessment; detailed assessment as a future development of
the SRI.
With the stakeholder questionnaire, a majority of respondents supported the
approach of allowing both a light self-assessment and a detailed third-party
assessment; however, it was not clarified whether both methods should be eligible
in all cases or whether they should be offered depending on circumstances, per
the above discussion.
Question: Do you support the approach of differentiation between a light

self-assessment and a detailed 3rd party assessment?
Figure 12 - Stakeholder questionnaire: self-assessment and 3rd party assessment

Based on the feedback received, the study team has developed a set of working
assumptions, consisting of three SRI methods (A, B and C), as depicted in Figure
13.
Figure 13 – Three potential assessment methods

1.2.4.1 Method A: simplified method
The scope of the simplified method is defined as follows:
• a checklist approach using a simplified service catalogue or a database

approach
• possibility for (online) self-assessment, free of charge and accessible to the
general public (e.g. single-family homeowners), in addition to a formal third-
party expert assessment
• fast assessment: less than one hour for a single-family home
• restricted to residential buildings and small non-residential buildings (net
surface floor area < 500m²)
• aim: to raise awareness of the smartness of buildings, provide initial feedback
on the current state of a building, e.g. when planning renovations or upgrades.
The envisaged scope of the simplified method has been presented during both
stakeholder meetings and to the topical groups. An open brain-storm was
organised in Topical Group B75, focusing on how the service catalogue and
corresponding calculation method might be affected by switching from the expert
assessment as outlined in the first technical study, to a quick-scan approach
(Method A). The opening question was phrased as follows:
‘If there is to be a quick-scan, which households would complete by online

self-assessment: how would the check-list approach need to be altered?
Should there be a simplification of the “questioning” or should the quick-
scan just evaluate less services (omit services)?’
Participants indicated that the applicability of Method A should be aligned with the
complexity and expected level of smartness of the TBSs. In that context, a first
suggested approach for Method A (quick-scan) would be to extend the triage
process. First, a quick assessment should be conducted based on a number of
high-level questions with the aim of identifying the key services. Next, further
detailed questions could be posed for “high potential” services.
As an alternative to the simplification (or omission) of the service catalogue for

Method A, one participant proposed the idea of a validated SRI product database.
Manufacturers could provide SRI scores (functionality levels) for their products.
The end user would no longer be required to look up the full technical details.
Instead, they would look up the products present in their building and have the
appropriate scores applied automatically, which is much easier, faster and simpler.
A key benefit to this approach is the end user’s reduced need for knowledge on
installed TBSs. The approach could also gain support from industry as it would
allow opportunities for branding. However, the database needs to be trustworthy
and valid. Ideally, such a database should focus not only on new products, but
also on existing products, as the SRI should be applicable to existing buildings. A
hybrid approach, asking more technical questions in case a product is not
represented in the database, could be envisaged.
Participants commented that the benefits of simplifying the questions versus

omitting services would depend on the different aspects:
75
Topical Group B: calculation methodology – topical group meeting on 26/03/2019 in Brussels

• simplifying the catalogue might be more applicable to old, existing buildings,
where a priori the level of complexity in terms of TBSs will be limited.
• for new buildings/major renovations, a simplified service catalogue might not
be applicable; in these cases, a qualified person would need to perform the
assessment, similar to an EPC auditor.
Regarding the application field of the proposed methods, participants indicated

that Method A is expected to be more suitable for residential buildings. Method B
was indicated to be more appropriate for non-residential buildings. To support this,
one participant added that, for residential buildings, if the SRI is too technical and
complex, it could become unmanageable, which would negatively affect the
uptake. This concern is less likely to apply to non-residential buildings.
In Topical Group A, SWOT analyses were conducted for the three methods. The
analyses indicated that the key concern for Method A is reliability: making the
method too simple creates the risk of making it simplistic, which could significantly
harm the reliability of the SRI. Opening the SRI to self-assessment leaves it prone
to manipulation, which could also harm the reliability. The members do see the
advantage of creating awareness and see the self-assessment as a potential
stepping stone to a full assessment. Some members were concerned that there
could be little interest in the quick-scan and that it would not be used. Finally, as
the SRI remains a theoretical calculation, it is not a solution to the performance
gap.
In summary, the initial exploration with stakeholders revealed support for

introducing a simplified method, particularly for residential buildings. Concerns
about the reliability of such a method need to be addressed. From a
methodological perspective, either a simplified service catalogue or a database
approach are envisaged.
Three dedicated web meetings on the subject were organised with Topical Group
B, elaborating on the feasibility of the suggested database method and the
alternative of a simplified service catalogue.
A first web meeting76 discussed the feasibility of a database method. With such an
approach, manufacturers could report the functionality levels of their different
products in an online database. Occupants (or other users of the simplified
method) could select the brands and product types of their TBS from a database,
rather than assess the functionality levels themselves. The functionality levels
could be attributed automatically to the services. Such an approach would simplify
the input efforts for the occupants without reducing the level of detail of the
calculation methodology. This approach also creates an opportunity for
manufacturers to position themselves in the market.
Although the Topical Group B members acknowledged the potential advantages of

the suggested approach, a number of concerns were raised, as detailed below.
Methodological issues
• Functionality levels cannot always be ascribed to products directly. In many

cases, the functionality level is achieved by a set of systems.
76
Topical Group B: calculation methodology – web meeting 11/06/2019

• In many cases products have certain functionalities that may or may not be
used. The implemented functionality level depends on the specific installation.
• Free programmable controllers can have a number of functionalities; typically,
only a fraction of these functionalities are actually implemented.
• It would not be feasible to include devices that are discontinued. As a result, a
large share of legacy equipment would not be represented in the database.
• The method does not capture the potential upgrade of legacy equipment by
means of smart add-on equipment.
Practical issues
• A new database would be needed in addition to the EPREL/Ecodesign database.

This requires a major effort from manufacturers. Topical Group members
indicated that the potential benefits do not justify the effort required,
particularly under the assumption of a voluntary method, limited to residential
buildings.
• Reluctance of manufacturers to provide the data for the database method could
undermine the success of the SRI.
Although some stakeholders remain in favour of the database approach,

insufficient support was found to proceed with the approach.
A second web meeting was organised to discussing a simplified service catalogue.

As defined in the scope of method A, a fast assessment time (approximately 15
minutes for a single-family home) is desirable77. A reduction in the number of
services in the detailed service catalogue (currently 54 services) is therefore a
clear requirement. To allow occupants to perform a self-assessment, the services
should be defined in such a way that no expert knowledge is required.
Nevertheless, the simplified service catalogue should cover the features most
relevant to the SRI.
The study team proposes an approach where a limited number of services are
included for each domain. These services are structured in each domain by the
following three topics:
• controllability of performance – this includes services that enable control

of a TBS’s performance, e.g. its energy efficiency, indoor air quality, lighting
level
• storage and connectivity – this includes services that enable storage of
energy and/or services that have the ability to connect to or communicate with
other actors, such as other TBSs, a building automated control system (BACS)
or the energy grid
• reporting functionalities – this includes reporting on performance,
temperatures and energy consumption, as well as reporting on maintenance,
fault detection and fault prediction.
In principle, this entails providing a maximum of three services for each of the
nine domains. However, a few exceptions are foreseen, as follows.
77

• For “heating” and “cooling”, two services will be included for the controllability
of performance: one focusing on the controllability of the emissions system
and one dealing with the controllability of the production facilities.
• The “electricity” domain covers both on-site renewables and storage (and in
the future, potentially plug loads). In light of the simplified method, it is not
deemed desirable to limit the simplified method to only one of each. Therefore,
for each topic a service on renewables and a service on storage may be
foreseen.
• For some of the domains, a topic may not be relevant; for instance, storage
and connectivity is not deemed relevant for the domains “lighting” or
“controlled ventilation” – keeping in mind that the envisaged field of application
is limited to residential buildings.
At the time of discussions, the suggested simplified calculation method would

include around 25 services. The consolidated proposal documented in ANNEX E
contains 27 smart-ready services.
The suggested approach is well-received by the members of Topical Group B. The

structure providing a limited number of services for each topic (one or,
exceptionally, two) is generally accepted. A general comment was made that
although the service catalogue has been simplified in terms of the number and
complexity of services, further simplification is needed in terms of vocabulary.
Upon the study team’s request, experts from Topical Group B have provided their
feedback on the defined services and functionality levels, and the study team has
updated the simplified service catalogue based on feedback. Topical group
members raised the concern that restricting the application of method A to self-
assessment would limit the applicability of the method. It is argued that allowing
formal 3rd party expert assessments using the simplified method should not be
excluded.
A third and final discussion was held with topical group B to discuss the scope of
the simplified method, to address previously raised concerns regarding the field of
application78. The study team presents two potential options for dealing with the
simplified method (A) and the detailed method (B):
1. for non-residential buildings, always apply method B. For residential

buildings, apply method A for small/simple buildings (e.g. single-family
homes) and apply method B for large complex buildings (e.g. large multi-
family homes)
2. always decide on the method based on the size/complexity of the building.
(hence: method A would be allowed for small non-residential buildings such
as small shops etc.).
In both cases only a third-party expert assessment issues a formal certificate.

Online self-assessment could be made available for both methods but would not
issue a certificate.
Stakeholders generally prefer method 2, provided there are clear guidelines on

what small/large or simple/complex means. The study team suggests that all
building with a net usable surface area smaller than 500 m² are
78

considered “small buildings” and should be evaluated using the simplified
method.
One stakeholder raises the concern that mixing methods A and B may be
confusing, and suggests to only use method B for 3rd party assessment and only
allow online self-assessment in method A. To overcome the issue, the results of
the assessment should clearly state whether or not it is a formal assessment or
an informative assessment.
The suggested simplified service catalogue for method A can be found in ANNEX
E.
1.2.4.2 Method B: detailed method
The scope of the detailed method is defined as follows:
• a checklist approach using the detailed service catalogue developed in the first
technical study;
• on-site inspection;
• third-party qualified expert assessment (cf. EPC) OR self-assessment by a non-
independent expert (e.g. facility manager);
• assessment time: ½ day to 1 day, depending on the size and complexity of
the building;
• open to large non-residential and residential buildings (net surface floor area
≥500m²);
• aim: to raise awareness of the smartness of buildings, formal assessment to
provide detailed insight into the smartness of a building compared to its
maximum potential smartness.
The detailed Method B remains the default method, applicable to all building types,
including residential and non-residential buildings, as well as new constructions,
retrofits and existing buildings. The assessment is to be performed by a third-
party expert assessor and is currently the only method that issues a formal
assessment. Alternatively, self-assessment by a non-independent expert (e.g.
facility manager) may be envisioned. Similar to method A, a self-assessment
would be merely informative, and would not issue a formal assessment.
Interactions with various facility managers highlighted their general support for
SRI as a tool to assess, compare and optimise their building portfolio. In particular,
the ability to allow self-assessment for the detailed method was strongly
supported79. Similar to the simplified method, self-assessment has the benefit of
being able to provide an indication of the current smartness and the potential to
improve, without requiring the cost and inconvenience of a formal assessment. Its
main purpose would be to provide insight and raise awareness of the smartness
of buildings. In the case building experts such as facility managers, this could
empower them to plan future upgrades of the building in terms of smartness.
79
Based on discussions at the conference for Future Oriented Facility Management, 22/10/2019,
Brussels

Feedback from stakeholders80 indicates that the third-party expert assessment is
considered a key strength and could increase SRI reliability. A site visit by the
assessor could further support the reliability. The Topical Group members
identified coupling to the EPC as a key opportunity. Other opportunities are
potential improvement of the building (design), as well as potential improvements
to the quality of technical systems (design and execution). The cost of assessment
is seen as a weakness, and the risk of rewarding complexity is considered a threat.
The Topical Group members also raised concerns about the required expertise and
the independence of third-party assessors. Finally, similar to the case with Method
A, it is not a solution to the performance gap.
Both for methods A and B, it could be envisioned that over time TBSs/BACS might
be able to self-report functionality levels. Such an approach would allow for a
(partial) automated assessment, which would reduce the required effort and cost
of the assessment. Since the functionalities of the TBSs/BACS control systems are
often the most complex to assess on site, automated reporting by these systems
could significantly reduce the required expertise by third-party assessors, and
contribute to the overall accuracy of the assessment. Since the methodology relies
on data collection from the TBSs/BACS, the field of applicability would be limited
to in-use SRI assessments. Hence, it is likely that a non-automated assessment
approach remains available alongside the automated approach, to enable
assessments in the design phase of the building.
A Topical Group C was created to investigate potential future evolutions of the

SRI, including the potential development of an approach for an automated
assessment of methods A and B. More information on the work of this topical group
is provided in section 5.1.2. The topical group is fully self-managed in terms of
organisation and content and will continue to discuss these future evolutions of
the SRI beyond the end of this technical study, but has provided intermediate
recommendations to the technical study consortium and the Commission
Services81. Its work is complementary to but fully independent of this study.
In their advice to the technical study consortium and the Commission Services,
Topical Group C states that:
• ‘Automating methods A and B is highly likely to increase the EU-wide

market uptake of the SRI which in turn would support the performance
improvement (also indoor climate) process of the EU’s building stock. In many
buildings and with the introduction of the revised EPBD, automation or at least
more control possibilities than currently available will be introduced in
buildings. Developing an SRI which can use these systems to generate
automatically comparable indicators on different levels would help the market.
The same building technology needed for automated methods A and B enables
continuous real-time data monitoring of technical building systems’ operation
which has high potential in closing building performance gaps throughout a
building’s life cycle and so introduce a new method C.’
80
Topical Group A: implementation pathways and value proposition, meeting on 26/03/2019 in
Brussels
and Topical Group B: calculation methodology, meeting on 26/03/2019 in Brussels
81
The full report of topical group C can be found on www.smartreadinessindicator.eu/ stakeholder-
consultation

1.2.4.3 Method C: in-use smart building performance
In the long run, TBSs/BACS might be able to self-report functionality levels,

assisting Method A and Method B. Method C goes beyond this and quantifies the
actual performance of in-use buildings. However, Method C will require
benchmarking to assess how the level of savings, demand side flexibility, comfort
improvements, etc., are delivered; for example:
• if energy consumption is low, to what extent can this be attributed to smart

controls, versus passive measures or occupant behaviour?
• if low CO2 levels are measured, is this demonstrating that the ventilation
system is operating smartly, or is it just a result of the ventilation rate being
set high or that the building is very leaky?
Method C is currently considered to be a potential future evolution of a certification

approach for a commissioned building, going beyond the currently envisaged
scope of the SRI. Therefore, it will not be treated in detail in this technical study;
however, it will be kept in mind as one potential future evolution of the SRI.
Multiple organisations have expressed their support to evolve towards an in-use

performance-based SRI:
• ‘Be future-proof and evolve from a “smart ready assessment” towards “true
building performance: the timely introduction of the SRI as a quantitative
indicator will help guide necessary investments and upgrades of buildings.
However, only if the SRI, as an indicator, evolves into a true quantitative
measure of the performance of the building over time, and performance
improvement goals are set accordingly will there be a positive impact on the
EPBD goals.’
• 'Future developments of the SRI should consider in-use smart building
performance assessment.’
• 'A large-scale deployment of state-of-the-art Building Automation and Control
Systems will create the conditions, in the future, for having a detailed, in-use
assessment performed automatically. […] We agree with the presentation
displayed during the Stakeholder meeting: this is not applicable as of today,
but it should be the goal of a future evolution of the SRI. The deployment of
BACS functionalities in Art. 14/15 of the revised EPBD by 2025 will be key to
ensure that this method could become reality in the future.’
• 'A steering committee is needed to update the SRI framework every year to
ensure product innovations are included in the catalogue of services and
methodology. A subgroup of this Committee should be tasked to investigate
how to move towards Method C, i.e. move the SRI towards a quantitative
building performance indicator.’
Topical group C has also reflected on the concept of the suggested method C. In
their advice to the technical study consortium and the Commission Services,
Topical Group C states that method C could be a framework/process that would
bring all relevant stakeholders together and gear the digital transformation of the
built environment towards reaching the EU's long term goals. On potential benefits
of a method C, the recommendations report of topical group C states the following:
• ‘For a new method C it is very important to keep in mind that the whole point
of this method is to let the SRI evolve from a parameter which consists of
factors levelling functionalities of services from the Smart Services Catalogue
(currently methods A and B) to a parameter which quantifies the building’s

impacts for all 3 relevant categories (building occupants needs, building
operational efficiency and building energy flexibility) with a strong focus on the
impact upon the reduction of CO2 emissions.’
• ‘A new method C would add further value to real estate. Therefore, go-to-
market strategy should be considered to support added-value in the market.
As such, having a clear and transparent (sustainable) business case (value
proposition) from the very beginning is essential. Just considering the goal of
decarbonising the EU’s building stock, monetisation should be quantified at
least in terms of CO2 savings. In addition, benefits like enhanced productivity
by an improved indoor work environment, reduced investment cost for
upgrading the energy grid by fully employing the building flexibility potential
and reduced total cost of ownership by the use of data driven predictive
maintenance techniques should be quantified.’
• ‘The actual performance of building services and integrated energy system
should be analysed in the existing building stock. Method C would show the
real effect of smart installations and can be used to assess the effect of new
measures.’
1.2.4.4 Combination of various service levels in one building
In some cases, smart services might only be present in a part of the building. For
instance, “control of artificial lighting power based on daylight levels” may be
available in the open office space, but not in corridors. From a methodological
perspective, this can easily be tackled by assessing all relevant services in all
rooms of a building, and subsequently weighting the impact scores depending on
their relative presence (e.g. by introducing weighting factors corresponding to the
floor areas where services are present). One can however also imagine other
assessment approaches which could significantly reduce the assessment efforts.
For instance, one could define representative rooms, or only include either the
minimum or maximum functionality level present in the building. That way, the
assessor does not have to collect information on every service in every room in
great detail. Neither is there a need to calculate the applicable net surface floor
areas or collect other data to define additional weighting factors, both of which
could be quite burdensome and represent a significant share of the assessment
efforts.
This issue was also touched upon in the first meeting of Topical Group B, with
members being asked to vote for, or against the statement:
‘To ease the assessment, presence of services is only evaluated in

representative spaces, e.g. don't do a walkthrough to assess lighting
control of every fixture (including hallways, storage rooms, etc.), but
simply evaluate a representative room (e.g. representative office in an
office building).’
Nine participants voted to agree, 11 to disagree and 1 had no opinion, which

suggests there was a lack of consensus on this issue.
During the public beta testing, participants were provided with two options to deal
with the issue of services which are only present in parts of the building, namely:
• by default, it is assumed that the selected functionality level applies to the

entire building. Therefore, the highest functionality level that applies to the
entire surface area of the building should be selected. Alternatively, one might
also indicate the functionality level that applies to the most relevant share of

the building (e.g. a services present throughout a dwelling apart from the attic
and corridors)
• optionally, a split could be made in the data input, where up to two different
functionality levels could be defined to include partial presence of services or
service levels in the SRI score calculation (upon actual implementation of the
SRI more than two functionality levels per service might also be allowed,
should this option be favoured). Assessors were asked to apply a weighting
factor based on the net surface floor area.
The second option was seldom used in the testing phase, and the feedback
received enabled clear clarification of stakeholders preferences on this issue.
In summary, the following options are possible to deal with services being present
in part of the building or with varying functionality levels:
a) introducing a very strict approach in which only the minimum functionality

level is reported
b) assessing the service with the highest functionality level, even if only
present in small sections of the building
c) assessing a service in all rooms and introducing weighting factors
d) assessing the services only in key areas of the building, e.g. by defining
‘representative rooms’ for specific building usages.
Option a) is the easiest to implement, but could be too strict, considering that
some smart services may not be as relevant in all areas of the building (for
instance in areas such as hallways, technical rooms, etc., there is less need for
indoor air quality monitoring compared to offices or class rooms). Option b) is
equally easy to implement, but could trigger effects of ‘gaming’ the SRI
assessment, by implementing services to a high level but only in very limited parts
of the building. This could in turn affect the trustworthiness of the indicator. Option
c) is the most detailed approach, but also requires the most effort, both in
assessing various service levels as in defining the weighting factors. Besides the
net surface floor area, other metrics could be considered. In case of multiple heat
generators, for instance, the maximum power or the generators or even the
annual delivered energy could be used to express the relative importance of two
distinct functionality levels. A variant could be to require such analysis only if
differentiation of functionality levels is significant; for instance by introducing a
threshold of 80% of floor area. If a service level is present in 80% or more of the
net floor area, the alternative functionality levels do not have to be assessed in
this case. Finally, option d) also reduces the assessment efforts by requiring the
functionality levels only to be assessed in key areas of the building. In principle,
all four options - or a blend thereof – are feasible.
The study team suggests that this issue is dealt with by introducing detailed
guidelines in the inspection protocols, preferably coordinated at European level.
1.2.4.5 Conclusion
It can be concluded that there is support for distinguishing between a simplified

approach (Method A) and a detailed approach (Method B). Method A, the simplified
method, is mainly oriented towards small buildings with low complexity (single
family homes, small multi-family homes, small non-residential buildings, etc.). The
checklist method could be made accessible for non-experts, such as individual

homeowners. Method B, the detailed method, is oriented towards buildings with a
higher complexity (typically large non-residential buildings, potentially large multi-
family homes). Nevertheless, small residential buildings are a priori not excluded
from this method.
While in principle Method B is mainly oriented to more complex buildings, there is

a greater richness of information in Method B and hence the study team are of the
view that it should always be presented as an option even for building segments
where Method A is the more common choice. Nonetheless, the manner in which
this is executed would naturally be dependent on the implementation pathway
adopted by each implementing authority.
For the development of method A, the preferred approach is a simplified version

of the service catalogue, with a limited set of services and a change of terminology
(asking simpler questions). A potential downside of this approach is the lack of
comparability of results if both Method A and Method B were applied to a
residential building (for instance, Method A during the pre-design phase and
Method B during the design phase). Conflicting results should be avoided, as they
could harm the credibility of the SRI. This has been probed as part of the public
beta test (see section 5.1.3), which led to a further harmonisation of both service
catalogues.
The study has pursued the development of both Method A and Method B, in close
consultation with topical group A and B, and informed by the results of the public
beta test in which both methods were made available to stakeholders. This
resulted in:
• the establishment of two separate service catalogues – a simplified service

catalogue and a detailed service catalogue (see ANNEX E and 0 respectively)
• the definition of separate weighting factors for residential and non-residential
buildings; the approach is outlined in Task 3 Activity 1.
1.2.5 DATA PROTECTION & CYBERSECURITY
It is clear that the SRI process will need to abide by the provisions of the GDPR
and ensure that necessary permissions are given to access (and potentially share)
any user data the scheme may require. Stakeholders have offered no comments
apart from this on this topic; however, for the development of any specific SRI
organisational pathway the study team will need to work through the GDPR
requirements and ensure that the approach is set up in a manner that complies
with them but is also viable. In this regard it will be important to conduct a Data
Privacy Impact Assessment to assess the data protection of the scheme’s
operational ecosystem whose components could include the smart grids, smart
metering systems and connected built-in devices within the target buildings. Such
DPIA would need to complement and integrate the existing Impact Assessment
template for smart grids and smart metering systems 82.
In this regard it is relevant to consider the views expressed by the European

Parliament with regard to the provisions of the recast Energy Efficiency Directive
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/data-protection-impact-assessment-smart-grid-and-smart-
82
metering-environment

2012/27/EU at first reading on 26 March 2019 83 which streamlines data protection
(see recitals 57 and 91; Art. 2, definition 27; Art. 14(1), letter (h); Art. 17(3),
letter (c); Art. 19(1); Art. 20(1), letter (c) and (f); Art. 23(2), (3) and (4); Art.
34; Art. 40(1), letter (m); Annex II, point 2) across the entire ‘smart metering
system’ environment, also mentioning ‘best techniques’ as “the most effective,
advanced and practically suitable techniques for providing, in principle, the basis
for complying with the Union data protection and security rules”.
In particular, Annex II specifies that data protection aspects will be considered for
the costs-benefits analysis of the implementation of the recast Energy Efficiency
Directive:
“1. Member States shall ensure the deployment of smart metering systems
in their territories that may be subject to an economic assessment of all
of the long-term costs and benefits to the market and the consumer
or which form of smart metering is economically reasonable and cost-
effective and which time-frame is feasible for their distribution. 2. Such
assessment shall take into consideration the methodology for the cost-
benefit analysis and the minimum functionalities for smart metering
systems provided for in Commission Recommendation 2012/148/EU1 as
well as the best available techniques for ensuring the highest level
of cybersecurity and data protection.”
With respect to cybersecurity, the main issues that could arise will concern the
security of data being shared by any TBS or smart service via the internet (which
would be the case for Method C in particular but also for many other smart
systems). There will also be cybersecurity risks with databases of either on-line
(e.g. Method A) or third-party (Method B) systems.
The SRI cannot be expected to resolve these risks because they are inherent in
the use of progressively smarter TBSs and services that are being offered to the
market independently of the SRI; however, the SRI must take a responsible
approach to this issue and this means that it should aim to draw user attention to
the risks and the solutions. The obvious approach will be to highlight that there is
(more accurately, will be) a voluntary cyber security label which each
interconnected device/TBS could adhere to. The SRI could thus either simply
include notification to users to be aware of cybersecurity risks and that the
systems that carry the cyber security label are better protected, or indicate which
systems have the label and which do not. The viability of the latter approach will
depend on how the voluntary cyber security label is eventually implemented.
However, as its development is just beginning and choices about which products
and services will be addressed are still to be taken, this is likely to be an issue that
will need to be revisited after the current technical study is completed.
The conclusion of the technical study consortium is that it is not viable to explicitly
assess cybersecurity in the framework of the SRI in the absence of well-
established third-party certification schemes.
The proposal of the technical consortium is:
83
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2019-
0227+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

• in a first version of the SRI: add a disclaimer and warning about cybersecurity
aspects
• in future iterations of the SRI: include cybersecurity as an additional
assessment, relying on external accreditation according to the EU
Cybersecurity Certification Act which aims to put in place an EU-wide third-
party certification scheme. Once available, this can be presented as
supplementary information, without affecting the SRI score(s).
The additional information could either be optional or mandatory for the

implementing bodies. The suggestion of the technical study team is to require this
information provision in all Member States as soon as the market uptake of the
EU-wide certification scheme in the building sector is deemed sufficient.
1.2.6 INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SCHEMES
The SRI’s interaction with other schemes such as EPCs, Level(s), broadband ready,
voluntary cyber security label, building renovation passports, etc., is one of the
key issues to be resolved in the lead-up to its implementation. As noted in the
previous text there are a great many schemes the SRI could potentially interact
with and this text is not comprehensive. Stakeholder remarks (especially those
received between the two technical studies) highlight the importance of clarifying
this issue. Many stakeholders have expressed a desire for the SRI to be linked to
EPCs and stressed the evident synergies that could exist, including taking
advantage of the EPC assessment process to also address the SRI and thereby:
• ensure that the SRI is rolled out at least as rapidly as the EPC is (especially if
it is made mandatory by Member States)
• use the same third-party assessor, thereby helping to ensure the integrity of
the assessment and avoiding duplicate effort.
While this is self-evident, it is also a decision for Member States and hence the
study team must proceed on the basis that it is one of the implementation
pathways that could be envisaged, but that others may also be pursued.
A more generally applicable principle, which is robust under essentially all

imaginable pathways, is that the SRI needs to be implemented in a manner that
is complementary to other schemes and initiatives – especially if they are EU-wide
initiatives – but also in response to any mandatory Member State initiatives. At a
minimum this means that the scheme’s boundaries are set so that if they overlap
with other EU-wide schemes they offer the potential to either enrich inputs used
by other schemes (e.g. the SRI could address aspects of energy performance not
currently captured by EPCs and aspects of indoor environment quality performance
not yet captured in Level(s)), or to be enriched by those schemes (e.g. the energy
balance data from an EPC could help to set the energy savings weightings per TBS
used in the SRI).
The issue of potential linkages of the SRI with other schemes has been examined
in discussion with Topical Group A amongst others, and the findings have helped
to inform the development of the prospective set of implementation pathways
described in Task 2.

1.2.7 INTEROPERABILITY
1.2.7.1 Importance of interoperability to SRT functioning
The degree of interoperability of TBS can be a limiting factor affecting the smart
services and impacts that can be delivered within a building. Interoperability of
systems can avoid duplication of efforts (e.g. investment for occupancy detection
systems and monitoring displays for lighting, for space heating and cooling and
ventilation systems) and optimise the control and maintenance of TBS (e.g. single
interface for controlling heating and cooling facilitates the operation of the building
and prevents spilling energy through uncoordinated simultaneous heating and
cooling in building zones). Next, interoperability is essential for allowing TBS to
interact with the energy grids. Finally, interoperable systems are desirable in the
light of future upgrades of the building as they can avoid proprietary lock-in and
facilitate innovative solutions.
There can, however, also be a flip side to interoperability. Exploiting

interoperability through connecting various systems – potentially stemming from
multiple manufacturers – can increase the risk for malfunctioning compared to
proprietary systems and protocols. Fault diagnosis in a system of interconnected
TBS can also be more intricate compared to a set of stand-alone systems. Finally,
the delineation of responsibility for the provision of the service can become blurred
in case of interoperable and interconnected systems. This can introduce
cybersecurity risks and the risk that an end user is unable to establish who is
responsible for the service and hence cannot legally seek recourse if a service they
have paid for is not functioning as intended.
The various levels of interoperability (see section 1.1.2.15: technical, syntactical,

semantic) further complicate the definition and assessment of interoperability
aspects. While in principle the SRI could be structured to encourage
interoperability by awarding a higher score for fully interoperable systems (e.g.
fully open non-proprietary systems and protocols), this should probably not come
at the expense of blurring the ability of procurers to hold a service provider
accountable for the service they have procured. In the context of the SRI, this can
be solved by not necessarily looking into full technical and semantic
interoperability of all TBS and their components, but by focussing on the main
features that provide smart services to the occupants. For example, smart
ventilation systems could use proprietary protocols for controlling the fans and
valves, and open protocols for communication with a building (energy)
management systems. In this example the proprietary controls would not
necessarily have negative repercussions in the SRI evaluation mechanism, as long
as the system is able to communicate insights on energy consumption and indoor
air quality to the users through an open interface.
1.2.7.2 Potential approaches to assess interoperability aspects with the

SRI
In the proposed methodology developed by the technical study, the smart

readiness of a building or building unit is determined on the basis of the
assessment of smart ready services (and their functionality level) present in a
building. As such, it reflects the capabilities of the building or building unit to adapt
its operation to the needs of the occupants and the grid, and to improve its energy
efficiency and overall performance. Apart from these key capabilities, there are
some cross-cutting issues related to the greater uptake of smart technologies,
including interoperability of the technical buildings systems. The SRI could
potentially play a role in informing the market actors on this important aspect and

even assist in shaping the market. Various ways to do so can be considered, e.g.
blending the assessment in the core SRI calculation methodology, using the SRI
as a means to disseminate additional information, or supplementing the SRI
assessment with additional evaluations of these aspects besides the overall SRI
score.
In the second interim report of July 2019, three potential approaches to consider
interoperability within the SRI were presented, each with different implications
towards SRI calculation methodology and assessment process:
• Implicit approach: Define services that require interoperability, without

defining the required standards or protocols needed to enable such
interoperability. For example, if a service for "avoiding simultaneous heating
and cooling" is present, implicitly these systems will inherently have to be
interoperable (either directly or through other gateways).
• Explicit approach: take into account the level of interoperability of services

(based on the standards and protocols featured by a given TBS) in the
calculation of the SRI. A higher SRI score could be granted if systems adhere
to a list of specific standards and protocols.
• Informative approach: Provide information the level of interoperability of

services (based on the standards and protocols featured by a given TBS), for
instance, in the SRI and accompanying documents. A structured overview of
such information provides a valuable source for building owners when planning
to upgrade their building systems.
1.2.7.3 Topical group survey on interoperability assessment in the SRI

framework
The various potential approaches to treat interoperability have been analysed by

the technical study consortium and discussed with the stakeholder community,
most notably the topical B expert group which was set up to support the technical
study on methodological issues. White papers, open public surveys (e.g. the
feedback form on the second interim report) and direct interactions further fed
into the discussion.
In July 2019, technical experts of the topical stakeholder working groups A and B
where surveyed on the theme of interoperability in the SRI. A total of 21
respondents filled out this survey. Generally, their responses reflect the notion
that an extensive assessment of interoperability aspects in the SRI assessment
would be intricate and require extensive efforts.
Only 3 respondents agree that visual inspection would be a viable option, while 14
disagree and 4 remained neutral. 13 respondents state that interoperability cannot
readily be assessed since this information is generally lacking on product labels
and technical documentation (4 ‘disagree’, 4 ‘I don’t know’). 16 out of 21
respondents agree that the efforts required for a detailed assessment of
interoperability aspects would significantly increase the time needed to conduct
an SRI assessment (3 ‘disagree’, 2 ‘I don’t know’).
When presented with the three approaches suggested by the study team for
including interoperability aspects in the SRI, 10 respondents prefer the implicit
approach, whilst 6 favour an informative approach and 5 the explicit approach. 2
respondents answered ‘no opinion/not relevant for the SRI’.

In the survey, the topical group members were also presented with various
statements on how to potentially deal with interoperability of systems in case an
explicit approach would be favoured. Respondents could select multiple options.
• 10 respondents agree with the statement “Technical building systems do not

necessarily have to use a common protocol, as long as one gateway (e.g. the
building (energy) management system) is able to interact with other technical
building systems.”
• 10 respondents agree with the statement “If technical building systems are
able to communicate through a well-documented protocol, this is sufficient to
denote them as ‘ready for interoperability’.”
• 10 respondents agree with the statement “All systems in a building should use
a common protocol to be fully interoperable and this protocol should be an
open one.”
• 2 respondents agree with the statement “All systems in a building should use
a common protocol to be fully interoperable.”
In the survey, respondents of the topical working groups were presented with a
preliminary list of various candidates for common communication protocols and
standards which could potentially be favoured in terms of interoperability. Initially
provided suggestions were 1-wire, BACnet, DALI, DMX, EnOcean, KNX, Lonworks,
Modbus, M-bus, TCP/IP, X10, ZigBee and Z-Wave. Respondents also had the
opportunity to add other protocols and standards. One respondent did so, adding
DECT/ULE. Another stakeholder commented that instead of looking for common
protocols one should aim for common languages, hereby suggesting SAREF,
SAREF4ENER and SPINE. This was however covered in another question.
Respondents were able to select multiple options. All of the suggested options
received between 1 and 7 votes. This reflects the current heterogeneity of the
field. A stakeholder commented that nevertheless the list was still too generic and
incomplete, flagging up that for example TCP/IP consists of various versions.
Respondents were also invited to indicate their preferences on the use of SAREF
to treat interoperability, especially with regard to flexibility to the energy grid.
SAREF (Smart Appliance Reference) is a common ontology in the domain of smart
appliances. The European Commission has boosted the development of this
common ontology and a technical standard has been developed by ETSI. Four
respondents claim that “Compliance to SAREF should be explicitly assessed as part
of the SRI assessment procedure of flexibility services.”, whereas six respondents
report that “Compliance to SAREF should not be assessed in the SRI, as this will
anyway be the standard for new products on the emerging field of grid flexibility
services in buildings”.
Three respondents indicated “I consider there are other relevant standards and
protocols”, but when asked none of them specified these. It was however correctly
commented that SAREF is only an ontology considering data points semantics but
not covering communication aspects, thus only covering a part of the
interoperability aspects.
1.2.7.4 Stakeholder consultation on interoperability assessment in the

SRI framework
Multiple written comments and proposals on interoperability assessment were

received from the stakeholder community. The following section summarises and
analyses the various inputs.

• Multiple stakeholders have explicitly stressed the importance of
interoperability - especially from the perspective of the building end-user
and investor – but did not specify a methodology or metric to provide an
actionable assessment procedure.
• Some stakeholders suggest to support or evaluate ‘the use of open

standards’ as part of the SRI, e.g. by promoting the use of open
communication protocols for TBS to communicate with each other. A few
stakeholders state explicit preference for one or multiple specific open
standards or communication protocols. Some stakeholders even plead for the
use of one or more specific open protocols as a requirement before issuing an
SRI. On the topic of open standards, one stakeholder commented that some
of the protocols exist in multiple versions, which can affect the interoperability
and complicate the assessment. One stakeholder argues that manufacture-
specific proprietary protocols could also be considered ‘sufficiently
interoperable’ provided that they have a broad use base. One master thesis
testing an approach and scoring mechanism for rating the interoperability
potential of various protocols has also been made available to the study team.
Evaluation by the study team:
Inspecting the use of open protocols could be a criterion in the assessment of

interoperability aspects in the SRI framework and could be relevant in all three
potential approaches delineated before.
There are however some concerns towards establishing a practical assessment

procedure:
a) Using open standards can ease interoperability but is not a synonym;

many of the open standards suggested are not mutually interoperable.
Nevertheless, their openness allows for developing gateways which can
indeed facilitate communication between two distinct protocols; a
practice which is very common in the current market. From this
perspective, the use of open protocols does not guarantee
interoperability, but it would indeed create a form of “readiness” to
allow interoperability now or in the future.
b) For a practical assessment, the standards and protocols need to be well
documented, e.g. in technical product sheets or labels. In the SRI
calculation methodology, an evaluation would ideally be performed on
the level of smart ready services or domains. In practice, most services
and domains of the suggested SRI service catalogue require a smooth
collaboration of a multitude of products (e.g. thermostats, pumps,
valves, heat generators, etc.). The assessment of the use of open
protocols therefore requires the inspection of a great variety of
technical products. The assessment can be supported by introducing
labels or codes on equipment, structured product databases or a means
for TBS to self-report the standards and protocols which are supported.
c) If one would pursue this approach, a well-supported list of open
standards needs to be defined. A first version of such list was drafted
by the consortium in preparation of a topical group B survey on
interoperability and cyber-security. This list contained the following
protocols: 1-wire, BACnet, DALI, DMX, EnOcean, KNX, Lonworks,
Modbus, M-bus, TCP/IP, X10, ZigBee, Z-Wave. All of these were
considered relevant by at least one respondent. KNX, BACnet, Dali,
TCP/IP and Zigbee were the most commonly selected options by the

topical group B respondents. The respondents were provided with the
opportunity to suggest additional protocols. One respondent suggested
SAREF and Spine (which are ontologies rather than protocols), while
another expert suggested DECT/ULE. If the approach of using open
standards and protocols would be pursued, further actions need to be
taken to ensure a broad consensus on the list of standards and
protocols included.
• Support for the Smart Appliances REFerence ontology (SAREF) and

SAREF4ENERGY (ETSI TS 103 410-1) ontologies was expressed explicitly by
some stakeholders.
The SAREF ontology is a promising initiative which receives broad support from
stakeholders and EU policy initiatives. The SAREF ontology helps to create a
common language, even if various technical products use different protocols.
A simple and straightforward assessment criterium for interoperability could
potentially consists of simply requiring compliance to the SAREF ontology or
one of its domain extensions such as SAREF4BLDG. A few concerns limit the
practical applicability of this potential approach:
a) SAREF is an ontology considering data points semantics but it does not

cover communication aspects. One can imagine systems using two
distinct protocols (e.g. one bus type and one wireless) both being
capable of translating command through the SAREF translation, but not
able to communicate the messages through the different protocols and
therefore not achieving actual interoperability. One could mitigate this
concern by denote this as ‘ready to interoperability’, and rely on the
introduction of communication gateways to ensure actual interoperable
communications.
b) On-site inspection cannot be done by visual means. Assessment would
require product datasheets or dedicated databases to be able to discern
whether TBS are SAREF compliant. In the longer term, this could
partially be solved by introducing product labeling or having updated
versions of smart building protocols which inherently fulfill the criterion
of SAREF compliance.
c) SAREF is mainly know in the field of smart appliances such as white
goods. For buildings however, the SAREF4BLDG ontology and semantics
(TS 103 410‐3 ) was more recently published in 2017, whereas many
open protocols used in the building sector are preceding this date.
Furthermore, some services and devices might not yet be in included
in the first iteration of the SAREF4BLDG ontology. The SAREF and
SAREF4BLDG ontologies are currently being tested in research projects,
but are currently not common in the building industry.
d) Given the rather recent introduction of SAREF(4BLDG) legacy
equipment in buildings will most likely not be compliant. In realty, most
buildings would therefore have a very low or zero score on the
interoperability criterion. In practice however, interoperability might
nevertheless be ensured in such building (e.g. by using open standards
which are currently not SAREF compliant). This risks to alienate
consumers and building experts and cause distrust in the SRI
assessment, since the evaluation does not correspond to their actual
user experiences in their building.

• One stakeholder proposed a particular assessment approach consisting of
two elements:
1) Addition of extra domain focused on connectivity. In this domain, the

connection of TBS to a converged building network based on
international standard network protocol ETHERNET – IP would be
evaluated.
2) Attribution of additional scores to systems that provide WebServices to
interface with outside world
This proposal provides an interesting simplified assessment process which

could fit into the current logic of the SRI assessment procedure. Some further
considerations on practical aspects of this proposal include:
a) In the current SRI methodology, services are grouped according to

tangible building services: heating, cooling, electrical vehicle charging,
etc. This proposed new ‘domain’ deviates from this logic, and rather
positions itself as a cross-cutting issue across all domains.
b) Opting for one specific communication protocol might not be favoured.
Although the proposed Ethernet IP protocol is open and commonly
used, a choice for one particular protocol is not technology neutral,
especially from the perspective of vendors and installers of bus-
systems. Even if one would opt for a more generic approach in which
other open protocols are allowed, the issue remains that a closed list of
accepted standards might evolve due to technological development.
Next, the IP protocol is rather a communication protocol, but does not
ensure semantic interoperability of services.
c) Simply having a webservice is not sufficient to have interoperable smart
services. A webservice can have strict limitations on the available data,
does not necessarily allow the operational control of assets and might
have commercial restrictions (e.g. subject to fees, restricted access to
specific application providers,…).
• One stakeholder proposed an assessment approach which introduces a

network "network readiness" domain which should always be evaluated. In this
proposal, a set of so-called “macro-services” would be introduced to assess
the building level on connectivity and interoperability. The “network readiness”
macro-services would exclusively focus on the impact criterion “flexibility for
the grid and storage”. Cybersecurity would be indirectly handled by
communication protocol services.
This proposal bears many similarities with the proposal described before. A few
additional comments can be raised:
a) The proposed structure of macro-services follows a different

methodological approach than the currently proposed SRI methodology
which is based on the evaluation of the functionality levels of smart
ready services. Blending two calculation procedures would significantly
complicate the SRI calculation methodology and would hamper the
communication on the method and the SRI results of a particular
building.

b) Some of the proposed macro-services overlap with functionalities in the
smart ready service catalogues (simplified method A and detailed
method B). This is for example the case with macro-service 3 “There is
a dashboard to communicate the data collected” which overlaps with
the services on reporting facilities introduced in the different technical
domains.
c) The proposal would restrict interoperability impacts to the impact
criterion “flexibility for the grid and storage”. Interoperability can
however also encompasses the communication of various technical
building systems within a building (and avoiding lock-in effects while
doing so). Interoperability of systems in the building (and not solely
related to the building-grid interface) can also lead to other impacts
including better energy efficiency (e.g. avoiding simultaneous heating
and cooling), more convenience and better information provision to the
occupants and facility managers.
d) Some of the proposed ‘macro-functions’ could potentially be added to
the SRI service catalogues A or B (at the onset of the SRI or in later
updates), preferably following the same methodological structure as
other services. E.g. a service on the “type of electric counter which
reads electricity consumption” could be introduced, potentially blended
with a service on the set-top box installed by an aggregator, provided
that this is reformulated in a technology-neutral way. To retain the logic
of the assessment process, additional services would preferably be
added to the existing domains instead of introducing an additional
domain.
• One stakeholder suggested to rely on external certification or assessment

schemes. It is suggested that in those countries where a framework for
building connectivity and systems interoperability exist; it could be referred to
in SRI assessment and potentially given additional scores in case of full
compliance.
This could indeed be a valuable suggestion, but risks to blur the EU wide
recognition of the scheme and related benefits to structure the market of
smart technologies. If this option would be preferred, the study consortium
suggests to implement it as an additional information provision alongside
the SRI score, rather than introducing national assessment schemes in the
main SRI scoring mechanism.
1.2.7.5 Consolidated proposal on treating interoperability
Based on the observations of the consortium and discussions with topical group
members, the study team consortium proposes to include interoperability in a
blended approach, combining the implicit approach and a voluntary inclusion of
information provision on interoperability aspects.
A formal evaluation of interoperability which affects the SRI scoring process is not
retained as a feasible option. Whilst interoperability is acknowledged as a very
important concern in relation to the SRI, there are significant limitations to the
actionability of the explicit evaluation of the interoperability. This approach would
require in-depth information on a very broad range of technology and

implementation routes by numerous vendors. This information is usually not
readily available to an assessor and would require additional investigations.
Especially in the case of legacy equipment it might be very hard or even impossible
to retrieve sufficiently detailed information. Furthermore, such an assessment
would need to be performed for many of the TBS present in a building (heating,
cooling, lighting, ventilation, BMS…), requiring a large amount of time and effort
which would have important repercussions on the cost of an SRI assessment.
Furthermore, the SRI would in any case only provide a snapshot of the current
status of the interoperability features of the TBS. This is a fast-moving field, and
many software and hardware solutions emerge which allow interoperability despite
using different technologies and protocols, for example a DALI-to-KNX gateway to
integrate lighting and KNX control. Finally, this approach would require further
efforts to generate a broad consensus on standards and protocols that would be
accepted or the development of other definitions and calculation method to
explicitly rate interoperability scores. Due to the lack of definitions and
standardization and the intricacy of an on-site assessment process covering a very
wide range of products and technologies, the explicit evaluation of interoperability
as part of the SRI calculation methodology is not considered to be the preferred
option by the study consortium. This notion is well supported by the majority of
stakeholders, especially also from topical expert group B.
Instead, the proposal of the study consortium is to evaluate interoperability as

follows:
a) Implicitly, interoperability is evaluated as part of the standard SRI assessment:

a few services explicitly require interoperability in order to achieve higher
functionality levels (some services such as MC-S1 and MC-S3 are specifically
introduced to this goal).
b) Additionally, information of interoperability aspects can be added to the SRI
format. This information does not affect the SRI score in itself.
This approach has been presented during the second stakeholder meeting in
Brussels and discussed and finetuned with the topical group B experts at multiple
occasions.
Part A: Implicit approach

The implicit approach to interoperability is embedded in the calculation
methodology and thus common across the EU. Instead of evaluating various
dimensions of interoperability for each of the TBS separately, technology neutral
services have been introduced in the SRI catalogue. Some services are defined in
a way that they can achieve higher functionality levels and impacts if they
demonstrate actual interoperability within systems. Many of the services
inherently require multiple sensors, actuators and controllers 84 to be interoperable
to collectively deliver the specific service. For example, a service related to room
temperature control requires a number of temperature sensors, distribution
pumps, heat generators, etc. to work together seamlessly85 to deliver the required
service. Furthermore, specific services have been included in the service catalogue
to express how TBSs in different domains can work together or provide
performance information in a single user interface across various domains.
84
Mostly from different vendors and OEMs (Original equipment manufacturers)
85
In terms of interfaces and sensor interpretation

Inherently, some level of interoperability will be required to make such services
actionable at all, hence better interoperability would positively affect the SRI score
of a particular building.
Part B: Supplementing the SRI label with additional information on

interoperability
The additional information could either be optional or mandatory for the
implementing bodies. The suggestion of the technical study team is to have this
information as an optional add-on, leaving it to the discretion of the implementing
bodies to include it as an optional assessment or even an obligatory assessment
(e.g. for particular building types).
The proposal of the technical study team is to develop this additional information
provision in two stages:
• In a first version of the SRI, the information provision would entail a listing
of the communication protocols of the various TBS. In case this information
could not be obtained, this could also be explicitly indicated.
• In future iterations of the SRI, a dedicated evaluation of interoperability
aspects could be added.
A suggestion to structure this evaluation has been proposed by the study team.
It consists of the evaluation of two interoperability aspects on domain level:
1. The extent to which TBS are capable of sharing operational data (e.g.
current and historic energy consumption data) through an open
protocol.
2. The extent to which TBS can also be controlled through an external
signal; e.g. through external smartphone apps or building energy
managers which can access the actuators through an open and well-
documented API.
This approach was tested by some topical group B members on actual case
study buildings. The appraisal of the technical study team is that this
approach is promising, but requires further investigation, testing,
standardization and development of datasets. It should therefore not be
part of the first version of the SRI, but can be added in future updates once
fully actionable.
Implementing bodies could be allowed to also include information retrieved from

national certification schemes on interoperability aspects, and communicate these
results alongside the SRI assessment documents.
1.2.8 CONNECTIVITY
In principle, the level of connectivity that a building offers to external data

networks could be a factor that determines its smartness – at least to the degree
that limitations in connectivity would inhibit it from fulfilling certain smart services.
Besides connectivity of the building to external data networks, the terminology of
connectivity is also used in relation to communication of technical building systems
in the building (e.g. through wireless access, bus networks, low power IOT
networks, etc. The latter will not be evaluated separately, as it is an essential part
of the technical interoperability of TBS (see 1.2.7).

While the EU has established an option for Member States to introduce a
broadband-ready label for buildings, and a few Member States have implemented
such a label, most have not, and the criteria applied do not appear to be
harmonised. In practice, it is not clear how much any actual implementation of
the SRI, at least in its initial stages where Method C is not envisaged, would be
hindered by broadband access constraints unless there were no broadband access
at all, or it was at a very low level. It seems prudent therefore to allow the SRI to
be complementary with broadband-ready labels where they exist, but otherwise
not to explicitly assess connectivity. An alternative approach would be to identify
an absolute minimum degree of connectivity (e.g. in terms of bitrate or latency of
an internet connection) below which some SRI penalty would be applicable. A
caveat of this approach is that the SRI in that case not necessarily reflects on the
readiness of the TBS of the building, but also blends this with notions on the
presence and quality of a communication grid, which are not under the control of
the building owner or investor. Data connectivity is to a large extent governed by
market offerings of external players (e.g. fiber to the building or 5G access will
depend on commercial companies offering these services, and not to intrinsic
qualities of the building). Furthermore, a higher connection speed or lower latency
does not directly relate to a smarter operation of the building, for most services a
basic connection would suffice.
In line with the implicit approach suggested for dealing with interoperability issues
in the SRI, it is therefore suggested to treat connectivity as an implicit requirement
to some of the services - e.g. in relation to monitoring and control through
handheld devices, or flexibility aspects requiring minimal digital connectivity – but
not to perform an explicit assessment. This proposal has been discussed with
topical group B in a conference call on 4 November 2019. The topical group experts
agree that a separate assessment would be out of scope of the SRI and are
supportive of the suggested approach.
1.2.9 STANDARDISATION AND CODIFICATION OF SERVICES AND

FUNCTIONALITY LEVELS
Standards can contribute to the development of an SRI by assisting in identifying

or quantifying functionalities and services in a fast and harmonised way. The
services in this study were to a large extent sourced from standards. ANNEX B
provides an overview of the main standards related to smart buildings, as
identified during the first technical support study.
This is especially the case for many of the services sourced from EN 15232 ‘Energy
Performance of Buildings — Impact of Building Automation, Controls and Building
Management’ (module M10). This standard is the overarching standard that
models the impact of BACS on a building’s energy consumption. The standard is
developed by CEN/TC 247 and part of a series of standards aiming at international
harmonization of the methodology for the assessment of the energy performance
of buildings, called “EPB set of standards”. This standard contains a list of BACS
and technical building management (TBM) functions and categorises them in line
with the modular structure defined by the over-arching EPB standard (EN ISO
52000-1). Other examples of standards used include the lighting control systems
as defined in EN 15193-1:2017, Smart Grid Use cases from IEC 62559-2:2015,
etc. More general background information on relevant standards for smart ready
services is reported in Annex D of the final report of the first technical support
study for the SRI.

Standards will be used to support the definition of functionality levels and the
assignment of ordinal scores for impact criteria wherever possible, in particular
the impact criterion “energy efficiency”. At present, certain services are not
covered by any standards. Also, for several other impact categories, the
quantification of the impacts requires to some extent a subjective judgement at
this moment. This is the case, for example, for impact categories “convenience”
and "information to occupants”. Such subjective assessment is not to be
performed by the individual SRI assessor but shall be defined as an integral part
of the SRI methodology. This can be defined, for example, by means of a dedicated
expert group comprising representatives of academia, policy experts and relevant
industrial stakeholders (see also section 1.2.10). The SRI methodology is set up
in such a way that it is sufficiently supple to be updated if more scientific evidence
becomes available to support a more accurate definition of functionality levels or
ordinal scores.
The suggested approach has been well received by stakeholders. One organisation
wrote in their white paper:
‘Standardization is key. The methodology should rely as much as possible

on standardized solutions. As proposed by the first study, the check-list
approach needs to assess the level of functionality of the different smart
services. Standards are crucial to assess functionality levels and are
defined for most of the services selected by the first study (e.g. EN15232
for BACS).’
1.2.10 THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE METHODOLOGY
Numerous stakeholders stressed the importance of the methodology used to

update the SRI being sufficiently supple to ensure that new innovative services
can be properly represented within it. Some suggested that this meant that
reliance on conventional harmonised standards was inappropriate as these usually
took too long to be updated.
During a discussion with Topical Group B86 on this matter, one member reiterated
the need to set up a steering committee, responsible for updating the SRI
framework. Members suggested that the process of updating could largely be
copied from standardisation processes, where typically 5-year cycles exist. Shorter
cycles – e.g. 3 years – could be envisaged, although yearly updates are not
deemed necessary. In addition to the fixed updating cycles, it was suggested that
industry could be allowed to signal product innovations to the committee in case
important new services or functionality levels become available. Upon request
from industry, the committee could decide to advance an update if needed.
Following the discussion, the study team received a number of position papers
addressing the issue, in which the aforementioned are largely confirmed. However,
agreement on the frequency of the updating cycles is currently lacking.
• 'A Steering Committee is needed to update the SRI framework every year to
ensure product innovations are included in the catalogue of services and
methodology. A subgroup of this Committee should be tasked to investigate
how to move towards Method C, i.e. move the SRI towards a quantitative
building performance indicator.’
86
Topical Group B: calculation methodology; Web meeting on 14/05/2019

• '[Our organisation] agrees that updating the SRI calculation methodology is
necessary to ensure it continuously adapts to changing technologies. [Our
organisation] welcomes the need for an updating procedure similar to the one
used to update standards being considered by the consultants, with a
dedicated expert group, updating if necessary, the SRI calculation every 5
years or less. In addition to these fixed updating cycles, [our organisation]
actually suggests allowing the industry to signal product innovations to the
committee in case important new services or functionality levels become
available. Upon request from the industry, the committee could decide to
advance an update if needed.'
Additionally, Topical Group C have been tasked to discuss a process for updating
the SRI methodology; e.g. updating the service catalogue by adding or removing
domains, services, or functionality levels, etc. The topical group has made the
following recommendations in terms of format and process 87:
• ‘At EU/Europe level the set of CEN/ISO Energy Performance of Buildings (EPB)
standards (developed for the EPBD's implementation, https://epb.center/epb-
standards/background/) seems like a good implementation avenue to consider
i.e. make the SRI methodology an EN (maybe also ISO) standard (EN SRI
standard would be adopted automatically at national level, although not
mandatory, easing the SRI implementation). As such the CEN SRI working
group could be integrated in the overall (envisioned) SRI platform and more
content in terms of relations to other EN (maybe also ISO) standards would be
easily incorporated. High attention should be though given to the length of the
updating cycles i.e. the SRI might need shorter cycles because it is dealing
with fast evolving technology.’
• ‘At national level the EPC schemes seem to be the most obvious
implementation avenues, which are by now mature and poses a lot of "dos and
don'ts". The SRI could be a voluntary or mandatory add-on on the current EPC.
It could thus be ensured that the framework of the EPC (which is widely
accepted and known by the public) acts as a multiplier for the SRI. At the same
time a go-to-the market could be a voluntary based scheme.’
In the view of the study team this probably implies a process wherein there is a
standing body charged with ensuring the update of the SRI in response to technical
developments and any issues that arise from its implementation. The process of
inaugurating, resourcing and maintaining such a body is discussed in section 3.3.
87
The full report of topical group C can be found on www.smartreadinessindicator.eu/stakeholder-
consultation

1.3 ACTIVITY 3: TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY OF THE SRI
The main objective of this activity is to provide technical input with regard to the
calculation methodology of the SRI that enables the Commission Services to draft
the methodology according to the framework provided in the amended EPBD. A
key challenge to reaching this goal is to ensure mapping of the smart ready
services and their impacts over different KPIs (e.g. energy, comfort, health and
well-being, grid interaction, etc.) that both correctly reflects the expected
performance of smart ready technologies and is endorsed by the stakeholder
community and Member States.
As a starting point, this activity builds on the outcomes of the critical review in
Activity 1 and reflects on the updated technical recommendations for the SRI
definition and associated smart service catalogue of Activity 2 to identify possible
updates and improvements to the calculation methodology. Thus, the focus is on
the translation of the functionality levels of smart ready services to the final SRI
score of the building being considered. For the SRI to both (i) resonate with
building occupiers, service bill payers and owners and (ii) ensure it reaches its
goal of stimulating the uptake of smart technologies in buildings, the integrity and
credibility of the SRI are of essence. In other words, a higher SRI score should
correctly reflect the greater ability of a building to adapt to the needs of its users,
to optimise energy efficiency and to adapt to signals from the grid.
This section presents a consolidated calculation methodology for the SRI. The
presented methodology is the result of:
• a critical analysis of the ordinal scores for the smart ready services in the
service catalogue for all impact criteria
• an evaluation of different propositions of weighting schemes to aggregate the
scores for the selected impact domains to an overall SRI score and by extent
an evaluation of the selected impact domains themselves
a triage process to identify the optimal set of evaluated technical building services
in relation to the specific building context (e.g. residential versus non-residential,
climate region, etc.). Throughout the study, the technical study consortium have
presented intermediate iterations of the calculation methodology to the
stakeholder community, and have captured their feedback for further refinement.
This includes various discussions with the topical B expert group which was set up
to support the technical study on methodological issues as well as the feedback
captured from the public beta testing (see section 5.1.3). White papers, open
public surveys (e.g. the feedback form on the second interim report) and direct
interactions further fed into the discussion.
1.3.1 DOMAINS
The first SRI study presented 10 domains in the SRI:
1. Heating
2. Cooling

4. Controlled ventilation88
5. Lighting
7. On-site renewable energy generation
8. Demand-side management
Feedback received on the first technical study indicates that some stakeholders
would like to see additional domains, including the following.
• Transportation systems: lifts/escalators/walkways

Although currently outside the scope of the EPBD, transportation systems are
an interesting suggestion, as they are linked to a building’s energy use and
may potentially include smart services that contribute to occupant needs and
energy savings. The study team suggests to consider including this domain in
a later step.
• Safety and security: alarm systems, DAF and intrusion/fire protection

This is considered to be outside the scope of the EPBD but could be an optional
SRI domain in a later step.
• Comfort and sustainability

SRTs that link to both comfort and energy consumption are currently included
in the SRI. Other comfort aspects are deemed out of scope but could be an
optional SRI domain in a later step.
• Water consumption and management

Although smart services (such as monitoring) that would respond to the needs
of occupants can be imagined, there is no clear link to either energy
consumption or demand side flexibility towards the energy grid. As water
consumption is not part of the EPBD, it is deemed to be out of scope for the
SRI but could be considered as an optional SRI domain in a later step.
• Material use
Although material use is a crucial theme in sustainability, there is no clear link
to building smartness. It is therefore deemed to be out of scope for the SRI.
• Communication network (e.g. Wi-Fi and LAN/broadband speed and availability)

Many services rely on a communications network to connect to other TBSs, a
BACS or the grid. Also, in a number of cases, higher functionality levels of
services related to controllability and demand side flexibility include the ability
to react to price signals from the grid. In these cases, smart meters are a
required piece of infrastructure to enable functionality.
Within the scope of the SRI, infrastructure is not assessed explicitly but is
valued implicitly as a prerequisite for other smart services. In other words,
infrastructure is only valued when the smart service it enables has been
88
Controlled ventilation refers to a ventilation system with air ﬂow rates that are controlled based on
settings chosen by the user and / or other parameters on the indoor environment (e.g. indoor air
quality, thermal comfort).

installed. A more explicit consideration of connectivity could potentially be
included in future updates of the SRI.
• Passive design features

During and after the first technical study, some stakeholders raised a
discussion on ways to value active versus passive measures in the SRI scheme,
with active measures being understood as enhancement of technical systems
by smart (control and communication) technologies and passive measures as
those related to the design of the building (e.g. passive shading). Using the
example of shading versus active cooling, a member of Topical Group B argued
that, from an energy efficiency perspective, passive measures are preferred.
He stressed that designers should be oriented towards passive measures by
building codes or other regulations implementing the EPBD, before moving
towards active measures. The SRI should avoid promoting active measures
over passive measures and link to local building regulation.
The study team believes that a distinction should be made between two
elements: (i) the passive design feature itself and (ii) the (potential) dynamic
management capability of such a feature. The first element refers to measures
such as rational window-to-wall ratios, window overhangs or sufficient thermal
mass to prevent overheating. The examples given do not entail any dynamic
management capabilities and therefore do not fit within the scope of the SRI.
They are, however, covered by EPCs. This remark illustrates the relevance of
aligning with other frameworks and schemes, as discussed in Task 1 Activity
2. A second element relates to the dynamic management capabilities of passive
features, e.g. automated control of solar shading devices. Although solar
shading can be seen as a passive measure, the controls of solar shading can
have different degrees of smartness. Therefore, dynamic control of passive
measures does fit within the scope of the SRI and is already represented in the
service catalogue.
• Monitoring of user behaviour

Monitoring and providing information on building metrics related to energy
efficiency and comfort (gas consumption, temperatures, etc.) are already
included in the SRI. Monitoring of activities or presence of occupants is
considered relevant only if this enables the building to perform better on the
three smartness aspects listed in the scope of the EPBD. For this application,
specific services are foreseen in the current service catalogue. The study team
does not perceive a need to add a dedicated domain for such services.
• Air circulation
This is understood by the study team as air circulation that is not caused or
prevented by a controlled ventilation system, which is already covered in the
SRI. These controlled ventilation systems include both mechanical ventilation
systems (i.e. through the use of one or multiple fans) and controlled natural
ventilation systems (i.e. through the control of ventilation openings, potentially
based on IEQ parameters). Examples of such air circulation are unwanted
draught (potentially resulting in comfort and health issues) or uncontrolled
natural ventilation (potentially leading to good indoor air quality without a need
for a controlled ventilation system). Neither example has controllability,
therefore both are considered to fall outside the scope of the SRI.
• Noise reduction
Although noise and acoustic comfort are relevant to comfort and to health and
well-being, acoustic performance is governed by design choices (such as
adequate sizing or sufficient dampers) and not by clearly identified TBS

(dynamic) capabilities. Therefore, at this stage noise reduction is not relevant
for inclusion in the SRI.
• Seismic damage prevention

Although seismic damage prevention is relevant within the scope of the EPBD,
it is governed by design choices and not by clearly identified TBS (dynamic)
capabilities. Therefore, at this stage seismic damage prevention is not relevant
for inclusion in the SRI.
As mentioned in section 1.1, a clear definition of the scope of the SRI is crucial for
determining which aspects are out of scope and which ones may be relevant. Some
aspects do not fit within the scope of the SRI but are taken into consideration in
other initiatives. Therefore, it is also important to identify potential linkages to
other initiatives.
Apart from the suggestions for additional SRI domains, the study team has
investigated possibilities for further optimising the definitions of the currently
included domains. At this stage, two major changes are envisioned.
1. Change of scope: “on-site renewable energy generation” becomes

“electricity”
Currently, the domain “on-site renewable energy generation” includes
services that monitor, forecast and optimise the operation of decentralised
power generation and control the storage or delivery of energy to the
connected grid. A few comments can be made about the current definition:
• The domain favours on-site generation over centralised renewable

energy generation or the delivery of renewable thermal energy in
district heating systems, even though such solutions may be equally
beneficial towards decarbonisation; as such, it could be argued that the
domain cannot be considered technology-neutral;
• Many renewables, such as solar energy and wind energy, cannot be
controlled in terms of energy efficiency, nor do they directly respond to
the needs of either the occupant or the grid. Generally speaking, the
presence of these renewables as such does not match the definition of
smartness according to the SRI. Smartness can be attained by
improving demand side flexibility, e.g. by introducing storage capacity
or by implementing combined heat and power (CHP);
• Services with respect to storage are included in the domain, but the
domain name “energy generation” does not clearly reflect this;
• The domain mainly focuses on electricity consumption, as the
production of renewable thermal heat (e.g. thermal solar panels or the
heat produced by a CHP) is already covered in the heating domain;
• Other smart services related to electricity consumption are currently
not covered in any other domain. Although adding supplementary
services is not envisioned for the first edition of the SRI, the inclusion
of this domain could facilitate gradual inclusion of additional smart
services related to electricity. If this scope would be expanded in future
iterations of the SRI, this domain could potentially include various other
services, e.g. monitoring of (domestic) electricity use, (smart)
controllability of plug loads and white goods, lifts and escalators.
2. Redistribution of the services in the “demand-side management” domain

The domain “demand-side management” and the impact criterion “energy
flexibility” strongly correlate. This raises the question of whether demand-
side management should be seen as a technical building system (similar to
a heating system or ventilation system) or rather a service that contributes
to a certain feature, such as energy flexibility. Although the services in the
domain demand-side management are highly relevant to the SRI, in
particular towards increasing the flexibility of the building’s energy
consumption, it can be argued that most of these services are strongly
linked to a certain TBS. As such, in many cases these services can be
directly linked to one of the other domains, such as heating, cooling or
domestic hot water. The remaining services include encompassing services
that manage interactions or harmonisation of TBSs and the grid. These
services could be included in the domain “monitoring and control”.
The study team have redistributed the services to the domains most closely
related to each service. As a result, the definition of a dedicated demand-
side management domain becomes obsolete. This redistribution may also
ease communication, since the term “DSM” is likely to be unknown to the
wider public, despite being a well-known concept among experts. It should
be emphasized that the redistributing of services does not reduce the
importance of demand side management and grid control. On the contrary,
the updated detailed service catalogue (see section 1.3.4) now contains 17
services that include DSM and the use of grid signals, whereas formerly
only 12 grid-related services were included.
Figure 14 - Changes to the domains

1.3.2 IMPACT CRITERIA
The services in the building service catalogue translate into different impacts
related to the three key functionalities defined in the amended EPBD, namely the
energy performance of the building, the building users and the energy grid. During
the first technical study, eight impact criteria were identified to cover the intended
pillars defined in the amended EPBD.
1. Energy efficiency refers to the impacts of smart ready services on energy

saving capabilities. It is not the whole energy performance of buildings that
is considered, but only the contribution made to this by smart ready
technologies, e.g. energy savings resulting from better control of room
temperature settings.
2. Energy flexibility and storage refers to the impacts of services on the
energy flexibility potential of a building.
3. Self-generation refers to the impacts of services on the amount and share
of renewable energy generation by on-site assets and the control of self-
consumption or storage on the generated energy in order to provide more
autonomy in terms of security-of-supply to the building.
4. Comfort refers to the impacts of services on occupants’ comfort, being the
conscious and unconscious perception of the physical environment,
including thermal comfort, acoustic comfort and visual performance.
5. Convenience refers to the impacts of services on convenience for
occupants, i.e. the extent to which services “make life easier” for the
occupant, such as by requiring fewer manual interactions to control the
TBS.
6. Health and well-being refers to the impacts of services on the well-being
and health of occupants. Not being harmful in this respect is a strict
boundary condition required of all services included in the SRI assessment.
On top of the strict basic requirements, this category valorises the
additional positive impact that some services could also provide, e.g.
smarter controls could deliver an improved indoor air quality compared to
traditional controls, thus raising occupants’ well-being.
7. Maintenance and fault prediction refers to automated fault detection and
diagnosis, which has the potential to significantly improve maintenance and
operation of the TBS. It also has potential impacts on the energy
performance of TBSs by detecting and diagnosing inefficient operation.
8. Information to occupants refers to the impacts of services on the provision
of information on a building’s operation to occupants.
In light of an optimization of these impact criteria to establish a streamlined

methodology, the study team reviewed the suggested impact criteria and verified
their scope and applicability within the framework of the EPBD.
The analysis revealed an overlap between “energy flexibility and storage” and
“self-generation”. The former acknowledges services that provide either demand
side flexibility (the ability to shift loads in time) or the ability to store energy, with
a clear focus on the advantages for the energy grid. The latter also rewards
services that allow for energy storage, but from a user perspective. The focus is
shifted towards providing more autonomy in terms of security of supply. It can be
argued that autonomy should be seen as convenience for the occupant (e.g.
guaranteed continuity in energy provision).

In conclusion, the study team has omitted the impact criterion “self-generation”,
since the advantages of energy storage towards the grid are covered by the impact
criterion “energy flexibility and storage”, and the inclusion of benefits for
autonomy within the criterion “convenience”.
Figure 15 - Changes to the impact criteria
1.3.3 MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT METHOD
1.3.3.1 General methodological structure
Under the SRI methodology proposed in the first technical study, the smart
readiness score of a building is a percentage that expresses how close (or far) the
building is from maximal smart readiness. The higher the percentage is, the
smarter the building. The process to calculate this global score is straightforward.
1. First, smart ready services are assessed individually. Services available in

the building are inspected and their functionality level is determined. For
each service, this leads to an impact score for each of the seven impact
criteria (energy savings on site; flexibility for the grid and storage; comfort;
convenience; health and well-being; maintenance and fault prediction;
information to occupants) considered in section 1.3.2.
2. Once the impact scores for all these individual services are known, an
aggregated impact score is calculated for each of the nine smart-ready
domains considered in section 1.3.1. This domain impact score is calculated
as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) between individual scores of the
domain services and theoretical maximum individual scores.
3. For each impact criterion, a total impact score is then calculated as a
weighted sum of the domain impact scores. In this calculation, the weight
of a given domain will depend on its relative importance for the impact
being considered. The definition of these weighting factors will be discussed
in section 1.3.3.2.
4. The SRI score is then derived as a weighted sum of the seven total impact
scores. Again, the weight allocated to each impact will depend on its
relative importance for the smart readiness of the building. The definition
of these weighting factors will be discussed in section 1.3.3.3.

To summarise, the SRI impact score can be calculated as follows:
N=A×a+B×b+C×c+D×d+E×e+F×f+G×g (1)
where:
• N is the total SRI impact score, weighted score by domain

• A = the impact score (0–100) for energy savings
• B = the impact score (0–100) for energy flexibility and storage
• C = the impact score (0–100) for comfort
• D = the impact score (0–100) for convenience
• E = the impact score (0–100) for health and well-being
• F = the impact score (0–100) for maintenance and fault prediction
• G = the impact score (0–100) for information to occupants
• a = the impact weighting (0–100%) for energy savings
• b = the impact weighting (0–100%) for energy flexibility and storage
• c = the impact weighting (0–100%) for comfort
• d = the impact weighting (0–100%) for convenience
• e = the impact weighting (0–100%) for health and well-being
• f = the impact weighting (0–100%) for maintenance and fault prediction
• g = the impact weighting (0–100%) for information to occupants.
Next, this impact score is normalised by dividing it by the maximum obtainable

impact for a particular building. This ratio, expressed as a percentage, is the SRI
score of a building or building unit.
The following paragraphs describe potential methods for defining the weighting
factors to aggregate scores on domain and impact criterion level, and eventually
to a single score SRI indicator.

Figure 16 - overview of the SRI calculation methodology

1.3.3.2 Vertical aggregation: weighting factors for services and domains
A two-step approach is applied to aggregate the scores of the individual services

to a single impact score for each impact criterion. First, the ordinal scores of the
individual services are aggregated to a domain score. Second, the domain scores
are aggregated to a single impact score. Different approaches can be envisioned
for defining the weighting factors for domains.
Aggregation of services to the domain level

In the first technical study, equal weighting was suggested for the aggregation of
services to the domain level. Consequently, each service within a domain is
assumed to be of equal importance. Although it can be envisioned that the actual
impact of services differs, insufficient data are currently available to accurately
quantify the actual impacts of each service related to each impact criterion. The
study team suggests proceeding with the implementation of equal weightings at
this stage. However, the methodology is sufficiently flexible to implement
weighting factors on service levels should these become available at a later stage
(for instance, when a metered, performance-based SRI is developed).
Aggregation of domain scores

The aggregation of domain scores for a single impact score accounts for the
relative importance of the domains in relation to the impact criteria. As discussed
in sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.3.2, the relative importance should depend on the local
context (e.g. climate) and building type (e.g. residential versus non-residential
buildings). Additionally, further distinction with regard to usage of non-residential
buildings can be envisioned (e.g. offices, healthcare facilities, education institute,
etc.), although this is not implemented in the methodology set out in this report.
Conceptually, three approaches for aggregation can be envisioned.
1. The “equal weighting” approach prescribes a summation of the ordinal

score of each evaluated service relative to the sum of the maximum ordinal
score of those evaluated services.
This approach diverts from the ambition to weight the domains (and/or
services in the domain) in order to reflect their relative importance to the
total score for an impact category. In contrast, an equal weight is given to
each service domain and to each of the services within a domain. Note that
the hierarchical approach is maintained between domains and services
within a domain. Consequently, a domain with more services will not have
a higher weight than one with fewer services listed in the service catalogue.
2. The “predicted impact” approach prescribes a weighting scheme for the

domains (and services within a domain) that reflects the estimated impact
of that service on the overall score per impact category.
With this approach, the weight of domains (or specific services) can differ
for the various impact categories. For example, the services in the heating
domain might jointly account for 60% of the obtainable score for the
“energy savings” impact category, whereas for other impacts such as
“convenience” or “comfort”, the relative weight of the heating domain is
lower, e.g. 25%. Thus, this expresses that added smartness to the
operation of cooling systems, ventilation, etc., also offers significant
comfort and convenience benefits, even though for a particular building

their impact in the total energy balance is much lower than the energy
expense of the heating system.
One of the main limiting factors in developing such an approach is the lack
of generally accepted calculation methods or even comparison frameworks
that allow the differentiation of the importance of the domains in the total
score for some of the impact categories. For the impact category “energy
savings”, multiple sources can provide valuable input (e.g. statistical
building stock data, EPCs and standards such as EN52016 and EN15232).
To the knowledge of the consortium, for many of the more qualitative
impact domains (convenience, information provision, etc.) no scientific
evidence is available to support the calculation of weighting factors.
Weighting factors will therefore have to be established through other
methods, e.g. expert groups or public questionnaires. In any case, deriving
scores should not be based on interpretation by individual SRI assessors,
but should be defined in the method to ensure a fully replicable SRI
assessment.
3. The “energy balance” approach prescribes a weighting scheme for the

domains (and services within a domain) that reflects the estimated impact
of that service on the building’s energy balance.
The weight given to a certain service could reflect the importance of that
service in the overall energy use of the building. Typically, an energy
balance allows the derivation of the relative importance of different
domains. To take into account climatic conditions, an energy balance could
be derived for a given building type (e.g. residential buildings) in a certain
climatic zone. Statistical building stock data allow the generation of default
weighting factors for a given climatic zone. For buildings that have (or are
in the process of obtaining) an EPC, it could be envisioned that the
weighting factors for energy savings are derived from the EPC calculation.
As such, the SRI calculation includes not only climatic conditions but also
individualised building characteristics.
Given the lack of quantification schemes for some of the impact categories
(e.g. convenience, well-being, information to occupant), one could consider
to extrapolate the weightings for the impact category “energy” to all other
impact categories. In other words, the influence of all services is associated
with the impact on a building’s energy use.
Discussions with Topical Group B resulted in the following conclusions89.
• The idea of the predicted impact method was well received. However, it was
acknowledged that no solid grounds for the quantification of these weighting
factors are readily available. For domains related to energy consumption,
weightings could be derived from an energy balance (hence: energy balance
method). For the quantification of the weighting factors for other impact
criteria, other sources should be found. Stakeholders were asked to provide
data sources that may support the definition of weighting factors, but the study
team did not receive any significant sources.
• Focusing on energy-related impact criteria, there is strong support for using
existing energy performance certificates to derive weighting factors. This
89
Topical Group B: calculation methodology – web call 7/5/2019

approach solves the need to differentiate for different climate zones and
different building types, as the relative importance of each domain would
already be reflected in the EPC energy balance. The study team added that it
could only be applied to buildings that already have an EPC or which undergo
an EPC and SRI assessment at the same time. It is currently envisioned that
the SRI is applicable to all buildings. The study team therefore suggests a
mixed approach, where default weighting factors are defined using statistical
data from the national building stock, but EPC weightings may/must be used
when available. The link with EPCs is further investigated in the exploration of
implementation pathways (section 2.1 of this report).
• Little to no support was found for the equal weighting approach, except for
those impact categories for which weighting factors cannot be quantified using
scientific evidence and where no clear evidence for prioritising domains is
available; “convenience”, “comfort” and “health and well-being" were
mentioned as potential examples.
• The energy balance method was generally well supported for impact criteria
related to energy consumption. “Energy savings on site” is an obvious
example, but energy balance weightings could also be envisioned for “energy
flexibility and storage” and “maintenance and fault prediction”. Extending
these weightings to occupant-related impact criteria such as “comfort”,
“convenience” or “health and well-being" was generally not well supported.
Based on the input from stakeholders, the study team has developed a hybrid
approach. The study team suggests applying the energy balance method for all
impact criteria that are directly linked to energy. In particular, this includes
“energy savings”, “maintenance and fault prediction”, and “energy flexibility and
storage”. It should be noted that it is currently not possible to derive weightings
from the energy balance for all domains. The contribution of the domain
“monitoring and control” typically cannot be derived from an energy balance. Also,
the impact of a dynamic envelope is typically not quantified in an energy balance.
The proposed method attributes a fixed weighting factor to these domains, e.g.
20% for monitoring and control and 5% for dynamic building envelope, with the
remaining 75% being determined from the energy balance.
The impact criteria corresponding to the needs of occupants (“comfort”,

“convenience”, “information to occupants”, and “health and well-being") require a
different approach. Although the study team acknowledges the advantages of
implementing weighting factors based on the predicted impact, no objective
sources are available. Therefore, an equal weighting is believed to be the most
suitable compromise. Figure 17 provides a visual representation of the suggested
approach. It should be noted that some domains have no impact on certain impact
categories. For instance, “health and well-being” only affects the domains
ventilation, lighting and dynamic envelope. The weighting factor for the other
domains will be set to zero, and an equal weighting will be applied to the relevant
domains.

Figure 17 - Proposed approach for domain weighting factors
Methodology for calculating weighting factors for energy-related impact

criteria
This section describes the suggested methodology to determine domain weighting
factors on the EU level. To reflect the importance of the domains, tailoring to
geographical context and building context is foreseen. Regarding the building
context, the default weighting factors currently distinguish between:
• Residential buildings
• Non-residential buildings
Although a break-down of non-residential buildings into various building types

(offices, healthcare, educational…) is desirable, insufficient data is currently
available to quantify this breakdown.
Regarding the geographical context, 5 climate zones have been defined:
• Northern Europe: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden

• Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein,
Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom
• Southern Europe: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain
• North-Eastern Europe: Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Slovakia
• South-Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia.

To determine the weighting factor for a climate zone, national statistical data from
the Building Stock Observatory90 (BSO) is used and a weighted average is
calculated using the population of the respective countries. The building stock
observatory data distinguishes between the following end-uses:
• Space heating
• Space cooling
• Water heating
• Lighting.
Additional operations are needed to obtain a weighting factor for the controlled
ventilation domain, as it is not included in the BSO energy balance. The energy
demand related to controlled ventilation consists of two components: the
(auxiliary) electricity demand for fans and the contribution of ventilation to the
energy demand for space heating (= ventilation losses). The ratio between the
average transmission heat loss coefficient and the average ventilation heat loss
coefficient is used. For details on the calculation procedure, please consult the
guidance document (0, section 3.1.1.1).
To determine weighting factors for the cooling domain, additional data is required.
Many buildings across Europe do not have a mechanical cooling system. This
means that – to avoid underestimation of the importance of the cooling domain –
the national energy consumption for cooling should only be applied to those
buildings equipped with a mechanical cooling system. Two types of data were used
to determine the weighting factor for cooling:
• the annual, national energy consumption for space cooling: the building stock
observatory: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-database
• the share of buildings equipped with mechanical cooling installations, broken
up by country and by building type (residential or non-residential):
https://heatroadmap.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HRE4_D3.2.pdf.
To determine the weighting factor for a climate zone, national data is weighted
using the population of the respective countries. Countries with no data on the
energy consumption for space cooling have been excluded from the calculation, to
avoid a negative impact on the weighting factors.
Despite the correction for buildings without cooling, the obtained weighting factor
is 0% for some conditions (residential buildings in Northern and North-Eastern
Europe). Other conditions lead to very low weighting factors as well. Until better
quantitative data is available, it is suggested to apply a fixed minimum weighting
for the cooling domain (e.g. 5%), or to allow adaptation to the local context.
The obtained weighting factors can be found in the respective service catalogues
in ANNEX E and 0.
90
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-database

1.3.3.3 Horizontal aggregation: weighting factors for impact criteria to
obtain a single score
Based on the first technical study and the input and feedback received from
stakeholders, Member States and the Commission during and after that first study,
three proposals were introduced focusing on three principal alternatives in defining
the impact criteria. These proposals vary in the relative importance they attribute
to seven previously defined impact criteria and relate back to the initial EPBD
definition91. The proposals are:
• Proposal 1: seven impact criteria as suggested by the first technical study on

the SRI
• Proposal 2: three impact criteria aligned to the EPBD functionality domains
• Proposal 3: seven impact sub-criteria (SRI1) that are aggregated to three
impact criteria (EPBD).
The implications on the calculation methodology can be threefold. It can

potentially affect (1) the definition of the scores at the impact criterion level, (2)
the relative weight of the impact criteria and (3) the communication relating to
the impact scores.
First, the proposals could issue a change in the ordinal scores attributed to impact
criteria. Currently, for every functionality level of every service an ordinal score is
attributed to each of the seven impact criteria. When following Proposal 2, only
three impact criteria would be retained. Consequently, instead of attributing a
score for “comfort” or “convenience” separately, a score would be attributed that
reflects the impact of a given service on the “needs of the occupant” in more
general terms. Given the relatively wide scope of each of these three impact
criteria, the definition of the ordinal scores is at risk of becoming less transparent
and objective. In the case of Proposal 3 (hybrid approach), the scores for the
seven impact criteria would be retained, but an aggregation (using a certain
weighting) would be applied.
Second, the proposals could – but do not necessarily have to – affect the
contribution of an impact criterion on the single SRI score. In the first study, an
equal weighting was proposed for the impact criteria. As such, the following
weightings would be obtained:
• Proposal 1: equal weight for each impact criterion, namely 14.3% (= 1/7)
• Proposal 2: equal weight for each impact criterion, namely 33.3% (= 1/3)
• Proposal 3: equal weight for the EPBD impact criteria (33.3%), with equal
weights within each EPBD criterion:
o 33% for “energy performance and operation”, divided into 16.7%
each for “energy savings” and “maintenance & fault prediction”
o 33% for “needs of the occupant”, divided into 8.3% each for
“comfort”, “convenience”, “health and well-being” and “information
to occupants”
o 33% for “energy flexibility and storage”.
Third, the selected strategy will affect communication relating to impact scores.
In Proposal 1, communication is needed for seven impact criteria, whereas in
Proposal 2, only three impact criteria need to be addressed. The high number of
impact criteria in Proposal 1 increases the volume of information to be conveyed
91
At the time of the discussion, 8 impact criteria were considered.

to the end user. A reduction to three impact criteria reduces the volume of
information, but since the scope of the impact criteria is broader, more information
may be required to clarify the scope of each criterion. In Proposal 3, the option
exists to communicate on either of the two levels of aggregation, or even both.
1.3.3.4 Proposal 1: Seven impact criteria as suggested by the first

technical study on the SRI
Figure 18 - Seven impact criteria as suggested by the first technical study on the SRI
1.3.3.5 Proposal 2: Three impact criteria aligned to the EPBD functionality

domains
Figure 19 - Three impact criteria aligned to the EPBD functionality domains

1.3.3.6 Proposal 3: Seven impact sub-criteria (SRI1) that are aggregated
to three impact criteria (EPBD)
Figure 20 - Seven impact sub-criteria (SRI1) that are aggregated to three impact criteria
(EPBD)
The aforementioned options were presented to Topical Group B 92, and a SWOT
analysis was performed. The following could be concluded from the discussion.
Stakeholders have different views on the relative importance of certain domains.

The SWOT analysis shows diverse opinions about the weight given to impact
criteria that can be related to user needs. For example, in the first proposal, four
of eight impact criteria relate to the users (“comfort”, “health and well-being”,
“convenience” and “information to the occupant”). In the scenario of an equal
weighting this results in 50% of the SRI score being related to user satisfaction 93.
The SWOT analysis points out that some stakeholders identify this as a strength
of this approach, while others see this as a weakness or even a threat. Concerns
for the different sides were expressed again during the discussion. A similar
discussion exists for energy performance. Some stakeholders suggest that the
relative importance of energy performance should be high, since they consider it
to be the backbone of the SRI, whereas others feel that the topic of energy
performance belongs to the EPC and should not be the focus of the SRI. Both
Proposals 2 and 3 increase the relative importance of energy in the SRI, as both
“energy performance” and “energy flexibility” would each represent one-third of
the SRI score.
92
This was discussed during the first meeting of Topical Group B: calculation methodology on
26/3/2019 in Brussels.
93
Note: at the time of the discussion, 8 impact criteria were considered, leading to a 50% contribution
of “needs of the occupants”. Currently, only 7 impact criteria are considered, leading to a weight
of 57% for occupant-related impact criteria.

The communication aspect (and thus the understanding of the occupant) also
plays an important role. Stakeholders indicated that Proposal 2 would lead to an
important loss of information, since the scope of the three EPBD criteria is fairly
large. For Proposal 1, some argue that the set of eight (currently seven) impact
criteria is too much to communicate. Others state that the three impact criteria in
Proposal 2 are too vague and not sufficiently explicit. Proposal 3 has the added
advantage of keeping both levels of assessment: information can be provided on
the eight (currently seven) individual impact criteria but could be summarised to
the three essential pillars.
Related to this discussion, participants suggested that building users might want
to know more about different aspects of the building smartness rather than just
one overall indicator. Even in the case of moving to a single score, there should
be opportunity for end users to get impact scores (= sub-score on the impact
criterion level), as they provide more insight to the qualities and shortcomings of
a building. This was also well reflected in the questionnaire results. It is also
pertinent that this conclusion aligns with the views expressed in Topical Group A
that the eight impact criteria (perhaps excluding “self-generation”) have intrinsic
value and should therefore be retained either explicitly (as in the first technical
study option) or implicitly (as per the hybrid option).
Finally, the proposals also affect the definition of ordinal scores. Since the three
impact criteria in Proposal 2 are relatively broad and vague, the performance
assessment of these criteria becomes more complicated; for instance, how is the
impact on user friendliness measured? Proposals 1 and 3 share the advantage that
the defined eight impact criteria can be assessed individually. In the case of
Proposal 3, the score for each impact criterion should further be aggregated to the
three EPBD impact criteria.
A voting session was organised at the end of the discussion with Topical Group
B94. There were 21 participants in total in the voting session, and five of them did
not vote. The first proposal (eight impact criteria from the first technical study)
received five votes, whereas Proposal 3 (hybrid version) received 11 votes. This
exercise suggests that either the eight impact criteria from the first technical
study, or the hybrid approach – in which the impact criteria are aggregated into
the three EPBD aspects – should be pursued. Among the Topical Group B
respondents, there was no support for pursuing the three EPBD aspects in isolation
from the underlying impacts.
The horizontal aggregation has been further discussed during a meeting with
topical group B. Most stakeholders agreed that the 1/3 weighting of the EPBD key
features correctly reflects the intentions of the revised EPBD and should be
adopted in the SRI methodology. Stakeholders also confirmed the importance of
demand side flexibility as a key aspect of the SRI, justifying the 1/3 weighting of
this domain. One stakeholder expresses their concern that the SRI should focus
more on user needs and hence should not implement the second layer of impact
criterion weighting factors. Hence, no unanimity exists on this subject.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study team proposes to withhold the hybrid approach (Proposal
3), as illustrated in Figure 21. The approach is considered to reflect most
94
This was discussed during the first meeting of Topical Group B: calculation methodology on
26/3/2019 in Brussels.

accurately the intentions of the EPBD regarding the balancing of the need for
energy savings, the needs of occupants and the needs of the energy grid.
Simultaneously, the proposal allows flexibility regarding the communication of
results at the two aggregation levels. The study team has investigated ways to
efficiently communicate these impact criteria, aiming to balance clarity and
conciseness.
Figure 21 - Aggregation of impact scores to a single score
1.3.3.7 Consolidated proposal on weighting factors in multi-criteria

assessment method
Based on the considerations introduced in prior sections, a consolidated proposal

on SRI weighting factors is elaborated as part of this technical support study. This
approach was also embedded in the calculation method prepared for the public
testing of the SRI method. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to test other
weighting factors and provide further feedback as part of this testing phase. The
technical study team perceives that most stakeholders support the suggested
approach, but no full consensus could be reached among all stakeholders.
Especially the aggregation along the three key EPBD functionalities of smartness
is contested by some stakeholders who want to increase the relative weight of
specific impacts. Some stakeholders suggest giving more weight towards the
impacts on the grid (flexibility and storage) while others plead for giving more
weight to the impacts related to the user needs (comfort, convenience, health &
wellbeing, information provision). By providing equal weights to the three key
smartness functionalities, the consolidated proposal balances these different
viewpoints and aligns with the EPBD text. Furthermore, user feedback on SRI
formatting and the consortium’s proposal on this matter tends towards also
displaying the sub-scores on domain or impact criterion level. By also displaying
such sub-scores, a more nuanced message can be transferred to the users of the
label, without the need for implementing weighting factors aggregating the various
impacts.

The proposed methodology provides default weighting factors which are
differentiated by:
• Building type
• non-residential buildings
• residential buildings
• Climate zone
• Northern Europe
• Western Europe
• North-Eastern Europe
• South-Eastern Europe
• Southern Europe.
The methodology defines a weighting scheme with three types of weighting

factors: fixed weights, equal weights and energy balance weights. An overview of
the weighting scheme is provided in Figure 22.
Figure 22 - overview of weighting scheme
The weights are assigned as follows:
STEP 1:
Fixed weights are assigned
• for all impact criteria: a 20% weighting is assigned to the domain “monitoring
and control”
• for the impact criteria “energy savings”, “maintenance and fault prediction”
and “energy flexibility and storage”, a 5% weighting is assigned to the domains
“electric vehicle charging” and “dynamic building envelope”. If no impact
scores exist for a given domain, the value is forced to zero.
• these values are not dependent on the climate zone or building type
• these values cannot be changed when using an alternative energy balance.

STEP 2:
Equal weightings are assigned to the impact criteria “comfort”, “convenience”,

“health and wellbeing” and “information to occupants”. The value of the weighting
factor is obtained by dividing the remaining weight for the given impact criterion
(100% - Σ(fixed weights)) by the number of domains that are relevant for the
given impact criterion:
• these values are not dependent on the climate zone or building type
• these values cannot be changed when using an alternative energy balance.
For instance,
(1 − 𝑓𝑀𝐶,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑓 )
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑓 =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠
(1 − 0,20)
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑓 =
5
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑓 = 0,16
where 𝑓𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is the weighting factor for a given domain and impact
criterion
STEP 3:
Energy balance weights are assigned to the impact criteria “energy savings”,
“maintenance and fault prediction” and “energy flexibility and storage”. The value
of the weighting factor is obtained by multiplying the remaining weight for the
given impact criterion (100% - Σ(fixed weights)) by the relative importance of the
domain in the energy balance:
• these values depend on the climate zone or building type

• these values can be changed when using an alternative energy balance.
The default relative importance of a domain in the energy balance is illustrated

below.
For instance, for non-residential buildings in Western Europe the default weighting
factor for the domain “heating” on “energy savings on site” is calculated as follows:
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑒𝑛𝑒 = (1 − (𝑓𝐷𝐸,𝑒𝑛𝑒 + 𝑓𝑀𝐶,𝑒𝑛𝑒 )) ∙ 𝑎𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑒𝑛𝑒 = (1 − (0,05 + 0,20)) ∗ 0,36
𝑓𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇,𝑒𝑛𝑒 = 0,27
where
• 𝑓𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is the weighting factor for a given domain and impact criterion
• 𝛼𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 is the relative importance of a domain in the used energy balance
(values to be obtained from Figure 23 or Figure 24).

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Figure 23- relative importance of a domain by climate zone, for residential buildings
(αdomain)
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Figure 24 - relative importance of a domain by climate zone, for non-residential buildings

(αdomain)
TAILORING TO AN EPC ENERGY BALANCE (or other energy balance)
Should the assessor wish to use a building-specific energy balance (for instance
from an EPC calculation), the primary energy uses for space heating, domestic hot
water, space cooling, controlled ventilation, lighting and production of on-site
renewable electricity should be available.
For each of these 6 domains, the correction factor 𝛼𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 is calculated by dividing
the primary energy use of the given domain by the sum of the six primary energy
usages.
For instance, the correction factor for heating would be calculated as follows:
𝑄𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇
𝛼𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇 =
𝑄𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿
𝑄𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 = 𝑄𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇 + 𝑄𝐷𝐻𝑊 + 𝑄𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐿 + 𝑄𝑉𝐸𝑁𝑇 + 𝑄𝐿𝐼𝐺𝐻𝑇 + 𝑄𝑅𝐸𝑁𝐸𝑊
Where
• 𝑄𝐻𝐸𝐴𝑇 is the primary energy use for space heating of the given building
• 𝑄𝐷𝐻𝑊 is the primary energy use for domestic hot water of the given building
• 𝑄𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐿 is the primary energy use for space cooling of the given building

• 𝑄𝑉𝐸𝑁𝑇 is the primary energy use for ventilation of the given building
• 𝑄𝐿𝐼𝐺𝐻𝑇 is the primary energy use for lighting of the given building
• 𝑄𝑅𝐸𝑁𝐸𝑊 is the renewable energy produced on site, expressed as primary energy.
An example of the weighting matrix for non-residential buildings in Western

Europe is given below in Table 7.
Table 7- Weighting matrix for non-residential buildings in Western Europe

1.3.4 SMART SERVICES AND ORDINAL SCORES
The detailed service catalogue (method B) and the simplified service catalogue
(method A) have been thoroughly reviewed based on various stakeholder
feedback, including written feedback on the 2 nd interim report, a review session
with members of Topical Group B and feedback from the public beta testing. The
review resulted in a number of modifications, including:
• adding or removing certain services

• adding or removing functionality levels
• rephrasing the description of functionality levels
• modifying impact scores95.
The consolidated service catalogues are found in ANNEX E and 0 of this report.
Below, an overview of the main modifications is elaborated.
1.3.4.1 DETAILED SERVICE CATALOGUE (Method B)
Heating
• Heating-1e, Heating-1g and Heating-2c have been omitted, given the
existence of overlap with other services
• Heating-4 has been merged with elements from Heating-1g and Heating-2c
(see above)
• Functionality level added to Heating-1f
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in Heating-2d and Heating-3
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Heating-1a, Heating-1b, Heating-1c,
Heating-1d, Heating-1f, Heating-2b, Heating-2d and Heating-3.
Domestic hot water

• New service DHW-2b added, similar to Heating-2d
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in DHW-1b
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in DHW-1a, DHW-1b, DHW-1d.
Cooling
• Cooling-1e has been omitted, given the existence of overlap with other services
• Cooling-4 has been merged with elements from Heating-1e (see above)
• Functionality level added to Cooling-1f
• Functionality levels of Cooling-2a and Cooling-2b harmonized with
corresponding services in the heating domain
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in Cooling-1a, Cooling-1g and Cooling-
3
95
Currently, impact scores can range from -3 to +3. A stakeholder suggested to review this scale and
allow impacts up to +4, since some of the services can also have four functionality levels. This
suggestion can be relevant for future updates of the SRI, but has not been upheld at this stage as
this would require reviewing all impact scores throught the service catalogue, potentially causing
this to deviate significantly from the version which has been discussed with topical groups and
tested by the SRI stakeholder community.

• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Cooling-1a, Cooling-1b, Cooling-1c,
Cooling-1d, Cooling-1g, Cooling-2a, Cooling-2b and Cooling 3
• Minor alterations to the service names in Cooling-1d, Cooling-1f and Cooling-
4.
Controlled ventilation
• Ventilation-1b and Ventilation-2b have been omitted
• Modifications to functionality levels 3 and 4 in Ventilation-6
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in Ventilation-1c and Ventilation-2d
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Ventilation-3 and Ventilation-6
• Minor alterations to the service name in Ventilation-2d.
Lighting
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Lighting-1a
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in Lighting-2.
Dynamic envelope
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in DE-4
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in DE-1.
Electricity
• New service Electricity-8 added and updated (previously omitted)
• New services Electricity-12 and Electricity-13 added, to harmonize with the
simplified service catalogue
• Modifications to functionality levels in Electricity-3, Electricity-4 and Electricity-
5
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Electricity-3, Electricity-4 and Electricity-
5
• Minor alterations to the service name in Electricity-2.
Electric Vehicles
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in EV-16 and EV-17
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in EV-16
• Minor alterations to the service name in EV-15.
Monitoring and Control

• New service MC-30
• Modifications to functionality levels in MC-3 and MC-25
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in MC-4, MC-13 and MC-29
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in MC-3, MC-4, MC-13, MC-25, MC-28.
The detailed service catalogue (method B) now consists of 54 services.

1.3.4.2 SIMPLIFIED SERVICE CATALOGUE (Method A)
In the simplified service catalogue, minor modifications have been made to

harmonize with the detailed service catalogue.
Heating
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Heating-S1, Heating-S2b and Heating-
S4.
DHW
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in DHW-S1.
Cooling
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Cooling-S1, Cooling-S2 and Cooling-S4
• Modifications to functionality levels in Cooling-S2.
Controlled ventilation
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Ventilation-S3
• Minor alterations to the service name in Ventilation-S1.
Lighting
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Lighting-S1.
Dynamic Envelope
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in DE-S1 and DE-S2.
Electricity
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in Electricity-S1
• Minor alterations to the service name in Electricity-S3 and Electricity-S4.
Electric Vehicles
• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in EV-S1 and EV-S2
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in EV-S3 and EV-S4
• Minor alterations to the service name in EV-S1.
Monitoring and Control

• Minor alterations to ordinal scores in MC-S2 and MC-S3
• Minor rephrasing of functionality levels in MC-S3
• Minor alterations to the service name in MC-S1.
The simplified service catalogue (method A) now consists of 27 services.

1.3.5 TRIAGE PROCESS
In the first technical study, it was proposed to perform a normalisation of the

summed impacts. This is done by dividing the sum of the nominal impact scores
by the sum of the maximum possible nominal impact scores that could be
reasonably attained for the given building and multiplying by 100. The final
aggregate score thus represents an overall percentage of the maximum score.
The maximum nominal impact score is not simply the sum of all the impacts of
the 54 (or 27 in case of method A) services listed in the SRI catalogue. It is very
likely that due to local and site-specific context some domains and services are
not relevant, not applicable or not desirable. The SRI methodology accommodates
this by performing a triage process to identify the relevant services for a specific
building. In any case, deciding on the applicability of services should not be based
on interpretation by individual SRI assessors, but should be defined in the method
to ensure a fully replicable SRI assessment.
During the first technical study, a triage process was proposed to deal with the
issue. Indeed, some domains may not be relevant, e.g. some buildings might not
be able to provide parking (and hence electric vehicle charging facilities) and some
residential buildings might not need cooling. Furthermore, some of the services
are only applicable if certain technical building systems are present, e.g. a storage
vessel for domestic hot water or a heat recovery ventilation unit. In addition, some
services may be mutually exclusive, since it is unlikely that a building has both
district heating and combustive heating and heat pumps. If such services are not
present, they obviously do not need to be assessed during on-site inspections. In
cases where a service is not present and not relevant, the service will not be
scored, and the maximum attainable score will be reduced. This renormalisation
process ensures that the absence of such a service or domain is not penalised. As
a result of this triage process, in any real building the number of services to be
inspected as part of an SRI assessment will be less than the 54 or 27 smart ready
services listed in the streamlined catalogues.
During a discussion with Topical Group B 96, the treatment of absent services was
approached from different angles, mostly related to the message to be conveyed
by the SRI.
A Topical Group B member linked the question of whether or not the absence of a
domain should be penalised to the question of whether the assessment is about
being “smart ready” or “smart possible”. In this case, “smart ready” relates to the
smartness of the services already present in the building (hence not penalising
absent services), whereas “smart possible” relates to the possibility of having
(smart) services in the building (hence penalising absent services). In this context,
a number of members suggested adhering to the essence of the SRI, namely
assessing the smartness of services already available. Other members argued that
the essence is not to assess the current smartness, but to give a stimulus to
improve a building. In other words, the SRI should incentivise the uptake of SRTs.
By not penalising the absence of certain domains, the SRI cannot give an incentive
to install certain services that are currently absent, even though they could
improve the comfort of the occupant. For instance, controlled ventilation has been
proved to contribute to indoor air quality. Nonetheless, there remains
96
Topical Group B: Calculation Methodology – 2nd Web meeting 14/05/2019

disagreement among stakeholders about whether the absence of a ventilation
system in residential buildings – depending on its geographical location – should
be penalised in the SRI.
The discussion on the relevance of certain domains or services reveals differences

in building practices across Europe. A suggested solution is to allow implementing
bodies to define guidelines depending on contextual factors such as the relevance
of specific services and domains to climatic zones and requirements in local
building codes while also allowing differentiation based on the building type
(residential or non-residential) as well as the current state of the building (new
construction, retrofit, existing building). For example:
• a domain is deemed relevant for new constructions and retrofit, but not for
existing buildings
• a domain is deemed relevant for non-residential buildings, but not for
residential buildings
• a mix of both: a domain is relevant for all non-residential buildings and newly
constructed or retrofitted residential buildings.
Such an approach is closely linked to the SRI implementation pathways and to

local building codes.
Topical Group B members also noted that the triage process affects the
comparability of buildings, since the renormalisation process means that buildings
are not rated with the same baseline. Differences in approaches across Europe
could jeopardise such comparability even further. For example, two buildings with
the same score could have completely different TBSs installed. During the
discussion, the study team argued that the need for comparability strongly
depends on the target audience: for property owners wanting to assess or improve
their building’s smartness, comparability is probably less important. If the triage
process is to tailor the assessed domains to building context, the Topical Group B
members concluded that transparency of the assessed domains – rather than
comparability – is essential. To this end, two ideas were raised.
• Communicating all scores: the building score, the building maximum score and
the theoretical maximum score. The difference between the building maximum
and the theoretical maximum could then illustrate how many services were
omitted.
• Using illustrations on the SRI documentation to show which domains were
assessed (e.g. greyed-out or strike-through icons for domains not present in
the building).
Members of Topical Group B were strongly in favour of the second approach, as it

could visualise present services without making the interpretation of the results
overly complicated.
A second aspect of comparability relates to the impact of regional differences.

Tailoring to local context – including climate-dependent weighting factors and
differentiation in triage guidelines – will negatively impact the comparability of
buildings across Europe. A member of Topical Group B mentioned that comparison
across Europe is usually not relevant for property owners or investors, as the
comparison will typically be restricted to a specific region.

However, it should also be mentioned that there is concern for comparability in
other schemes as well. For instance, a single EPC score does not reflect the
predominance of active or passive measures; some regions address the issue by
providing additional information on the energy balance of the building (e.g.
differentiation between energy for heating, cooling, lighting, etc.) and/or by
introducing supplementary indicators or scores (e.g. for the share of renewable
energy or the risk of overheating). In BREEAM, the certificate depicts both the
total aggregated score (e.g. “Excellent”) and the category scores (bar charts for
“energy”, "health and well-being", etc.). The discussion illustrates the danger of
having only one aggregated score and shows the potential for also showing sub-
scores to convey a more nuanced message. This will be investigated in detail in
Task 2.
To conclude, the study team recommends the following approach to deal with
absent services:
• For some services, an evaluation is only relevant in cases where the technical
building systems it relates to are present. This approach is appropriate when
one cannot a priori conclude that a domain or service should be present in a
particular building (e.g. a building could be comfortable without cooling
systems). If such a service is not present, the service is excluded from the
assessment and does not affect the maximum attainable score.
• Some services may be mutually exclusive; if such services are not present,
they can be excluded from the assessment.
• Some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy
perspective. This approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing buildings
with additional (smart) services. The technical study team recommends to
allow implementing bodies to define guidelines depending on contextual
factors such as the relevance of specific services and domains to particular
building types and climatic zones and requirements in local building codes.
These services are included in the assessment.

1.3.6 CONCLUDING PROPOSAL FOR SRI CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
The smart readiness score of a building or building unit is expressed as a

percentage which represents the ratio between the smart readiness of the building
or building unit compared to the maximum smart readiness that it could reach.
The methodology also allows the use of disaggregated smart readiness scores
expressed as a percentage. The disaggregated scores can express smart readiness
for one or more of the following:
• Three key smart readiness capabilities as highlighted in Annex Ia, point 2 of

the EPBD:
3. Comfort
4. Convenience
1. Heating
2. Cooling
5. Lighting
7. Electricity
The calculation of smart readiness scores is made according to the following

protocol:
1.3.6.1 Step 1: Triage process to define relevant smart-ready services in

the building or building unit
To avoid unfairly penalising a building or building unit, some smart-ready services

may be omitted in the calculation of the smart readiness scores, in case those
services are not relevant for that building or building unit.
1.3.6.2 Step 2: Define functionality level of each smart-ready service
For each of the relevant smart-ready services the functionality level implemented
in the building or building unit is assessed, e.g. through a visual inspection or
retrieved from technical documentation.
1.3.6.3 Step 3: Calculate the impact criterion scores
For each of seven impact criteria, the impact criterion score of each technical
domain is determined, as follows:
𝑵𝒅
𝑰(𝒅, 𝒊𝒄) = ∑𝒊=𝟏 𝑰𝒊𝒄 (𝑭𝑳(𝑺𝒊,𝒅 )) (2)

where:
• 𝑑 is the number of the technical domain in question, 𝑑 ∈ ℕ

• 𝑖𝑐 is the number of the impact criterion in question, 𝑖𝑐 ∈ ℕ
• 𝑁𝑑 is the total number of services in technical domain 𝑑, 𝑁𝑑 ∈ ℕ
• 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 is service 𝑖 of technical domain 𝑑, 𝑖 ∈ ℕ, 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑁𝑆𝑑 ,
• 𝐹𝐿(𝑆𝑖,𝑑 ) is the functionality level of service 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 as available in the building or
building unit,
• 𝐼𝑖𝑐 (𝐹𝐿(𝑆𝑖,𝑑 )) is the impact criterion score of service 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 for impact criterion
number 𝑖𝑐, according to the service’s functionality level, 𝐼𝑖𝑐 (𝐹𝐿(𝑆𝑖,𝑑 )) ∈ ℕ
• 𝐼(𝑑, 𝑖𝑐) is the impact criterion score of domain number 𝑑 for impact criterion
number 𝑖𝑐, 𝐼(𝑑, 𝑖𝑐) ∈ ℕ.
In case a smart-ready service is implemented according to different functionality

levels 𝐹𝐿(𝑆𝑖,𝑑 ) in various parts of the building or building unit, the impact criterion
score 𝐼𝑖𝑐 (𝐹𝐿(𝑆𝑖,𝑑 )) of service 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 can be calculated as a weighted average.
Specifications for this could be further detailed in implementing guidelines.
1.3.6.4 Step 4: Calculate maximum impact scores
In accordance with the catalogue of smart-ready services, the maximum impact

criterion score of each technical domain for each impact criterion is determined,
as follows:
𝑁
𝑑
𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑑, 𝑖𝑐) = ∑𝑖=1 𝐼𝑖𝑐 (𝐹𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑆𝑖,𝑑 )) (3)
where:
• 𝐹𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑆𝑖,𝑑 ) is the highest functionality level that service 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 could have
according to the smart-ready service catalogue
• 𝐼𝑖𝑐 (𝐹𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑆𝑖,𝑑 )) is the impact criterion score of service 𝑆𝑖,𝑑 for its highest
functionality level, which means the maximum impact criterion score of service
𝑆𝑖,𝑑 for impact criterion number 𝑖𝑐
• 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑑, 𝑖𝑐) is the maximum impact criterion score of domain number 𝑑 for impact
criterion number 𝑖𝑐.
1.3.6.5 Step 5: Smart-readiness scores for impact criteria
For each of the impact criteria, smart readiness scores (expressed as a

percentage) can be determined by weighing the calculated scores as follows:
∑N Wd,ic ×I(d,ic)
SR ic = ∑N d=1 × 100 (4)
d=1 Wd,ic ×Imax (d,ic)
where:
• 𝑑 is the number of the technical domain in question

• 𝑁 is the total number of technical domains
• 𝑊𝑑,𝑖𝑐 is the weighting factor expressed as a percentage of technical domain
number 𝑑 for impact criterion number 𝑖𝑐
• 𝑆𝑅𝑖𝑐 is the smart readiness score expressed as a percentage for impact criterion
number 𝑖𝑐.

The domain weighting factors are expressed as a percentage, and for each impact
criterion, the sum of the weighting factors of the technical domains equals to
100%. The standard approach to allocate weighting factors to the technical
domains is based on:
• climatic zone’s energy balance for the weighting factors of ‘heating’, ‘cooling’,
‘domestic hot water’, ‘controlled ventilation’, ‘lighting’, and ‘electricity’
technical domains along the ‘energy efficiency’, ‘maintenance and prediction’
and ‘energy flexibility and storage’ impact criteria
• fixed weighting factors and equal weighting factors otherwise.
The standard weighting factors of technical domains can differ between residential
and non-residential buildings for some impact criteria. The full description of
proposed domain weighting factors is included in the service catalogues (see
ANNEX E and 0).
1.3.6.6 Step 6: Smart-readiness scores along the three EPBD key

capabilities
For each of the three key capabilities highlighted in Annex Ia, point 2 of the EPBD,
smart readiness scores (expressed as a percentage) can be determined by
weighing the calculated scores as follows:
SR c = ∑M
ic=1 Wc (ic) × SR ic , (5)
where:
• 𝑆𝑅𝑐 is the smart readiness score for key capability 𝑐

• 𝑀 is the total number of impact criteria, 𝑀 ∈ ℕ
• 𝑊𝑓 (𝑖𝑐) is the weighting factor expressed in percentage of impact criterion
number 𝑖𝑐 for key functionality 𝑓
• 𝑆𝑅𝑖𝑐 is the smart readiness score of impact criterion number 𝑖𝑐.
The domain weighting factors are expressed as a percentage. Each impact criterion
is relevant for only one key functionality and for each key functionality, all relevant
criteria have equal weighting factors.
• For the ‘energy performance and operation’ key capability, the relevant impact
criteria are ‘energy efficiency’ and ‘maintenance and fault prediction’.
• For the ‘response to user needs’ key capability, the relevant impact criteria are
‘comfort’, ‘convenience’, ‘information to occupants’ and ‘health & wellbeing’.
• For the ‘energy flexibility’ key capability, the only relevant impact criterion is
‘energy flexibility & storage’.
1.3.6.7 Step 7: Total smart-readiness score for a building or building unit
The total smart-readiness score of a building or building unit (expressed as a

percentage) can be determined by weighing the calculated smart-readiness scores
of the three key capabilities as follows:

1
SR = ∑ × Src (6)
3
where:
• 𝑆𝑅 is the total smart readiness score

• 𝑆𝑅𝑐 is the smart readiness score of key capability 𝑐.
1.3.6.8 Step 8: (Optional) Smart-readiness scores for technical domains
Optionally, smart readiness scores of technical domains along each impact

criterion are calculated, as follows:
I(d,ic)
SR d,ic = × 100 (7)
Imax (d,ic)

2 TASK 2 - INVESTIGATION OF SRI
IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS AND OF THE
FORMAT OF THE SRI
TASK SUMMARY & OBJECTIVES
The objective of Task 2 is to investigate the potential pathways for the effective
implementation of the SRI in the EU and to clarify which are the most promising
options regarding the SRI format.
TASK APPROACH AND PROPOSED METHODOLOGY:
The methodological activities conducted under Task 2 are:
• establishment of the SRI implementation pathways

• investigation of the format of the SRI.
2.1 ACTIVITY 1: SRI IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS
2.1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE SCHEMES AND INITIATIVES ON WHICH THE

SRI COULD BUILD, OR CONNECT TO
This section concerns the identification of the schemes and initiatives on which the
SRI could build or connect to, in order to facilitate its implementation.
At the EU level and Member State level the relevant schemes or actions include all
those concerned with the implementation of the EPBD i.e.:
• energy performance certificates (EPCs)

• the provisions regarding the inspection of HVAC systems as specified under
Articles 14 and 15
• they also include the provisions regarding the installation, upgrade and
replacement of technical building systems as set out in Article 8(1) and related
provisions on assessment and documentation of system performance under
Article 8(9) and the measures requiring non-residential buildings with an
installed heating or cooling capacity of > 290kW to have BACS installed by
2025 in Articles 14 and 15 respectively.
However, other schemes or activities are also relevant to consider including:
• Level(s) (see section 1.2.2.2)

• BIM and the digital logbook of DG Grow (see section 1.2.2.4)
• Building Renovation Passports (see section 1.2.2.3)

• Cybersecurity and the Voluntary European Cybersecurity Certification
scheme97 (see section 1.2.2.5)
• The broadband ready label98 (see section 1.2.2.6)
• Product environmental footprint (PEF) (see section 1.2.2.10)
• “Installer” energy label for heating and hot water systems99 (see section
1.2.2.12).
In addition, at the private organisation level there are: private sector building
sustainability certification schemes – BREEAM, HQE, DGNB, LEED; smart
buildings/appliances initiatives such as the Smart Building Alliance, the SAREF
common ontology etc.; and smart metering roll out initiatives.
To assess the potential interactions between the SRI and these initiatives it’s
important to consider them in a structured manner. The following framework is
put forward to consider this. First the focus and scope (subject matter) of the
schemes is considered, second their maturity, third their scale, and fourth their
potential fit with the SRI.
2.1.1.1 Subject matter
The subject matter of the schemes is their focus and scope. The focus determines
their objective, while the scope is the domain they address. For a meaningful
linkage to exist with the SRI both the focus and scope will need to overlap with
that of the SRI.
2.1.1.2 Maturity
The maturity reflects how long the scheme has been in existence. For longstanding
schemes their maturity will be high, and their characteristics will be well known
and defined. For new or emerging schemes there will be less certainty.
2.1.1.3 Scale
In principle, the scale of the scheme could concern everything from the geography
and range of target domains they address; however, in the current context what
is relevant is how large their scale is in regard to that part that overlaps with the
objectives and focus of the SRI. As the SRI principally concerns the assessment of
buildings then the scale of the schemes reported here concerns the extent to which
they access (cover) Europe’s buildings and smart ready technology & services.
97
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eu-cybersecurity-act
98
Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and the Council https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/directive-201461eu-european-parliament-and-council
99
European Commission. 2013b, COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 811/2013 of 18 February 2013
supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the energy labelling of space
heaters, combination heaters, packages of space heater, temperature control and solar device and packages of combination
heater, temperature control and solar device

2.1.1.4 Fit
The fit is the degree of complementarity between the scheme and the SRI. It is
comprised of any sub-elements of which the following are addressed in the current
assessment:
• Building assessment
• Site visits/inspections
• Target audience
• Actors directly involved in delivery
• Certification
• Quality Assurance
• Mandate
• Organisation
• Governance.
The building assessment fit parameter is whether, or not, the scheme entails
conducting an assessment of buildings, or some aspect of the building which is
pertinent to the delivery of the SRI. If it does there is likely to be a better fit with
the SRI because there may be a potential to share techniques, methods and
resources and minimise duplication.
The site visit/inspections fit parameter is whether, or not, the scheme entails
conducting a site visit and/or inspection of buildings, or some aspect of the building
which is pertinent to the delivery of the SRI. If it does there is likely to be a better
fit with the SRI because there may be a potential to share processes, methods and
resources and minimise duplication. Note, as a major component of cost and delay
in doing site visits is the process of contacting the owner/occupant, gaining
permission, and travel to and from the site – duplication in these aspects could be
minimised where schemes that require site visits/inspections share resources. This
could also be less burdensome for property owners/occupiers.
The target audience fit parameter is the degree to which the intended audience
for the schemes products overlaps. The more that they do the more synergies
there are likely to be and the greater the potential to share techniques, methods
and resources to minimise duplication.
The actors directly involved in delivery fit parameter is the degree to which those
involved in the delivery of the scheme’s services are likely to overlap with each
other. The more that they do the more synergies there are likely to be and the
greater the potential to share techniques, methods and resources to minimise
duplication.
The certification fit parameter is whether or not the scheme involves issuance of
formal certificates to denote that an authorised assessment has been conducted.
If they do there may be greater synergy with the SRI, should the latter be
implemented in a format that includes certification.
The quality assurance fit parameter is the degree to which the service delivery of
the scheme is subject to formal and verifiable quality assurance processes. The
more that it is the greater the confidence can be expected in the quality/veracity
of the outcomes and the less chance that interaction with the scheme could pose
any reputational risk for the SRI. Furthermore, it may be possible to link aspects
of the two scheme’s QA processes to avoid duplicative effort.

The mandate fit parameter is the degree to which the mandate the scheme has to
operate is likely to be complementary with that of the SRI. The more that it is the
easier it will be to jointly co-manage aspects of the scheme’s delivery.
The organisation fit parameter is the degree to which the organisation of the
scheme’s implementation is likely to be complementary to options which could be
envisaged and viable for the SRI. The more that it is the easier it is likely to be to
share delivery pathways and minimise duplication.
The governance fit parameter is the degree to which the governance of the scheme
could be complementary to the governance and mandate of the SRI. For example,
if the governance is seen to be too partial or structured to favour certain economic
interests then linkage with the scheme may risk a conflict of interest for the SRI.
The tables set out below present a first assessment of these elements for the
schemes/initiatives previously mentioned.

Table 8 - Subject, Scope, Maturity and Scale of initiatives or actions the SRI could link to
Scheme/initiative Subject matter Scope Maturity Scale

or action
EU schemes
EPBD associated
EPCs EPBD related EU but High Very high

implemented at
MS level
HVAC inspections EPBD related EU but High High but uneven

implemented at across MS
MS level
Article 8 TBS EPBD related EU but High for some High

provisions implemented at elements, but
MS level others are new
not-EPBD
associated
Level(s) Building EU but New Uncertain

sustainability implemented at
MS level
BIM & digital Building digital Private enterprise High but still High but
logbook information evolving disparate
Voluntary Product EU Single Market New Expected to be

European cybersecurity High
Cybersecurity
Certification
scheme
Broadband ready Building EU but New Uncertain

label connectivity implemented at
MS level
Ecodesign/ELR Energy-related EU Single Market High High

products
PEF Product EU Single Market New Uncertain

environmental
performance
Other schemes
Sustainability
certification
BREEAM Building Global - High The highest in

sustainability implemented in Europe of the
private sector building
building projects sustainability
schemes but only
has a modest
coverage of the

whole stock
(<1%)
HQE Building Mostly in France High Mostly focused on

sustainability - implemented in France
private sector
building projects
DGNB Building Mostly in High Focused on

sustainability Germany - Germany
implemented in
private sector
building projects
LEED Building Global - High Global but less

sustainability implemented in coverage in
private sector Europe than
building projects BREEAM
Building Building Implemented at New Uncertain

renovation performance MS/regional level
passports
Smart metering
related
Smart metering Smart meters National/local High Very high but

roll-out DSO level uneven across
MS
Smart Buildings
Initiatives
SBA ready to Smart buildings Private enterprise High Focused on

services label baseline - commercial France
buildings
SAREF Smart appliances EU Single Market New EU

Table 9 - Assessment, Site/visits, Audience, Actors and Certification of initiatives or
actions the SRI could link to
Scheme/ Building Site visits/ Target Actors directly Certification

initiative or assessment inspect- audience involved in delivery
action ions
EU schemes
EPBD associated
EPCs Yes Yes Property EPC assessors Yes

owners,
tenants,
facility
managers
HVAC Yes Yes Property Building service Yes

inspections owners, engineers
facility
managers
Article 8 TBS Sometimes Yes but no Property Building service Not a priori
provisions inspections owners, engineers
facility
managers
not-EPBD
associated
Level(s) Yes Probably Property Architects, buildings Not a priori

owners, and systems
tenants designers, service
engineers, etc.
BIM & digital Often Often Property Architects, buildings No

logbook owners, and and systems
construction designers, service
professionals engineers, etc.
Voluntary No No Equipment Under development Yes, of

European owners equipment
Cybersecurity
Certification
scheme
Broadband Yes, but for Yes, but for Property MS specific Yes, of
ready label connectivity connectivity owners, building
tenants connectivity
Ecodesign/ELR Yes, for Yes, for Equipment Heating Yes, of

heating and heating and purchasers engineers/installers, installed
hot water hot water manufacturers heating and
systems systems hot water
systems
PEF No No Product Manufacturers No

purchasers

Other schemes
Sustainability
certification
BREEAM Yes Yes Property Private associations, Yes

owners, qualified building
facility professionals
managers
HQE Yes Yes Property Private associations, Yes

managers
DGNB Yes Yes Property Private associations, Yes

managers
LEED Yes Yes Property Private associations, Yes

managers
Building Yes Yes Property Architects, buildings Yes

renovation owners, and systems
passports tenants designers, service
engineers, etc.
Smart metering
related
Smart metering Not usually Yes but no Property DSOs No

roll-out inspections owners,
tenants,
facility
managers
Smart Buildings
Initiatives
SBA ready to Assessment Yes, Commercial Diverse companies Yes, but

services label of degree including property concerned with focused on
that certification owners and smart building France
buildings are developers services and the
ready for value chain
smart
services
SAREF Smart No Diverse New EU

appliances

Table 10 - Quality, Mandate, Organisation, Governance initiatives the SRI could link to
Scheme/ Quality Mandate Organisation Governance

initiative or Assurance
action
EU schemes
EPBD associated
EPCs Assessors must Governmental, Government National/Federal

be certified legally binding managed with government
from EPBD private sector managed at MS
delivery at MS level
level
HVAC inspections Varies by MS Governmental, Government National/Federal

legally binding managed with government
level
Article 8 TBS MS specific Governmental, Government National/Federal

provisions legally binding managed with government
level
not-EPBD
associated
Level(s) At project specific Governmental, Voluntary Framework

discretion voluntary framework for development
building supervised by
profession the Commission
BIM & digital Diverse practice Private sector Private sector Private sector
logbook associations
Voluntary Under Governmental, Voluntary Commission with

European development voluntary framework for ENISA and MS
Cybersecurity product input under
Certification manufacturers Cyber Security
scheme Act
Broadband ready MS specific Governmental, Government MS government

label voluntary regulated private
sector delivery
Ecodesign/ELR Nationally Governmental, Government Commission with

specific legally binding regulated private MS consultation
requirements from EDD sector delivery
PEF No Governmental, Voluntary Commission

voluntary framework for managed
product
manufacturers
Other schemes

Sustainability
certification
BREEAM Quality control of Private sector Private sector Private sector

assessors associations
HQE Quality control of Private sector Private sector Private sector

DGNB Quality control of Private sector Private sector Private sector

LEED Quality control of Private sector Private sector Private sector

Building MS specific Governmental / Publicly managed National/Federal

renovation regional / local, with private government or
passports voluntary sector delivery at regional / local
MS, regional, authorities,
local level private sector
associations
Smart metering
related
Smart metering MS specific Mixture of Government National energy

roll-out requirements governmental regulated private regulators
and private sector delivery
sector
Smart Buildings
Initiatives
SBA ready to Yes Private sector Private sector Private sector

services label associations
SAREF No ETSI (Standards Standardisation EU standards

body) for product body
manufacturers
This array of information can be rather overwhelming but from it the following
observations can be made by theme.
2.1.1.5 Subject matter
The subject matter is closest to the SRI’s for the Smart Buildings initiatives and
the EPBD related initiatives but even with these there is simply overlap rather than
convergence. For all other schemes an overlap exists but is usually quite narrowly
focused. The target domains overlap most strongly for those initiatives that target
buildings and rather less so for those that target products, or specific services.

2.1.1.6 Scope
The operational scope overlaps most closely for those initiatives implemented at
EU, across all Member States, or at the Single Market level. However, for those
implemented at a specific Member State level there is stronger overlap for the SRI
within that Member State.
2.1.1.7 Maturity
While some of the schemes are quite mature and their characteristics are well
established others are new, or under development and hence have significantly
more uncertainty.
2.1.1.8 Scale
The scale of the schemes is one of the areas of significant divergence. EPCs cover
the majority of the EU’s building stock and hence have a very high degree of
coverage. The other EPBD related initiatives cover a high to very high proportion
of the building stock with the exception of Building Renovation Passports, which
are new and being trialled. Like EPCs the Article 8 TBS measures affect installations
in a very high proportion of EU buildings (all over time) but are targeted differently
as they occur at the moment a new TBS is installed, or an old one is replaced. The
Article 14 and 15 measures regarding the mandatory installation of BACS apply to
all buildings with > 290kW of effective installed heating & cooling capacity and are
to be implemented between now and 2025. In addition, the Article 14 and 15
requirements regarding heating & cooling system inspections for systems of >
70kW apply to a significant part of the building stock but are implemented in
different ways by EU member states. The installer energy label for heating and
hot water systems will also have a very high coverage of the EU building stock.
The use of BIM is growing rapidly in new build projects and to a lesser extent in
major renovations, but these are inevitably slower to cover the building stock than
the measures mentioned above (as the rate of new build and major renovations
as a proportion of the total building stock is modest). Also, BIM is used on a
project-by-project basis and hence is not necessarily coherently implemented
across projects, even if some file formats and practices are standardised.
The independent voluntary building sustainability schemes have a high

engagement with the buildings they cover but have much lower coverage of the
building sector as a whole in practice.
Smart metering has been or is being (depending on the Member State), rolled-out
across a large proportion of Europe’s buildings.
Inevitably, the new schemes, even those designed to operate at EU level, have
uncertain scale as it is not yet known what part of the building-stock they will be
successful in covering. In theory initiatives such as the cybersecurity certificates
and broadband ready labels could cover a significant part of their target markets
and hence overlap with part of the SRIs, but the rate of uptake is highly uncertain.
2.1.1.9 Building assessments + site visits/inspections
Building assessments are done by most of the schemes and generally closely
correlates with the conduct of site visits and inspections. They are not done for
the purely product focused initiatives such as the PEF, cybersecurity label, or
SAREF. However, the nature of assessments and inspections varies quite

substantially. The most detailed assessments are conducted for the environmental
sustainability initiatives, but detailed assessments are also done for Building
Renovation Passports and Level(s) and potentially for some BIM projects 100. The
type of assessments done for EPCs, the other EPBD related measures and the
broadband ready label are lighter and/or are more narrowly focused. Similarly,
smart meter installations will only focus on the smart meter, while ELR heating/hot
water labelling will be exclusively focused on those technical building systems.
2.1.1.10 Target audience
The principal target audiences often overlap around the main groupings of
property owners, facility managers and tenants. However, in some cases they are
focused more on those responsible for procuring specific types of equipment,
which may not be the same.
2.1.1.11 Actors directly involved in delivery
The actors directly involved in delivery include EPC assessors, building service
engineers, HVAC engineers and qualified building professionals. In product-
focused initiatives, such as cybersecurity certification, they may include
manufacturers operating at the Single Market level, while in the case of smart
meters they include electrical engineers working for DSOs. It is important to
appreciate that these actors will have distinct skill sets, which are more or less
well suited to being engaged in SRI assessment.
2.1.1.12 Certification
Certification (as in the issuance of a certificate to denote that a building or service

within it has had a qualified assessment) is common for EPCs, HVAC inspections,
Building Renovation Passports, heating/hot water system energy labelling,
broadband ready label and all the sustainability certification schemes. It will also
be done for cybersecurity but at the product specific level and hence prior to
leaving the factor gate rather than on site in a building.
2.1.1.13 Quality assurance
Quality assurance is generally carried out for EPCs, in that assessors generally
have to be certified as being competent to fulfil their function. The same is true
for HVAC inspectors and would be expected for the issuers of Building Renovation
Passports. It is certainly the case for the sustainability certification schemes. For
other schemes the situation can vary or is not yet clarified.
2.1.1.14 Mandate
The types of mandates applicable to the various schemes encompass:
• governmental, legally binding initiatives (such as those related to the EPBD)

which are enshrined in a clear legal framework
• governmental / regional / local voluntary initiatives
• private sector mandates operated through an association
• private sector project-specific.
100
Using BIM requires building technical details to be measured/assessed and entered into software. In the case of existing
buildings it requires a site visit and assessment.

2.1.1.15 Organisation
At a high level the various schemes fit within one of the following organisation
frameworks:
• Government managed with private sector delivery at MS / region level

• Voluntary framework open for use by building profession
• Voluntary framework open for use by product manufacturers
• Government regulated with private sector delivery
• Private sector managed.
There are many details beneath this classification, however, that will have a
bearing on the fit the organisation of the scheme could have with the SRI.
2.1.1.16 Governance
The governance fit parameter is the degree to which the governance of the scheme
could be complementary to the governance and mandate of the SRI. For example,
if the governance is seen to be too partial or structured to favour certain economic
interests then linkage with the scheme may risk a conflict of interest for the SRI.
The government (EU and/or Member State, region) implemented initiatives have
the least risk of conflicts of interest.
Among the private sector schemes the governance is often structured for an
association with a privately agreed constitution.
2.1.1.17 Conclusions
The analysis above has illustrated that there is some degree of complementarity
and overlap between the SRI and all the schemes, or initiatives mentioned.
However, the extent varies, and so does the degree to which they share common
aspects (and hence could help to leverage each other by minimising duplicative
effort and providing a more comprehensive service offer, which could raise their
value proposition).
The collective value proposition of the SRI, were it to be implemented conjointly

with the other initiatives, is always complementary as each initiative addresses a
different but related topic to the SRI. Some of the initiatives address broad scope,
addressing multiple parameters, much as the SRI does, while others are much
more narrowly focused.
The government (EU and/or Member State, region) mandated initiatives have the
least risk of conflict of interest and as several operate through the EPBD have
potential to share similar operational and governance platforms. Those that entail
site visits have the potential to support and complement the operational side of
the SRI if an SRI is to be based on on-site assessment.
The greatest potential scale benefits, and hence potential impact, is offered by the
prospect of linkages with the schemes that have the broadest coverage – EPCs,
EPBD Article 8 measures, EPBD Article 14 & 15 measures, energy labelling of
installed heating and hot water systems, and smart metering.
More modest scale effects would be expected from linkage with the other
initiatives, but they can bring different benefits and could help in a) creating a
stronger collective value proposition (especially for the new initiatives) and b)

helping to trial SRI implementation in relatively favourable operational
environments prior to a more extensive roll out.
2.1.2 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR

IMPLEMENTING THE SRI AT EU-LEVEL AND AT MEMBER STATE-LEVEL
This section addresses the identification and analysis of the possible options for
implementing the SRI at EU-level and at Member States-level.
In the course of this work the study team have assessed a broad spectrum of
prospective implementation options at both the EU and Member State levels and
combinations thereof. Specifically, the assessment has determined and analysed:
• the different approaches for assessing the indicator of a given building /

building unit (e.g. on-site inspections by certified experts, self-assessment by
building owners or third parties potentially coupled with random control, etc.)
• different approaches for the organisation of the scheme (players involved, their
roles, interactions and activities)
• different possible connections and coupling with existing schemes – being
voluntary environmental performance schemes or national energy
performance certificate schemes
• the need for qualification / certification schemes of experts (where relevant);
etc.
2.1.2.1 Approaches for assessing the SRI of a given building
As previous sections have described the currently most viable assessment method
for an SRI requires a person on-site to conduct the assessment. The only exception
to this is the case of a person who is off-site with access to all the requisite
information through pre-collected data available via BIM (e.g. a digital twin
model), digital logbooks, building renovation passports etc.; however, in the start-
up phase of the SRI such instances will be extremely rare if not inexistent. For
assessments to be conducted on site there are options with regard to how qualified
and how independent the assessor is. If a certified SRI is to be issued the assessor
would need to be a certified 3rd party assessor, suitably qualified to do the
assessment. If a certified SRI is not required, then the SRI would not have the
same status and external market value and hence it is more of a matter for the
agency procuring the assessment as to the degree of qualification and
independence required. Many building owners, occupants, portfolio managers, or
facility managers might wish to conduct self-assessments of the properties they
have responsibility for. The degree of technical competence of those delivering
such self-assessments could vary appreciably.
A priori it is imagined that both pathways (self-assessment and 3rd party

assessment) would be options within the implementation of the scheme but that
mechanisms would be established to ensure they are clearly distinguished and are
not confused or conflated in the market.
In the case of formal 3rd party assessments quality control instruments would need
to be established as discussed further in the sub-section on quality and training in
this same section and in section 3.2.2.

2.1.2.2 Approaches for the organisation of the scheme
The organisation of the scheme requires clarification of the following:
• legal framework at EU and MS level

• lead implementation entities at EU and MS levels
• management of the calculation methodology
• management of calculation tools
• assessment methods and establishment of a pool of assessors
• certification
• data management
• promotion and awareness raising
• quality assurance
• training
• conformity assessment and market surveillance
• managing its online presence
• help desk and technical support
• legal enforceability
• legal liabilities.
These are discussed in depth in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
2.1.2.3 Potential connections and coupling with existing schemes
Section 1.2.2 presented a review of existing schemes that might inform

development of the SRI and/or which it could potentially link to. Section 2.2.1
looks explicitly at these schemes and appraises their characteristics. From this the
following conclusions can be drawn about the potential linkage of the SRI with
these initiatives.
Formal linkage should only be sought if it will bring clear beneficial synergies.
Those synergies would include:
• shared assessment costs thereby reducing assessment compared to the case

where both schemes conduct assessments in the same building stock
independently to each other
• potential to mutually reinforce the value proposition i.e. the value proposition
of both schemes implemented collectively or mutually would be greater than
were both operated wholly independently
• ability to reinforce the scale of reach i.e. that through the establishment of
such linkages the number of the target audience reached by the schemes is
increased
• compatibility in terms of objectives
• compatibility in terms of governance
• compatibility with regard to the target audiences to be addressed.

Table 11 shows a matrix of the schemes considered in section 2.2.1 screened
against these criteria. From this it can be concluded that all the schemes have
compatible objectives with the SRI. Almost all would enhance the overall value
proposition were they to be linked with the SRI. They almost all have strongly
compatible target audiences. Many have compatible governance. Most undertake
site visits which the SRI could potentially leverage to reduce the cost of
assessments associated with establishing contact with the target audience, gaining
permission for an assessment and travel to and from the premises (a considerable
part of the total). The largest differentiator is the extent to which linkage could
reinforce the scale of reach of the SRI. In that regard the schemes which have
major reach, mostly due to mandatory implementation, offer much greater
potential leverage of scale than those which do not.

Table 11 – Screening of linkage factors by scheme or action
Scheme/ Shares Reinforces Reinforces Compatible Compatible Compatible

initiative or assessment the value the scale of objectives governance target
action costs proposition reach audience
EU schemes
EPBD
associated
EPCs Y Y VS Y Y Y
HVAC Y Y S Y Y Y
inspections
Article 8 TBS Y - Y VS Y Y Y
provisions
not-EPBD
associated
Level(s) Y Y L Y Y Y
BIM & digital Y Y M Y N Y

logbook
Voluntary N Y U Y Y U
European
Cybersecurity
Certification
scheme
Broadband Y Y L Y Y Y
ready label
Ecodesign/ELR Y - Y VS Y Y Y
PEF N L L Y Y Related but

not direct
Other schemes
Sustainability
certification
BREEAM Y Y L Y U Y
HQE Y Y L Y U Y
DGNB Y Y L Y U Y
LEED Y Y L Y U Y
Building Y Y L Y Y Y
renovation
passports

Smart
metering
related
Smart Y - Y VS MS specific Y
metering roll-
out
Smart
Buildings
Initiatives
SBA U Y in France Y U Y
SAREF N Y U Y Y Only
domestic
Key
Y = yes
N = no
VS = very strongly
S = strongly
M = medium
L = limited
U = uncertain
MS = Member State
Considering these factors, it is clear that the impact of the SRI would be greatly
enhanced were it possible to establish linkages between it and the most promising
of these existing schemes. Even for those that would have less impact for the SRI
there is clear complementarity, which means that efforts should be made to ensure
the implementation is complementary.
2.1.2.4 Qualification / certification schemes of experts
The reliability of and trust in the experts used to deliver the scheme will be a key
success factor in building confidence in the assessments and advice it provides.
The most critical aspect will be to ensure that 3rd party assessors mandated by the
scheme to formal 3rd party assessments are suitably qualified and deliver an
impartial, consistent and accurate assessment in strict accordance with the rules
established in the methodology.
This requires high quality training, mechanisms to ensure that assessors are
competent and ideally a performance verification process with the option of
retraining and/or disqualifying assessors who do not correctly implement
assessments.

In general, the approach used to deliver this is to establish the trainer schemes,
wherein agencies that are hired to deliver training are accredited for competence
and for establishing and abiding by prescribed procedures in delivering the
training. Accredited training agencies can deliver certified training for assessors
allowing them to be certified as competent and eligible 3 rd party assessors and
added to registers of available assessors. There are evidently costs associated with
developing and delivering such accreditation/training/certification and there are
also issues of scale-up and throughput rates that affect how rapidly a pool of
trained and certified 3rd party assessors can be established. A priori this is an area
where the SRI could aim to leverage efforts made with existing schemes such as
EPCs, HVAC inspectors, building inspectors, sustainability assessors etc. to make
use of the existing training/accreditation and certification infrastructure to speed
up the throughput and reduce the costs associated with establishing a pool of
qualified assessors. However, the strength of compatibility with the SRI
assessment method and the existing training/qualification process would need to
be mapped and necessary adjustments made. In particular, as SRI assessment is
distinct from the other on-site assessment/inspection/installation activities it
would require those who are already qualified/certified to deliver such services to
receive additional training, qualification and certification which means that the
synergies (through reduced costs) would not be as great as cases for which a
prospective assessor is being trained for both schemes. If retraining/re-
qualification is required for existing schemes, then the synergy would be greater.
The above discussion presumes that 3rd party assessment will be a component of
the scheme; however, for cases where self-assessment is used there is still a need
to provide guidance and training for self-assessors. These could encompass online
documents, advice and training videos as well as hosting training events at cost
for professionals who are willing to pay to be trained to do self-assessments.
2.1.3 DEFINING A SET OF ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE IMPLEMENTATION

PATHWAYS FOR THE ROLL-OUT OF THE SRI IN THE EU
Considering the analysis set out above it is clear that there are a broad range of
potential pathways the SRI could follow in its implementation. Furthermore, there
are a great many variants or combinations of options that could be adopted. Given
this and given that very few sub-options are mutually exclusive, the focus for this
first draft of these pathways is necessarily to focus on the main distinctions and
map the most promising or distinctive set of pathways which capture these.
A principal rationale for making a linkage with other schemes or actions is the
degree to which the linkage would help to roll-out the SRI to be able to cover a
significant proportion of the EU building stock in an efficient manner. Viewed from
this perspective the onus is upon identifying linkages that can help the SRI attain
a large scale of deployment. It is therefore appropriate to assess the extent to
which the schemes, initiatives and actions presented in section 2.2.1 cover the EU
building stock over time. For non-residential buildings the order of
scheme/initiative/action coverage (ranked from highest coverage to lowest) is as
follows:
• EPCs (>5% per annum)

• HVAC inspections or installation/replacement of technical building systems
(~5% per annum)
• smart metering deployment (~3% per annum)
• major renovations (~1% per annum)
• new construction (~0.9% per annum).

For all other initiatives mentioned the annual rate of coverage of the building stock
is either less than 0.1% per annum or is unknown.
For residential buildings the order of scheme/initiative/action coverage (ranked

from highest coverage to lowest) is as follows:
• installation/replacement of technical building systems (~5% per annum)

• EPCs (~3.4% per annum)
• smart metering deployment (~3% per annum)
• HVAC inspections or installation/replacement of technical building systems
(~2.7% per annum)
• new construction (~1% per annum)
• major renovations (~0.8% per annum).
For all other initiatives mentioned the annual rate of coverage of the building stock
is either less than 0.1% per annum or is unknown.
The above figures are EU average figures based on analysis of various sources but
principally the EU Building Stock Observatory database. The actual future rate of
coverage will vary by EU Member State and in response to future plans (rather
than historical actions), and hence the reported values are only indicative;
however, broadly speaking their relative orders of magnitude are likely to be quite
stable for most member states.
Considering that the biggest challenge the SRI will have to deliver significant
impact is the volume of assessments that are conducted and considering that there
are strong synergies between potential assessment volumes and linkages with
other schemes the following set of pathways are proposed.
A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory way) so an

assessment would be offered each time an EPC is conducted
B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each
time a new build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement
C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by
on-line tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing
to pay for it
D. As option C, but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by
the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out demand side flexibility, energy
efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures
E. Linkage to the BACS/TBS deployment trigger points in Articles 8, 14 & 15
in the EPBD
F. Linkage to smart meter deployment.
In principle, a mosaic of the above is also an option, noting that Member States
have subsidiarity with regard to the SRI so may choose any of these options – also
combinations of A/B/C/D/E/F are possible within any single MS. It is also possible
to consider pathways that link to other initiatives that are not mentioned in this
list, however, as these are likely to have much lower levels of building stock
coverage such options might be most appropriate as complementary actions
and/or as vehicles to trial roll-out options.

The set of pathways set out above covers a range of primary options which offer
different cases with regard to the main assessment method, the likely rate that
assessments are conducted (and hence the coverage of the targeted building
stock), staging of trigger events within the building lifecycle, and whether or not
the scheme is wholly independent or links to another initiative. A key rationale
unpinning the choice of principal pathways is the distinction between them in how
they relate to the building lifecycle e.g. new buildings, buildings undergoing major
renovation, buildings having new TBS/meter installed, buildings having an
inspection, or existing buildings with no specific trigger event.
Of the pathways that link to other initiatives (pathways A, B, E and F) it is relevant

that three of these (pathways A, B & E) are linked to other EPBD initiatives while
the other (pathway F) is also linked to another government controlled/influenced
smart energy-related initiative. This is because these are the most promising set
of initiatives which could help leverage the benefits of linkages, which have major
scale (and hence support a high rate of SRI assessment deployment) but are also
most easily related to the SRI’s objectives, governance and stakeholder
community. Linkage with the installer energy labelling scheme for space and
water-heating systems could also be an option but, as an architype would be
expected to behave very similarly to pathway E and thus, they can be considered
to be somewhat interchangeable at this stage.
Those pathways that don’t necessarily link to other initiatives (pathways C and D)
encompass a more voluntary approach where market actors would engage with
the SRI only if they consider there to be sufficient merit in the SRI’s value
proposition as a wholly independent initiative. In addition, a critical distinction is
that unlike the pathways with linkages to other schemes, there is no automatic
introduction of the SRI to the target audience. Thus, the target audience has to
already be aware of the SRI and choose to engage with it for an assessment (online
or expert on-site) to be commissioned/undertaken. This means that in the absence
of strong and effective marketing efforts uptake rates would be expected to be
much lower. Pathway D aims to compensate for this by providing incentives to
participate in the scheme, which, dependent on how attractive they are, would
help to increase uptake rates. Of course, incentives can be provided with any of
these pathways but are likely to add most extra uptake impact when added to
pathway C as the other scenarios entail adapting existing delivery mechanisms to
ensure uptake occurs. One route by which incentives could be established is to
use the powers of the Energy Efficiency Directive Article 7 concerning the
establishment of energy efficiency obligations (EEO) for utilities or energy savings
policies more generally as a vehicle to create funding for the incentives.
For clarity, pathways A and B are the only ones where linkage is made to an
existing assessment scheme (the EPC for pathway A, or the EPC and building code
inspectorate process for pathway B). Pathways E and F are linked to an event
where an external professional party is visiting the property (to install a BACS/TBS
for pathway E, or a smart meter for pathway F), but neither of these ordinarily
involves an inspection of the building. Nonetheless, as the professional entities
engaged in these activities are qualified in areas which are pertinent to some smart
building features, some of them are already required to issue labels or certificates
(e.g. energy labels for space and hot water systems or safety certificates), their
installations are subject to legal conformity requirements (e.g. meeting Member
State imposed energy performance requirements under the terms of Article 8 of
the EPBD), and critically they involve high volumes of buildings being visited and
hence have the potential to achieve significant scale.

Numerous sub-options to this principal set of implementation pathways can also
be envisaged and are discussed further in section 4.3 in relation to the analysis of
impacts. Specifically, this makes additional distinctions between pathways based
on whether they are mandatory, voluntary or voluntary with the application of
incentives.
However, another key issue, which is partly principal pathway independent, is the
choice and types of buildings these pathways would be applied to including in
terms of both building function (principal pathway independent) and stages in the
building lifecycle (does have linkages with the principal pathway).
In practice, the eligible building types could be targeted distinctly and

differentiated with regard to the mode of implementation. These differentiations
could be designed to evolve over the scheme’s roll-out or be permanent structural
aspects of the scheme. Choices of this nature will mostly be made at Member State
level and may only have limited implications for the centrally managed aspects of
the scheme. At the Member State level, they will be critical though. Numerous
options exist, but in all cases, except those where only self-assessment is
considered, roll-out of the scheme will need to be scaled-up over time to ensure
that there are adequately qualified assessors available to deliver the assessment
process. This aspect alone could favour targeting certain building types and/or
buildings as a function of the engagement mechanism with their lifecycle.

2.2 ACTIVITY 2: INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMAT OF THE SRI
This activity involves the conduct of research to determine potential designs for
the format of the SRI. This recognizes that for the scheme to be effective it will
need to have an attractive and recognizable format that gives visibility to the SRI
and effectively conveys information to end users of the scheme such as home
owners and tenants, both tertiary building owners and users and facility managers.
The decisions regarding the SRI format need to resolve the following:
• How should the scope of the scheme be communicated in a transparent

manner?
• How should intrinsic concepts embedded within the SRI be clarified?
• What information is to be communicated?
• Which information will be presented to which audiences?
• How will the information be presented visually?
• What media will be used to present the information?
• Should the scheme be branded and if so how?
• How should its format be conditional on interactions with other schemes?
2.2.1 COMMUNICATING THE SCOPE OF THE SCHEME IN A TRANSPARENT

MANNER
Besides the policymakers and stakeholders directly involved in the development

and implementation of the EPBD, the Directive, and its purpose are unlikely to be
widely known. All stakeholders have agreed that transparency will be one of the
key success factors for the SRI, because without it there is a heightened risk that
the target audiences will:
• not understand the SRI

• not engage with it
• become mistrustful of it.
The first and most essential aspect of this transparency will be to communicate
what the scheme does address and what it doesn’t. This is likely to be a critical
issue for the SRI’s success because if its target audiences feel that the SRI does
not address what they believe it claims to be addressing then they are likely to
quickly lose confidence in it. However, communication of the scope is not a simple
matter for such a multi-faceted instrument as the SRI. The scope is broadly
defined in the Directive as set out in the following three pillars:
• The ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the occupant
paying due attention to the availability of user-friendliness, maintaining
healthy indoor climate conditions and ability to report on energy use
• The ability to maintain energy efficiency performance and operation of the
building through the adaptation of energy consumption for example through
use of energy from renewable sources
• The flexibility of a building's overall electricity demand, including its ability to
enable participation in active and passive as well as implicit and explicit
demand-response, in relation to the grid, for example through demand side
flexibility and load shifting capacities.

The degree to which these pillars are comprehensible, understood and resonant
with the target audiences are an open question but a priori it should be expected
that the concepts they convey are only partially in line with what many people
would consider to be meant by building smartness and that there is much else
which concerns aspects of building smartness which are not addressed in the three
pillars. In particular, they do not focus on or encompass smart building services
related to the following:
• Entertainment
• Communications
• AV environments
• Aesthetics
• Safety
• Security
• Accessibility.
Smart services and technologies which relate to these aspects are already the
predominant part of the smart-buildings services/technologies market and thus
their relationship to the SRI cannot be ignored. Failing to address this is likely to
create confusion and a risk of the SRI being dismissed.
When considering the requirements of the SRI imposed in the EPBD it is clear that
all the services and functionalities within its scope are energy-related in some
manner. Therefore, the formatting issue to address is how best to communicate
that the SRI, at least in its initial framing, is only concerned with energy-related
aspects of building smartness.
When considering this it is important to appreciate that informational scope can

be communicated both explicitly and implicitly and that contextual framing can be
important. For example, were the SRI to be presented as an element or extra
aspect with an Energy Performance Certificate, audiences are more likely to
implicitly understand its energy related nature because of the broader energy-
related context in which the SRI is being framed. On the other hand, if there is no
broader context that the SRI is placed within its scope would be in more need of
being explicitly framed to avoid confusion. Using text to explicitly explain the SRI’s
context is always an option but its limitations also need to be understood. If text
is lengthy and much has to be read before the basic purpose of something can be
understood then there is a risk target users could ignore it and even ignore the
whole initiative because they might feel it is too much effort to grasp and that
doing so is in competition with other compelling opportunities for their time and
attention, whose value proposition might be much more apparent. Thus, the aim
is to communicate the essential aspects about its scope as succinctly as possible
while also minimising the risk of misinterpretation of what it addresses. As this
can involve trade-offs combining a simple indicative and/or implicit framing
approach can often be complemented by the provision of more detailed
information that users can refer to once they have overcome the first hurdle of
knowing what the scheme is broadly about, and hence whether they wish to invest
additional time in learning more. Also, it’s important to appreciate that in practice
there will be a spectrum of users with different informational needs – even if the
scheme is designed to be targeted towards specific groups. Thus, there is always
a need to devise a communication format that works as effectively as possible for
the chosen target audience.

2.2.1.1 Approach to resolving this issue:
To help to understand how the SRI’s scope is likely to be understood and how best
to transparently and efficiently communicate it the study team set out to test the
topic with two key target audiences:
• focus groups made up of the general public who either own or rent buildings
• surveys with facility managers.
The former cover typical prospective SRI users from the residential and small non-
residential building sector, while the latter cover prospective users from the mid-
and large non-residential building sector and a subset of larger multi-family
residences.
The approach entails initially gaining an insight into what the target audiences
autonomously understand smart buildings to be about, and what aspects of
smartness they think they encompass, before introducing the notion of the smart
readiness indicator in a general sense. After having done so they can then be
questioned on what areas of smartness they imagine the SRI would address, and
what they believe it should address, and then only after that would they be
informed of the energy-related scope of the SRI. At this juncture they can be asked
how do they think this scope should be clarified to avoid confusion.
2.2.2 CLARIFICATION OF INTRINSIC CONCEPTS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE SRI
Just as there’s a need to communicate the scope of the SRI there’s also a need to
provide information to explain and clarify the intrinsic concepts embedded within
the SRI. Users will need to feel that they understand these aspects for the scheme
to have any traction, so it’s important to present the information in as transparent
a manner as possible. This thought has had a significant impact on the discussions
about the structure of the SRI reported in section 1.3.3.3. While the EPBD requires
the SRI to respond to the three pillars, as reported above, it also clarifies the
elements that these need to address, which has led to the impact criteria choices
proposed in the first study and modified as set out in section 1.3.3.3. It is likely
that if presented in a compound manner the three pillars may be too aggregate to
be able to transparently communicate their intrinsic meaning, especially to target
audiences (the majority) who are not well versed in energy and energy policy. As
experience shows that lack of transparency has a seriously negative impact on the
resonance and impact of schemes that aim to trigger a voluntary engagement (in
this case stimulate adoption of beneficial smart services) then it is essential to
establish the extent to which the format of the scheme is successful at
communicating the intrinsic concepts embedded within it. The degree to which the
intrinsic concepts are communicable and how that is affected by the structure of
the SRI is one of the aspects that needed to be tested with the target audiences.
Stakeholder views were canvassed on these topics through the stakeholder

consultation process and Topical Group meetings. These tended towards
convergence on an SRI structure that uses the three pillars as a structure to arrive
at weightings in an aggregated scoring system while the impact categories feed
into these as they are inherently more tangible, measurable and communicable.
However, the next step was to test this thesis with the SRI’s target audiences. As
set out above a mixture of consumer focus groups and surveys of stakeholders is

used to gain insights into these issues (see sections 2.3.11 and 2.3.12). They have
been structured to probe the degree to which the inherent concepts within the SRI
are understood and comprehensible, their salience to the target audience, and
their capability of being communicated within the SRI’s structure. The findings
from this research is intended to build on the stakeholder feedback to both clarify
the most viable structure and SRI format and identify problem areas where extra
care and attention will be needed to avoid losing engagement.
2.2.3 THE SET OF INFORMATION TO BE COMMUNICATED
In principle, the SRI informational set includes information on the following:
• the SRI scores

• guidance and advice on how to improve SRI scores
• explanation of the scope of the scheme
• the calculation methodology
• the SRI functionality levels
• the scheme itself, including its provenance, governance, implementation, data
protection and current status
• related topics such as interoperability and cybersecurity.
2.2.3.1 Information on SRI scores
As has been made clear in the previous chapters, the SRI contains information
that can be presented at multiple levels. At an aggregate level it could contain an
overall ranking on a building’s smartness as determined and expressed within the
confines of the scope of the scheme and the SRI’s definition. Equally, though, at
the sub-aggregate level it contains information on intrinsically more tangible
aspects such as the energy efficiency performance of a control solution for a
specific technical building system, or the delivery of indoor air quality. Proper
engagement in the consideration of what information set should be communicated
probably has to be presaged by consideration of the conflicting needs of:
• delivering information simply and efficiently

• delivering information clearly, tangibly and understandably.
Not surprisingly, and quite reasonably, when asked about these aspects,
stakeholders have tended to demand both; however, they when it comes to the
SRI they are not really fully compatible. This is because simplicity and efficiency
dictates an informational format that conveys the core message at a glance;
however, determining the “smartness of a building” necessarily involves
assessment across multiple parameters in the form of a multi-criteria assessment,
which requires an aggregation based on ranking the sub-criteria and that requires
application of a values-based relative weighting (because the sub-criteria are
intrinsically non-comparable for the most part) – this whole process is complex
and inherently less transparent.
As discussed previously, smartness scores or rankings could be presented at the

whole building (aggregated) level, the domain (technical building service) level,
the impact criterion level, and at the intersection of an impact criterion with a
technical domain level (including the functionality for each specific domain and
impact criterion intersection). All of this information will be embedded within an

SRI assessment tool and hence are options for information that could be presented
to a given target audience.
When asked about the importance of presenting information at the levels of an

aggregate whole building score, and at the sub-level (e.g. per impact criterion or
per technical domain) the majority of stakeholders proposed that it should be
presented at both the aggregate and the sub-level. The next preferred option is
just to present it at the sub-level (i.e. not to use an aggregate score) and the least
preferred option is just to present it at the aggregate level. Discussions on this
topic with stakeholders in the two topical groups tended to reveal that a reason
for wishing to see sub-score information presented is that it is more tangible, and
hence comprehensible, as it avoids aggregation and weighting across impacts etc.
Another reason is that it allows users to focus on the aspects of smartness that
resonate most for them and thus is more likely to meet their needs. Those that
have argued for a single aggregate score have supported this position because
they assert that it is much simpler for users to assimilate and does not require
investment of significant time to process and retain. This, it is suggested, is likely
to appeal to a larger set of the population than a more detailed scoring approach.
Considering these seemingly conflicting approaches is potentially why a majority

of stakeholders supported the notion of presenting both an aggregate overall score
and sub-scores. In principle, the aggregate score could be presented in the most
prominent way to make it clearer that it is the overarching score, while the sub-
scores could be organised in a supporting format – such as a table. However, other
approaches are also possible depending on the media used to convey the
information.
2.2.3.2 Information on guidance and advice on how to improve SRI scores
Most buildings will have plenty of potential to increase their smartness and as the
SRI will establish their smart readiness functionality it can also be used to indicate
what options exist to improve the building’s smartness by raising the functionality
of smart services. This information could simply be structured to show what the
available higher levels are, or also, to explain these higher levels in more depth,
clarify what extra functionality they would provide and offer information on the
types of services that would provide them. Furthermore, guidance on how to
improve the SRI score of a building could be provided in a generic way without
input from the user, or in a targeted way in response to targeted requests from
the user about specific domains or impacts.
When consulted on this topic stakeholders tended to strongly support the notion
of presenting guidance on how to improve SRI scores to the SRI target audiences;
however, this raises the issue of how best to do this without overloading the user.
If a printed document is to be presented to the SRI user, then this is likely to be
constrained in size and potentially to be counterproductive if it becomes over long.
Based on the practice with EPCs that include improvement advice, this tends to be
quite focused and limited to listing a few improvement options which would have
the greatest impact (sometimes also expressed in terms of cost-
effectiveness).This SRI is inherently more complex because it addresses multiple
impacts, where in principle the same hierarchical approach could be presented per
impact criterion e.g. a list of the improvement options which would improve the
given impact, ranked in order of their importance for the impact criterion score.
However, this risks becoming rather long, and perhaps would risk focusing too
much on large jumps in smartness score rather than on (potentially) more
affordable incremental steps. The same could be said about a list of the options

that would present the greatest improvement in an overall (aggregate) score. The
reality is that different users are likely to have different needs.
2.2.3.3 Information to explain the scope of the scheme
As previously discussed, efficiently clarifying the scheme’s scope will be critical to

establish confidence in it. Again, information could be provided on this verbally
(by an assessor), in written documentation, and on-line.
2.2.3.4 Information on the calculation methodology
Many users are likely to want to understand the calculation methodology used in
the scheme, but their interest is likely to range from a simple explanation of the
basic approach to a detailed explanation of each functionality score and how the
aggregate score is derived.
2.2.3.5 Information on smart service functionality levels
Users of the SRI assessment who are considering upgrading the functionality of
smart services in their buildings are particularly likely to welcome explanations of
the current functionality levels and what the prospective higher functionality levels
are for any given service. Thus, presenting information and guidance on this is
likely to be a key part of the SRI’s success factor as an agent for change towards
smarter buildings.
2.2.3.6 Information on the SRI scheme itself, including its provenance,

governance, implementation, data protection and current status
Many users will wish to have information on the scheme itself, including who is
behind it, what its provenance is, how it is operated, what its governance is, how
it uses and protects their data, and its current status. How this can be best
provided might be contextual.
2.2.3.7 Information on related topics such as interoperability,

cybersecurity and complementary schemes
Lastly, many users will also have informational needs regarding associated topics
such as interoperability of smart services, cybersecurity issues, linkages and
distinctions between the SRI and other schemes, such as EPCs, Level(s),
broadband ready label, etc.
Stakeholder views on these topics were partially canvassed, as discussed, and this
helped to provide some clear perspectives. The missing element was to establish
how actual prospective users of the SRI might respond and react to the various
possibilities regarding informational content (addressed in section 2.3.12). A
priori, though it was already clear that the more diverse the user needs are with
regards to the SRI informational content the more likely that a navigable,
hierarchical, on-line information delivery system will be required. This could be
complemented by printed media and verbal exchanges with an assessor but if
informational richness, and diversity of information, is required then that is best
delivered in a digital on-line platform.
To explore the user responses to these issues further the study team set out to
probe the responses of the two key target audiences:

• the general public who either own or rent buildings, via focus groups
• facility managers by informal surveys.
The findings are discussed in section 2.3.
2.2.4 TARGETING INFORMATION TO THE NATURE OF THE AUDIENCE
While it’s clear that different types of users will have different informational needs
and responses to the SRI it’s also apparent that there are structural differences
between potential SRI audiences. On a first level the audiences (especially when
considered in terms of the audience of first contact) can be distinguished between
professional and non-professional. Professional audiences at the property level for
the SRI will include: (from downstream to upstream) facility managers, property
portfolio managers, system commissioners, building service engineers, systems
integrators, system designers, builders, architects and developers. Beyond those
directly responsible for operation, maintenance and upgrade of a building they will
include service providers, utilities and investors. The primary target for the SRI
within this structure is the entity of first contact with an SRI assessment, i.e. the
facility manager.
A priori it can be anticipated that these professional audiences will have, and
demand, a deeper understanding of the SRI and its elements than (the majority)
of non-professional audiences. This implies that the richness of information that
would be appropriate for the professional users of the SRI will need to be greater
than for the typical non-professional. The non-professional audience is superficially
simpler in that they entail home owners & tenants; however, there is also a large
part of the non-residential building stock that is used by small businesses and has
a very similar demographic in terms of those that would be the first receivers of
SRI information and make decisions about smart services and investments.
Furthermore, many smart services are pioneered in residences and targeted at
the spectrum of inhabitants and needs – these include everything from early
technology adopters to those with little interest or understanding of technology.
Broadly speaking though professional users will usually require more in-depth
information presented in more sophisticated formats than non-professional users
– they are equally likely to wish to exert more effort to mine and process the
information obtained. Considerations of these aspects, informed by stakeholder
consultation, gave rise to the following set of archetypal SRI assessment formats.
Although it was initially considered that “simplified on-line quick scans” could be
offered to residential sector users and expert SRI assessments with on-site
inspection by independent 3rd party assessors to non-residential users,
discussions with stakeholders have highlighted the request to allow both (informal)
self-assessments and (formal) expert assessments on residential and non-
residential buildings. As such, these archetypes combine several aspects that are
neither necessarily mutually exclusive nor likely to exclusively suit the needs of
building sector specific target audiences, so they are better considered as vehicles
to frame discussion and analysis than definitive proposals at this stage of the SRI’s
development.

Figure 25 – Archetypal assessment methods
2.2.5 TARGETING INFORMATION TO THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING STOCK
The previous section considered potential informational differentiation in response

to the nature of the target audience as these are the recipients an processors of
the SRI information; however, the information can also be related to the type and
nature of building being assessed, such that small, simple buildings are likely to
have more limited TBSs and service domains than larger and more complex
buildings, such as multi-modal buildings with a disparate set of occupants engaged
in diverse activities. There is clearly a strong correlation between building function
and the nature of the primary SRI audience, such that smaller buildings will usually
be residential or small commercial premises, while larger buildings, excepting
large multi-family residences, will tend to be non-residential; however, this is a
correlation but is not deterministic. Furthermore, the smart services which are
most appropriate for a given non-residential building could be dependent on the
primary building function such that a clinic may well tend to need a somewhat
different blend of smart services, than a supermarket, a warehouse, a hotel or a
hospital, for example.
2.2.5.1 Approach to resolving this issue
Canvassing of stakeholder views on this topic.
2.2.6 A HIERARCHY OF INFORMATIONAL NEEDS
The earlier discussion has highlighted the array of informational circumstances and
needs that the SRI should address. This covers everything from a simple logo
and/or mnemonic that identifies that the information is related to the SRI by
readily associating it with the scheme in a clear format, and possibly conveys high-
level ranking information, sub-scores, explanations of smartness and smart
functionality, advice on how to upgrade, details of specific functionalities and
services, and informational about the scheme itself. At the top of this hierarchy
will be the logo/mnemonic/image and simple text that identifies that the scheme
is about the SRI - this may also present a high-level score. The next layer down

can be sub-scores by domain and/or impact criteria, complemented by such
explanation or hints regarding the scheme’s scope, beyond this will be the
additional explanatory information and guidance.
2.2.7 VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION
The manner in which the information is presented is likely to make a significant

difference to its impact as a change agent. The images used, and structure of the
visual organisation of the information, will determine this impact.
2.2.7.1 Logo
A logo is a symbol or other small design adopted by an organization to identify its

products, uniform, vehicles, etc. The SRI could make use of a logo to immediately
visually brand it in users minds and create an identity for the scheme.
2.2.7.2 Mnemonics
Mnemonics are used to simplify the processing and retention of information. The
most famous example in the energy sector is the energy label that ranks appliance
efficiency from A to G and is reinforced by colour coding (Green to Red). Other
examples of mnemonics used to simplify rankings are the number of stars e.g. a
5-star hotel.
Mnemonics have already been used by the study team to simply convey some
aspects of the scheme, as shown below, however, these are simply working ideas
and have not been formally elaborated or tested in the field. Alternative
mnemonics are possible and in principle could help to communicate both a top line
performance classification while also creating an identity for the scheme (much as
a logo aims to do). In this sense mnemonics can serve a dual function, as they
can fulfil the role of a brand while also conveying a classification or ranking in a
relatively concise manner.
Figure 26 – Example mnemonics
Various questions are under consideration about this topic including:
• Should mnemonics be used for the SRI? (does the answer depend on the target
audience?)

• If the answer is yes, then, should they be used in combination with numerical
scores or as a replacement?
• Is some form of A to G and/or colour-coded mnemonic an option, or does it
risk confusion vis a vis energy labelling and EPCs?
• What other mnemonic scales could/should be considered?
These are issues best resolved through research with the target audience. To
undertake this the study team engaged a professional graphic designer to develop
various design options and tested these with consumer focus groups and
professional stakeholders – see section 2.2.11 and 2.2.12.
2.2.8 CHOICE OF MEDIA USED TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION
In principle, the following media can be used to present the information assembled
through an SRI assessment:
• verbal communication from the assessor to the person present when the
assessment was conducted
• physical printed material
• on-line digital information.
Theoretically, any one-, or any combination of these could be used, including all
three, to convey the requisite information. The decision about which should be
used will be contingent upon:
• the choice of implementation pathway

• the nature of the audience and their anticipated needs & level of interest
• practical constraints that might affect the informational pathways and depth of
information which can be offered.
Unless telephonic support services are used verbal communication is contingent

on there being a site visit and hence would be undertaken by an assessor. It would
become part of the assessor’s job to not only conduct the assessment but also
explain it, answer user questions on site, and potentially also provide guidance on
how to improve smartness. Verbal communication has the advantage that it is
interactive and can humanise the scheme which helps to build confidence in it. On
the other hand, it has the limitation that it is time constrained, is potentially costly
and may be difficult to ensure standardised information.
Printed media, can include:
• a physical mnemonic/logo combined with scores

• a physical printed document
• a physical certificate.
It could be as compact as a label or as lengthy as report. It could encompass, each

or all of: a label (that potentially could be placed in a prominent position – much
as is done with EPC assessments of public buildings), a certificate (that can be

used as evidence that a 3rd party assessment has been done and include scoring
information), and a document/report to provide more extensive details about the
scheme, the scoring, and advice on the most promising upgrade options. Printed
media has the advantage that it provides a certain status and formality/finality to
an assessment and is suitable to produce as evidence. It also poses no data
security issues or liabilities for the scheme’s implementors. It has the
disadvantages that it takes up physical space and resources, requires storage and
could be lost, but also that it is not interactive and hence necessarily follows a
rigid standardised format.
An alternative and/or complementary option is to use electronic media to convey

the SRI’s information. This can be held on-line and can be interactive. As it is on-
line it can be as extensive as required without posing significant issues about
resources. It also has the very considerable advantage that it can be structured in
a hierarchical navigable manner that would allow users to focus on the aspects of
the SRI that they wish to know about in an interactive manner. It can also be
readily updated so as new information becomes available that can be added
without any limitations, and without requiring a fresh site visit. In principle, an on-
line SRI platform can also allow users to examine how their scores would change
as a function of smart service upgrades and thus to examine the consequences
from making prospective changes – this could provide a major additional
motivational aspect to the scheme for some users.
A potential risk with an on-line scheme is that if user building data has to be
entered into an on-line database then it could raise risks and concerns about
breaches in data confidentiality and cybersecurity. Even if best GDPR and
cybersecurity practices are followed the perception of risk could still deter
engagement from users who are particularly sensitive to these concerns.
On the other hand, as on-line services are strongly associated with smartness to
many users it would seem intuitively appropriate to manage some or all aspects
of the SRI on-line and would reinforce its central message and value proposition.
For example, if a user were at retail outlet and were considering a smart service
purchase to have the option of examining via their smartphone how the proposed
product/service would impact their buildings smartness could be seen as being
very convenient and immediate, and therefore add value to the SRI’s proposition.
As these various media have different pros and cons a blend of methods could be
the most appropriate. An on-line platform could be provided for all SRI users
regardless of whether they might use it to undertake a self-assessment, to gain
advice or updated information, or as a repository for a professional assessment
(3rd party or otherwise). The detail of assessment could also be flexible – with a
basic assessment, a detailed assessment and even higher levels of detail offered
in principle. The nature and status of the assessment could be tracked and could
be provable if appropriate user ID were to be confirmed. Different vintages of SRI
assessment for the same property could also be stored, allowing the evolution of
a property’s smartness to be tracked and equated to potentially different vintages
of the SRI calculation framework itself. Such a system could also be structured to
be downloadable (assuming suitable permissions are conferred) into a BIM
system, or conversely for BIM, building logbook, building renovation passport,
EPC, Level(s) etc. data to be uploaded into it (and thereby facilitate the
assessment process itself). As new services are added to a property their SRI
functionality, interoperability & cybersecurity certification status could also be
entered into the on-line SRI for the property, thereby allowing both an automated
update and facilitating the data entry process. Were products and services to also
report their SRI functionality via standardised on-line platforms (e.g. either

through on-line data sets, QR codes etc.) then it would greatly facilitate the SRI
assessment process too. If product and service providers were to support this data
provision this effect could help to ensure that the SRI assessment burden (even if
on site and third party) does not increase as the scheme evolves and the number
of smart services used in buildings increases.
In addition, an on-line platform could be centrally managed, which means that the
approach would be standardised and harmonised across the EU. This could help
to ensure consistency, minimise burdens on member state authorities and avoid
duplicative effort, while also ensuring that changes/evolutions to the scheme are
rolled out in the same way and at the same time across the EU. A centrally
managed scheme would also increase comparability which is especially important
for product and service providers who sell their products within the context of the
Single market, but also for those wishing to manage, or invest in portfolios of
buildings across the EU. Lastly, an on-line platform can also facilitate the
supportive analysis. For example, an option could be provided to users to share
their data (anonymously) into a benchmarking system that would allow the
smartness of their property(ies) to be compared to all other properties of a similar
type that have granted permission to take part in the benchmarking process.
Confidentiality would be maintained because under such a scheme all data that
was not the specific users would be anonymous to that user. This kind of
benchmarking process is used in many areas and has been shown to be a powerful
change agent.
Thus, while the power of using an on-line platform is clear it can also be
complemented by the other media. The human presence for an expert assessment
stage allows verbal human interaction to complement the on-line element and
thus provides a more rounded informational service. Printed labels, certificates or
reports can also add weight to the on-line aspects and provide a certain status
that the on-line information might otherwise lack.
Again, it’s important to complement stakeholder views on these topics with

research. The study team examined these topics further via consumer focus
groups and professional stakeholders – see section 2.3.11 and 2.3.12.
2.2.9 BRANDING
Branding is a means of giving an identity to a service and helps establish its value
with the target audiences. Branding is closely associated with design and
particularly with having a distinctive design.
As previously discussed in section 2.3.7. branding of the SRI could make use of a
logo and/or mnemonic to help provide the scheme with a visual image and identity.
Branding can also be used in associated information or promotional material;
however, as this is a scheme initiated and managed by the EU it has to be managed
sensitively.
The study used a very modest budget to conduct graphical design work to develop
some initial concepts – see section 2.3.11; however, should a decision
subsequently be made to push ahead with giving the scheme a distinctive brand
through design then it is expected that further development work may be needed.

2.2.10 CONDITIONALITY OF THE FORMAT WITH OTHER SCHEMES
In principle, the scheme’s format could depend on its implementation pathway and
how it interacts with other schemes. For example, were an implementation
pathway to be adopted that leveraged the EPC assessment process to also conduct
and issue SRI assessments then there would be a choice of whether and, if so,
how to integrate the formats of both. The same could be true of other EU schemes
such as Level(s), cybersecurity certification, etc. but also of private schemes such
as private sustainability certification schemes, private sector smart buildings
initiatives, etc. In each case where there is an operational intersection between
schemes and an agreement that both schemes would wish to work with each other
in a complementary manner, then there would be associated design and
formatting decisions to be made. In anticipation that such needs are likely to arise
the SRI’s format can already be structured to facilitate this kind of interaction. If
two schemes are to be presented in the same design-space, then it implies that a
compact communication will be required for at least the top-line information. For
example, were the SRI to have a logo/mnemonic it would be possible to position
this flexibly within other design formats. As such a device would almost certainly
not allow sufficient information to be communicated of itself it could be presented
with a link or gateway to the rest of the SRI’s information e.g. a web address or a
QR code that can be flashed by a QR reader on a smartphone and take the user
straight to an on-line information repository. Such hierarchical informational
access approaches are becoming quite common place and have been under
consideration for energy labelling for some time (they are already implemented in
some economies).
Clearly there will also be conditionalities linked to the type of assessment method
(e.g. the simplified (case A), the 3rd party expert (case B), or potentially in the
future the in-use smart building performance (case C).
2.2.11 TRIAL GRAPHICAL DESIGNS TO ILLUSTRATE THE SRI
A professional graphic designer was hired to develop a set of trial SRI design
concepts which were subsequently tested in Consumer focus groups held in Madrid
and Budapest. The designs combined a blend of the following:
• conventional logos (Figure 27)

• simple mnemonics which apply a single simple mnemonic scoring system to
convey the aggregate performance (Figure 28)
• more complex, tri-partite mnemonics which apply a mnemonic scoring system
for each of the three pillars mentioned in the EPBD text and also for an
aggregate score (
• Figure 29)
• a comprehensive scoring matrix that includes scores per domain and per
impact criterion as well as aggregate scores per impact criterion and the overall
SRI aggregate score (Figure 30).

Figure 27 – Samples of trial logos

Figure 28 A Figure 28 B
Figure 28 D
Figure 28 C
Figure 28 – Single mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score and/or rank

Figure 29 A
Figure 29 B
Figure 29 C
Figure 29 D
Figure 29 E

Figure 29 – Tri-partite mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score/rank and
subscore/ranks for the three SRI “pillars”
Figure 30 – Matrix showing SRI scores by domain and impact criterion, aggregate scores
per impact criterion and the overall SRI score
2.2.12 FINDINGS OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
To test the SRI concepts consumer focus groups of eight members of the public
each were conducted in Madrid and Budapest by a professional market research
company (Kantar Millward Brown) in state-of-the-art market research premises
and using professional moderators. A moderator’s guide was produced by WSEE
and the moderators were consulted (to optimise the guide) and fully briefed prior
to the conduct of the focus groups. The guide and all relevant materials (including
the trial graphic designs) were translated into the national language whenever
appropriate. The participants were recruited using best practice market research
techniques to ensure the participants were as representative as possible of the
general public that might make use of the SRI – this entailed screening candidates
for socio-economic and professional groupings, gender, age, education and
technological familiarity to ensure they were a good reflection of the population as
a whole in each country.
The focus groups were done in their respective national languages (Spanish and
Hungarian) and when text was used in the graphic designs this was translated and
the designs adjusted to reflect the national language as appropriate. The only

instances when this was not done was for the acronym SRI which was maintained
in English. In both groups it was understood (and broadly accepted) that an
English acronym was being used – both groups said that use of such acronyms
was quite common and it would not be a significant barrier to using the graphic
designs, although many did ask what SRI meant. The focus groups were witnessed
by Paul Waide of WSEE with simultaneous translation provided and English
language transcripts were produced from recordings after each group took place.
The trial SRI graphic designs were organised into the structured moderator’s guide
that set about probing focus group participants’ views on the issues raised
previously in this section on the SRI format. After an introductory discussion the
participants were presented with each of the graphic design concepts to explore
which ones they favoured and why and equally which they didn’t and why. The
focus group process was designed to be non-leading and to explore participants
responses to the topics in a natural and progressively deeper way. For this reason,
the subject of the focus group and the reason it was being conducted was not
revealed until the end. Rather, it was structured to explore the topic progressively
in layers so that previous comments were not influenced by expectations and to
ensure the responses were much as would be expected were consumers to come
across the SRI in a real implementation situation.
It began by asking them what they understood by the term “smart” and asked
them to define this. They were then asked to consider whether buildings could be
smart and if so in what ways? This was followed by asking the participants to
consider how the smartness of a building could be assessed and measured. They
were then asked to imagine that an indicator of building smartness was being
developed and to consider what aspects it should address and which were the
highest priority to them.
Only following these opening discussions were the participants shown the trial
graphic designs and asked to indicate what they liked about them, what they didn’t
and to rank them. This began by showing them the single mnemonics to convey
the overall SRI score and/or rank as shown in Figure 28. After this the participants
were shown the tri-partite mnemonics to convey the overall SRI score/rank and
sub-score/ranks for the three SRI “pillars” from
Figure 29. Subsequent to this they were shown the matrix of SRI scores by domain
and impact criterion of Figure 30. At each stage respondents were also asked to
complete a questionnaire where they rank-ordered by preference the various
images e.g. for the single mnemonic designs and then subsequently for the tri-
partite mnemonic designs. They were subsequently shown the logos of Figure 27
and asked which they liked best, least and why and what they thought of a simple
logo compared to the earlier mnemonic approaches.
It should be noted that at no stage were participants given answers or

explanations for what they were being presented with – rather they were simply
asked to offer their explanations and interpretations under the understanding that
there were no “right or wrong” answers and that they shouldn’t be reticent to say
what they thought.
From this process the following findings emerged:
• The respondents were inherently interested in receiving information on how

smart buildings were and expressed a consistent view that they would welcome
receiving information on this topic

• They indicated that in their opinion the term smartness entailed the following
concepts: knowledge, convenience, connectivity, immediacy, programming,
intuition, time saving and rapidity, advanced technology, comfort, robotics,
simplicity and usefulness.
• In terms of smart buildings and the functions that could be provided some of
those proposed were: automatically adjusting consumption and delivering
energy savings, adapting the heating system, powering the equipment from
solar panels, easy control of appliances and equipment, security and secure
access to the building, remote control of equipment and heating, smart
charging of EVs, domotics, systems to protect your computer and IT,
occupancy sensors and automatic control of lighting and other services related
to occupancy, simple and low cost maintenance, monitoring consumption and
savings.
• The simple logos (Figure 27) were considered to not be very informative or
useful and there was a universally greater preference for the mnemonic
designs of Figure 28 and
• Figure 29.
• By contrast both the simple mnemonic designs that showed the overall SRI
score and those that showed the tri-partite and overall scores were well
received and generally well understood.
• Of the simple mnemonic designs (Figure 28) image A and image D were
preferred to images B and C - based on processing the preference rank
ordering scores reported by respondents in the questionnaire. This preference
was quite clear but there was little to choose between the popularity of images
Figure 28 A and Figure 28 D.
• Respondents preferred designs that included both the letter ranking and a
numerical score. They found this easier to understand and also more precise
(which they mostly liked). Resemblance of aspects of the designs to the
existing energy label ranking for appliances or EPCs for buildings was not
considered to be a problem or confusing.
• Of the tri-partite mnemonic designs (

• Figure 29) image C and image E were generally preferred to images A, B and
D, with no clear favourite between
• Figure 29 C and
• Figure 29 E.
• Most respondents appreciated that the overall SRI score shown in the tri-
partite designs is the average of the three sub-scores.
• For the tri-partite designs the term “Energy savings and maintenance” was
well understood, the term “Comfort, ease and wellbeing” mostly well
understood, but the term “Grid flexibility” (even with good local language
translations) was not understood – most respondents wondered what it is and
why it’s important. Even at the end of the focus group when the meaning was
explained many said they wouldn’t care about this unless they benefitted from
lower bills.
• Respondents thought that the matrix of information (Figure 30) was

informative and useful. Despite an initial first reaction from one participant

that it was “too much” all seemed to understand it (including this participant)
when they took a few seconds to examine it and then expressed a view that
including such a table as additional information to a mnemonic design would
be beneficial and address the questions they had about how the scores in the
mnemonic designs were derived. The discussion revealed that participants
correctly understood that the overall SRI score was on the top right, the
aggregate scores by impact criterion in the top row and that the values in the
cells beneath showed how each domain scored against each impact criterion.
• The impact criterion shown in the matrix (Figure 30) were well understood
except for there was discussion about what the distinction was between
comfort and convenience (which are distinct concepts in English but seem to
be almost identical concepts in both Spanish and Hungarian even though there
are distinct words for each). There was also confusion about the “Energy
flexibility & storage” term although this was slightly better understood than
the “grid flexibility” term. In general, the icons to express these concepts were
appreciated and considered to be appropriate; however, it is unlikely they
would have been understood without the accompanying text.
• In the case of the domains shown in the matrix (Figure 30) they were well
understood with the partial exception of: dynamic building envelope (most
appreciated that this was related to shading after thinking about it but several
thought it would be better to simply say shading); in the Spanish group
“controlled ventilation” was questioned because several participants said they
thought this was redundant given that cooling was present – the distinction
between ventilation and cooling was not clearly understood – this was not a
problem in the Hungarian group though; both groups slightly questioned the
term “sanitary hot water” as some thought the word sanitary was unnecessary.
Despite these issues the clear sentiment was that the matrix was reporting
useful information and that while participants would not wish to be presented
with this first or in isolation it is a very useful adjunct to the overall score
mnemonic (whether expressed as a simple mnemonic design or a tri-partite
mnemonic design).
• When initially presented with the tri-partite designs (following the simple
mnemonic designs) most respondents appreciated the extra detail they
contained, because although this was took more effort to understand it helped
their understanding of what was behind the overall SRI score; however,
opinion was evenly divided about whether it was best to use a simple
mnemonic score and the matrix of information (to provide more detail) or to
use a tri-partite mnemonic design and the matrix of information – those who
favoured the first approach said that the simple mnemonic design conveyed
the overall score at a glance and the extra detail was fully present in the
matrix, thus there was no need to have a tri-partite design. Overall,
respondents thought either approach would be viable.
• In both groups there was a clear desire to have layers of information organised
in a hierarchy that includes an overall score but also additional detail that users
could probe when they wished to have more information (e.g. via the matrix).
When asked about what media format the SRI should take respondents
expressed a preference for multiple formats e.g. a certificate (which many
thought was important to show credibility), a report (which could accompany
the certificate and include more explanation) and online material (perhaps
accessed through a QR code on the certificate and which would have navigable
pages with a hierarchy of information, so those that wanted to understand
exactly how the scoring was done for a given element and potential

improvement options could examine this and so users could learn more about
higher functionality smart services).
• There was equal support in both focus groups for an approach that initially
presented the single overall score mnemonic and then the matrix, or which
initially presented the overall score/tri-partite score mnemonics and then the
matrix – thus either approach would seem to be viable; however, there are
more problems with understanding the demand side flexibility concept in the
tri-partite designs than the way this is conveyed in the matrix.
• Participants in both groups saw no problem in presenting the SRI in conjunction

with an EPC or within an EPC – they said the informational content was
sufficiently distinct that there was no confusion between the two instruments
and the information was complementary across them (awareness of the EPC
was high – participants knew what they were when shown their national EPCs).
• When asked about the QR code shown on the EPCs slightly over half of
respondents indicated that they knew what it was and that it could be used to
link to a webpage via a smartphone app. There was apparent unanimity that
using a QR code with the SRI would be useful as it would allow those who are
interested to access more information.
• When asked who should do the SRI assessment, respondents were of the view
that independent qualified assessors should do so – several said they would
not trust an assessment done by a commercially interested party. They were
open to the idea that self-assessment could be done with the support of on-
line tools but did not think it should have any status on a certificate, or publicly
claimed score. Nonetheless, several said they would welcome having the
opportunity to see how the score on their property could change as a function
of the type of smart services they could potentially install and thus would
welcome the opportunity to take a formal assessment of their building and
examine via an on-line tool what the effect of potential changes could be.
• Overall, there was remarkable consistency between the responses given in the
Madrid focus group and the Budapest group which implies that the findings
might be relatively robust i.e. tend to be confirmed were additional focus
groups to be conducted in other locations, although this has not been proven.
The findings from the consumer focus groups were broadly supported by the
findings from the informal survey of facility managers achieved via the
communication received with participants in the SRI trials (see 5.1.3) and from
discussions held at an event with facility managers (see 1.2.4.2) in that facility
managers seem to be quite happy to receive both the overall SRI ranking and the
information presented in the table of SRI sub-scores. These findings were further
reported back to the final primary stakeholder meeting as well as to Topical Group
A and all feedback seemed supportive of this conclusion.
2.2.13 CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis and research conducted above the following conclusions are
tentatively drawn by the study team.
• An SRI format that combines a mnemonic graphic design such as Figure 28 A

or Figure 28 D, or alternatively
• Figure 29 C or

• Figure 29 E, at the top with the matrix shown in Figure 30 somewhere beneath
would seem to be viable and address most users’ needs. This would combine
a whole building score and ranking (which many users have indicated is
important) with the detailed information on the scores by domain and impact
criterion in a manner that is readily accessible. It would also ensure that users
can see how the whole score is comprised from the sub-scores and provide the
richness of information that many users desire without putting off those that
simply want a whole-building score/ranking. The mnemonic ranking
complements the percentage score as it gives a more easily retainable and
comparable reference.
• As such an approach has been found to be viable for the least technically
sophisticated set of the potential target users (consumers) yet includes the full
set of information on scores by domain/impact criterion that many facility
managers and non-residential users have expressed an interest in seeing it
seems that it would be viable to use this approach for all building types and
segments.
• With regard to the set of media used such an approach (i.e. a top-line
mnemonic ranking/score with a matrix of sub-scores beneath) could be
presented via a certificate and/or report with the option to access more details
through an on-line tool. Such a tool could be accessible via a QR code and/or
weblink and could potentially include the option for the user to enter (and/or
retrieve) their building details so they could examine how they could improve
its smart readiness in detail. The on-line tool could combine the functionalities
of: explaining the SRI purpose and calculation to users; explain the higher
levels of SRT functionality that are available and their benefits; and being able
to calculate SRI scores from raw input data while allowing users to see how
improved SRTs would improve their building’s overall score and sub-scores.
• The use of an on-line platform would provide a solid and flexible foundation for
the SRI’s informational needs and be most responsive to the range of user
needs. It could help to: facilitate SRI assessment, enable interactive
determination of the impact of prospective changes in a building’s smartness,
manage evolutions in the SRI, manage evolutions in the data for any specific
property, support data exchange with other service platforms whenever
appropriate permissions are granted. Critically, the use of such a platform, if
arranged to be in a navigable hierarchical manner, would avoid the need for
the scheme to have to present the information in a single condensed format
based on assumptions about user needs, as users would be able to readily find
the information they are most interested in.
• Whatever media and graphic design format is chosen it will be important to

ensure that additional explanation is provided which clearly clarifies what it
does and does not address if confidence in the scheme is to be established and
to protect it from accusations of being misleading.
• There seems to be no obstacle in terms of user comprehension or perception

to integrating the SRI within an EPC or to implementing them jointly. The same
is probably true of other building rating, labelling or certification schemes.

• There seems to be no obstacle to using a common EU graphical design format
for the SRI providing text used within it, such as in the matrix of Figure 30,
can be communicated in the local language. It is probably acceptable to use
the English acronym SRI as part of a common EU brand providing there is
explanation of what the scheme is about offered in the local language.
• Both professional stakeholders and consumers seem to welcome that the SRI
format should present information on improvement options; however, the
most appropriate route for doing this might be implementation pathway
dependent. An on line platform could readily be designed to facilitate this.
• As the SRI scheme evolves it is likely that new versions will come into being
and hence there will be a need to communicate the version being used at any
one time so users are aware when methodologies have changed.

3 TASK 3 - GUIDANCE FOR EFFECTIVE SRI
IMPLEMENTATION
The objective of Task 3 is to investigate possible pathways for an effective

implementation of the SRI in the EU. This task provides technical guidelines and
recommendations addressing the following three aspects:
• the operational, organisational and legal design of the SRI scheme

• the efficient and cost-effective assessment of the SRI
• the management of the SRI after adoption.
For each of these three aspects, the consortium explores the optimal connection
to other schemes and initiatives (EPC, Level(s), etc.) and the potential to tailor
the SRI to different implementation pathways and assessment procedures.
TASK APPROACH AND PROPOSED METHODOLOGY:
The methodological activities conducted under Task 3 are:
• assessment of operational, organisational and legal design options for the SRI
scheme
• development of technical recommendations for the efficient and cost-effective
assessment of the SRI
• development of guidelines for the management of the SRI after adoption.
3.1 ACTIVITY 1: OPERATIONAL, ORGANISATIONAL AND LEGAL DESIGN

OPTIONS FOR THE SRI SCHEME
This activity builds upon the findings from Task 2 on the options for implementing
the SRI at EU-level and at Member States-level that will have previously been
presented and discussed with the Commission and stakeholders to agree upon the
most promising pathways to implement/organise the SRI. Specifically, the activity
sets out options for the effective implementation of the SRI in accordance with
these pathways. It is structured with the intent of providing guidance on the
effective operational, organisational and legal design options for the SRI scheme,
at EU and at Member States level.
This guidance covers:
• the organisation of the scheme, detailing which players need to be involved in

setting up and implementing the scheme, their roles, responsibilities, activities
and interactions. Where relevant, the role of the Commission in the
implementation of the SRI and its relationships with other players will be
clarified
• the operation of the scheme: for a given organisational approach, detailing
how the scheme operates when it is in place. This includes e.g. monitoring,
quality control, verification, and market surveillance activities

• the legal foundations of the scheme: for a given organisational approach,
detailing the legal issues that can emerge when the scheme is put in place and
when it operates; clarification of liabilities; mechanisms of resolution of legal
issues
• costs of the scheme: for a given organisational approach, assessing the costs
that could be borne by the parties involved (e.g. administrative costs, costs of
assessment of the SRI, etc.)
• additional supporting measures: for a given organisational approach, devising
a portfolio of complementary policy and programmatic measures that could be
set up to support the effective implementation of the SRI.
It takes as input the set of implementation pathways elaborated in Task 2 and

considers each against the factors described above.
The prospective actors are then mapped against these for the best fit. For each
organisational approach the organisational building blocks are identified and
described. This includes establishing what activities are required for the scheme
to operate and the interactions between them.
3.1.1 OPTIONS FOR THE ORGANISATION OF THE SCHEME
This section considers the organisation of the scheme, detailing actors which would
need to be involved in setting up and implementing the scheme, their roles,
responsibilities, activities and interactions. Where relevant, the role of the
Commission in the implementation of the SRI and its relationships with other
players is clarified.
Before considering these aspects, it begins by reflecting on the pros and cons of
each of the principal implementation pathways outlined in Task 2. This appraisal
is done via SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analyses
which are presented for each of the main implementation pathways in turn below.
These SWOT analyses constitute the initial appraisal of the study team. While
various elements within them have arisen from stakeholder discussions they have
not been put to stakeholders in a structured way and hence do not necessarily
reflect the views of the SRI’s stakeholder community.

A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory
way) so an assessment would be offered each time an EPC
is conducted
Strengths Weaknesses
• High and predictable assessment • Increases EPC time and cost

volume means a rapid coverage of SRI • Would not address portable assets
assessments if made mandatory with • EPC credibility is not always high with
the EPC all market actors
• 3rd party assessment should maximise • Requires extra training/accreditation of
assessment quality and increase EPC assessors
integrity & market value • Does not directly influence the design
• 3rd party assessment allows issuance stage
of a trustworthy certificate
• Assessment can directly inform
owner/occupier via targeted advice
• Provides smart assessment at moment
of change ownership/occupancy and
hence increases SRT upgrade potential
as this is a moment when there’ more
chance that capital investments will be
considered
Opportunities Threats
• Leverages existing EPC assessment • EPC assessors may not be adequately

process in a complementary manner trained/accredited for SRI assessment
• Can emphasise the value of SRTs at a which risks reputational damage
key transition moment • If a sufficient number of qualified
• Could make use of EPC energy balance assessors are not available there may
data be a risk of slowing down EPC
• Assessment could be linked to on-line deployment due to added SRI burden
tools which can be structured to allow • Greater time and cost of EPC/SRI
users to inspect the aspects of the SRI assessment could create resentment
which are of most interest to them and against EPCs and add an incentive to
which provide information at the level non-conformity with EPC requirements
they wish to receive it

B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations
so that each time a new build/or renovation is undertaken
it would be a requirement
• Predictable assessment volume means • The rate of new build and major
a guaranteed coverage of SRI renovation is currently < 2% per
assessments if made mandatory for annum and hence stock coverage will
new build/major renovations take decades to achieve.
• Avoids the complication of how to deal • Adds an additional regulatory cost to
with both new and legacy equipment new build and major renovations.
which will occur in unrenovated • Risks having low to modest awareness
existing buildings of the scheme except in the
• Provides smart assessment at moment construction sector
of change in ownership/occupancy and • If linked to the EPC process would
hence increases SRT upgrade potential increase the time and cost associated
as this is a moment when there is with this step and EPC credibility is not
more chance that capital investments always high with all market actors
will be considered • Requires extra training/accreditation of
• Incentivises developers, designers and EPC/SRI assessors
system integrators to incorporate • Would not address portable assets
smart services into their projects
• If linked to 3rd party assessment, e.g.
via the EPC, it should maximise
assessment quality and increase
integrity & market value
• Assessment can directly inform new
• Could leverage existing EPC • If the rate of assessment is too limited

assessment process in a smart service and SRT providers might
complementary manner not be as willing to organise their
• Can emphasise the value of SRTs at a product/service offer in terms of the
key transition moment and hence SRI framework which could weaken
influence initial choices about building the “push” effect
smartness • EPC assessors may not be adequately
• Could make use of EPC energy balance trained/accredited for SRI assessment
data which risks reputational damage
• Assessment could be linked to on-line • If sufficient qualified assessors are not
tools which can be structured to allow available there is a risk of slowing
users to inspect the aspects of the SRI down EPC deployment due to added
which are of most interest to them and SRI burden
which provide information at the level • Greater time and cost of EPC/SRI
they wish to receive it assessment could create resentment
against EPCs and add an incentive to
non-conformity with EPC requirements

C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is
supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified
assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it
• Allows the market to engage with the • Risks having low engagement and low
SRI in a flexible manner that suits coverage of the building stock – SRI
their needs assessment volumes would be very
• Avoids adding additional regulatory un-predictable
costs • Risks having low awareness of the
• Minimises burdens on regulatory scheme
authorities with responsibility for EPBD • Risks providing little incentive to
implementation upgrade SRTs and smart services
• On-line tools can be structured to • Self-assessment increases the
allow users to assess the aspects of likelihood of poor assessment quality
the SRI which are of most interest to and could reduce the quality of
them and which provide information at explanation of the upgrade potential
the level they wish to receive it even if managed on-line
• If self-assessment predominates the
assessments would carry almost no
value in the marketplace except to
those who have done or commissioned
the assessment
• Market willingness to pay for 3rd party
assessment risks being very low
• Training and qualification of certified • With low assessment volumes there is

assessors can develop organically at a real risk that suppliers of smart
the pace the market demands services and SRTs will see little value
in positioning their service/product
offerings within the SRI framework and
this could result in a much weaker
“push” effect.
• A predominance of self-assessment
could result in even 3rd party certified
SRI assessments having lower value in
the market due to misunderstanding
the distinction

D. As option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, or
subsidised, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out
flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-
generation measures
• Allows the market to engage with the • If incentives are insufficient risks
SRI in a flexible manner that suits having low engagement and low
their needs coverage of the building stock – SRI
• Avoids adding additional regulatory assessment volumes could be quite
costs to market actors un-predictable
• The provision of incentives will • Risks having low to modest awareness
stimulate a higher level of adoption of the scheme
than would occur in option C • Unless specifically designed to address
• Minimises burdens on regulatory this, it could risk providing little
authorities with responsibility for EPBD incentive to upgrade SRTs and smart
implementation services
• On-line tools can be structured to • Self-assessment increases the
allow users to assess the aspects of likelihood of poor assessment quality
the SRI which are of most interest to and could reduce the quality of
them and which provide information at explanation of the upgrade potential
the level they wish to receive it even if managed on-line
• If self-assessment predominates the
assessments would carry almost no
value in the marketplace except to
those who have done or commissioned
the assessment
• Market willingness to pay for 3rd party
assessment risks being very low
• If incentives were to cover the cost of • If incentives are insufficient, then with
3rd party assessment, then willingness low assessment volumes there is a real
to have an assessment would increase risk that suppliers of smart services
• If incentives were to cover some of the and SRTs will see little value in
incremental costs of smart services positioning their service/product
and SRTs then their rate of adoption offerings within the SRI framework and
would increase this could result in a much weaker
• Were SRT/smart service incentives to “push” effect.
be offered to those that have a 3rd • A predominance of self-assessment
party SRI assessment then the scheme could result in even 3rd party certified
would incentivise both SRI assessments having lower value in
• Training and qualification of certified the market due to misunderstanding
assessors can develop organically at the distinction
the pace the market demands

E. Linkage to the TBS/BACS deployment trigger points in
Articles 8, 14 & 15 in the EPBD
• High and predictable assessment • Adds a regulatory burden at the EPBD

volume means a rapid coverage of SRI BACS trigger points (e.g. moment
assessments if made mandatory with TBS’s are replaced, when HVAC
the EPBD BACS trigger points inspections occur, and for the
• Could positively influence aspects of installation of BACS for buildings >290
the design and procurement phases for kW of installed capacity)
BACS • Many of these trigger points do not
• Were 3rd party assessment used it normally entail a 3rd party inspection,
should maximise assessment quality yet were one to be offered or required
and increase integrity & market value in this option it would require provision
• 3rd party assessment allows issuance of inspection skills/capacity which are
of a trustworthy certificate not currently offered
• Assessment can directly inform • Would not address portable assets
owner/occupier via targeted advice • Requires extra training/accreditation of
• Provides smartness assessment at assessors and linkage of SRI
moment of change of TBS and hence inspection to the BACS trigger points
increases SRT upgrade potential as
this is a moment when there’ more
chance that capital investments will be
considered
• Could leverage existing HVAC • Inclusion of SRI inspection duties in

inspection process in a complementary the delivery of the EPBD BACS
manner provisions could risk a mismatch
• Could emphasise the value of SRTs at between the type and skills of the
a key transition moment market actors that would ordinarily be
• Could make use of HVAC inspection responsible for delivery of the BACS
energy balance data requirements and those needed for the
• Assessment could be linked to on-line SRI assessment
tools which can be structured to allow • SRI assessors may not be adequately
users to inspect the aspects of the SRI trained/accredited for SRI assessment
which are of most interest to them and which risks reputational damage
which provide information at the level • If sufficient qualified assessors are not
they wish to receive it made available there is a risk of
slowing down BACS deployment due to
added SRI burden
• The additional time and cost of the SRI
assessment could create resentment
against BACS measures and add an
incentive to non-conformity with
requirements

F. Linkage to smart meter deployment
• Were it mandatory there could be a • Adds a regulatory burden and costs to

relatively high and predictable smart meter roll-out
assessment volume resulting in a rapid • The competences required for smart
coverage of SRI assessments meter deployment are different to
• Makes a natural link to the provision of those required for SRI assessment and
demand side flexibility services and are not obviously complementary,
helps to contextualise the scope so the which means additional personnel may
smartness is clearly linked to energy be required and/or extensive additional
services in the public perception of the training which could slow smart meter
scheme, and not to other smart roll out
building aspects which are not covered • Smart meter roll-out is quite mature in
by the EPBD. some MS so the rate of SRI
• If utilities were to link it to incentives assessment coverage of the building
for smart services, this could provide a stock would be low in these cases
one stop process to help trigger • Would not address portable assets
accelerated smart services deployment • Requires extra training/accreditation of
• Linkage to smart meter deployment assessors and linkage of SRI
would make a natural link to 3rd party inspection to the smart meter
assessment which should maximise deployment trigger points
assessment quality and increase
integrity & market value
• 3rd party assessment allows issuance
of a trustworthy certificate
• Assessment can directly inform
• Could leverage existing planned site • Inclusion of SRI inspection duties in

visits with regard to smart meter the delivery of smart meters could risk
deployment a mismatch between the type and
• Could emphasise the value of SRTs at skills of the market actors that would
a key moment where building ordinarily be responsible for delivery of
owner/managers are receptive to the BACS requirements and those
advice about energy related issues needed for the SRI assessment
• Would help to directly engage DSOs in • The perceived neutrality and
the SRI and thereby increase the independence of the scheme might be
likelihood of flexibility services being compromised if it is viewed as part of a
triggered through its deployment DSO’s service offer and hence a tool to
• It could potentially make use of utility sell commercial services
accessed energy data • SRI assessors may not be adequately
• Assessment could be linked to on-line trained/accredited for SRI assessment
tools which can be structured to allow which risks reputational damage
users to inspect the aspects of the SRI • If sufficient qualified assessors are not
which are of most interest to them and made available there is a risk of
which provide information at the level slowing down smart meter deployment
they wish to receive it due to added SRI burden
• Potential users who do not wish to
have a smart meter, e.g. due to data
confidentiality concerns, would not be
served
• The additional time and cost of the SRI
assessment could create resentment
against smart meters and add an
incentive to non-engagement with
smart metering

3.1.1.1 Establishment of the scheme
A priori, in the view of the study’s authors, the establishment of the SRI requires
certain key components to be put in place. These are:
• an entity responsible for overall management of the scheme at the EU level

• an entity responsible for managing the calculation methodology
• an entity responsible for implementing and managing a central executive
platform
• Member State level counterparts of the above.
These aspects are discussed more in section 3.3 but for now the nature of their
functions and composition (actors) is considered.
The entity responsible for overall management of the scheme needs to govern and
manage all the high-level decisions regarding the scheme’s scope, governance and
implementation within the boundaries established by the legal framework. As a
consequence, it needs to include appropriately high-level representation from the
EC and Member States and needs to either report to the EPBD governance process
or be an integral part of it.
The entity responsible for managing the calculation methodology is inherently

more technical and specialist. It has to address all technical issues pertaining to
the approved calculation methodology. Ordinarily it would take direction and be
subservient to the entity responsible for overall management. Its composition will
require more subject matter expertise and depending on how it is structured it
would either need the competences to do detailed work and analysis itself and/or
the ability to commission such work on its behalf. This implies a composition with
strong topical and impartial expertise. The options and rationale are discussed
further in section 3.3.
The entity responsible for implementing and managing a central executive

platform needs to host the scheme and act as its secretariat. This requires
secretariat competences including all technical support requirements necessary to
host the SRI in an online platform as are discussed further below.
While the functions associated with these entities are described distinctly above it
remains an option to incorporate the responsibility for overall management within
the current EPBD governance structure rather than have it addressed by a new
entity with a specific SRI focus.
At the Member State level these functions will need to be mirrored with regard to
the parts of the scheme’s implementation and governance which are within each
Member States’ purview.
In addition to these entities there is also a need for ongoing stakeholder

representation and engagement, both at the EU and Member State levels.
When considering the interaction of the functions described above with the
different implementation pathways the following observations can be made:
• Overall governance and management at EU level is not inherently

implementation pathway dependent, except to note that the pathways that

link most closely to other elements within the EPBD (i.e. pathways A, B and E)
share synergistic governance with other aspects of the EPBD while pathways
C, D and F do not.
• The key governance distinctions between the implementation pathways resides

at Member State level as it is at this level that decisions would be taken
regarding whether any aspect of the scheme is to be addressed through
regulation. Pathway A1 would entail establishing regulations to make the SRI
assessments mandatory as part of the EPC assessment. Pathway B1 would
make them mandatory as part of the building regulation compliance process.
Pathway E1 would make them mandatory as part of the delivery of the EPBD
Article 8, 14 and 15 requirements, while pathways F1 would tie them to the
delivery of smart meters under the national frameworks governing smart
meter roll-out.
• Management and responsibility of the calculation methodology is not inherently

implementation pathway dependent.
• The competences required to implement and manage the central SRI platform
and provide secretariat support services will depend on the nature of its
implementation, but are not necessarily related to the principal pathways –
with regard to these, the key technical competency issues will concern the
decisions about the nature of online services including whether to host and
manage an online assessment calculation tool and how to manage data
submitted into it. These decisions will affect the workload, technical skills and
liabilities associated with hosting the central platform. Other tasks associated
with this role would/could include: maintenance of a web presence for the
scheme, listing of approved calculation tools (if outsourced) and assessors
(linking to the Member State level), online help desk and support, promotional
actions, management and quality control of training (depending on how
centralised this is), provision of online resources, organising and convening
meetings and events. Many of these functions could be provided at Member
State or pan-EU level so decisions need to be made on the most appropriate
division of responsibilities.
3.1.2 OPTIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SCHEME
This section considers options for the operation of the SRI scheme for each given
organisational approach, detailing how the scheme operates when it is in place.
This includes e.g. monitoring, quality control, verification, and market surveillance
activities.
Specifically, it considers options relating to
• assessment
• certification
• calculation methodology
• calculation tools
• data management

• promotion and awareness raising
• quality assurance
• training
• conformity assessment and market surveillance
• managing its online presence
• help desk and technical support
• legal enforceability
• legal liabilities.
It considers each of these in turn and the dependencies they exhibit as a function
of the implementation pathway.
3.1.2.1 Assessment
The SRI assessment process could be conducted on-site or remotely (e.g. for the
assessment Case C). In the case of on-site assessment, there are choices between
whether a specifically organised site visit is required or whether the actors already
present in a building could do the assessment (i.e. a self-assessment), however,
even this latter case would entail the person doing the assessment being on site
unless they had access to the necessary information in the form of documentation
held electronically or as printed documents. As previously discussed, remote
assessment is not a viable option for the initial implementation of the SRI and
hence is not considered further within the current discussion but could be an option
that is developed over the longer term. The near-term options thus all entail on-
site assessment. The type of actors that would be involved in these is set out in
the table below as a function of the implementation pathway. In this table the
actors who would implement the principal assessment option are highlighted in
bold, but the principal option does not preclude also permitting alternative options
and these are indicated in italics. Thus, under pathway A, an SRI assessment
would be conducted by 3rd party EPC assessors who are also qualified to do SRI
assessments and this would (or could) occur each time an EPC is issued. However,
this doesn’t preclude that self-assessment could also be permitted and facilitated
as this would allow buildings to be assessed outside (in-between) the EPC issuance
cycle, would encourage occupants/owners/facility managers to engage with the
SRI and reflect more on its implications (which is especially relevant when an SRT
investment decision is being considered), and would allow them to explore and a
time of their choosing to explore the various ways that they could upgrade the
smart functionality of their property and the benefits that would be expected from
doing so – this is especially so if an online assessment platform was always
available. Such an online self-assessment could be complementary to a 3rd party
assessment carried out at the same time as an EPC is issued, but clearly would
not carry the same weight when communicating the SRI to other market actors.
The same is true for pathways B, E and F where the principal assessment is done
by a 3rd party professional and self-assessment is an additional option. In these
cases, though, the principal assessment distinction between the pathways is the
nature of the 3rd party assessor. While pathway A would use a qualified EPC
assessor, pathway B would use a qualified building regulations compliance
inspector, pathway E would use the building services professionals involved in the
installation and inspection of TBSs, and pathway E would use the professionals
involved in the installation of smart meters. The key assessment consideration in
each case is which group is best placed to issue an SRI. Lastly, pathways C&D are
different from the others because they would rely principally on self-assessment
and hence do not require site visits by 3rd party professionals, although this would
still be an option for those willing to pay for a 3rd party assessment. The upside of

these pathways is their low cost for assessment; the downside is the
corresponding lack of quality control and standardisation in the assessments which
would make the findings much less persuasive to other market actors than those
that conducted the assessment. Equally importantly, is that for these pathways
the assessment process is only triggered on direct request and not by a predictable
external trigger point; thus, the person commissioning the assessment has to
already be aware of the SRI and its value proposition.
Table 12 – Actors involved in on-site assessment
Nature of Implementation pathway

assessment
A B C/D E F
Self- F&M F&M F&M F&M F&M

assessment managers, managers, managers, managers, managers,
occupants, occupants, occupants, occupants, occupants,
owners owners owners owners owners
3rd party 3rd party Building 3rd party Building Electrical

assessment assessors inspectors assessors service engineers
engineers,
HVAC
inspectors,
TBS
installers
3.1.2.2 Certification
The issue of certified performance (SRI scoring) is intrinsically linked to that of the
permitted assessment pathways. In principle, issuance of a certificate to endorse
an SRI assessment gives value to the assessment in the market by demonstrating
that an assessment has been done in accordance with agreed norms by an
independent qualified assessor and hence, a priori, market actors can place
greater credibility in the information it provides than information provided through
a self-assessment conducted by an interested party who may or may not be
qualified to undertake the assessment. Any assessor who is officially mandated to
do an assessment (e.g. pathways A, B, E and F) would also need to be qualified
to do the assessment and be independent. In such cases the assessments they
provide would be suited to the issuance of certified assessment which would add
negligible additional cost but provide more value. In the other pathways (C & D)
the principal mode of self-assessment would not (optional 3rd party assessment
would be). With regard to the independence of certifiers pathways A and B offer
the greatest independence, while pathways E and F would need safeguards to be
established to ensure the certification is independent of the installers’ product
offer.
3.1.2.3 Calculation methodology
Development and maintenance of the SRI calculation methodology is an integral

activity at the core of the SRI and is discussed in-depth in section 3.3. It is best

managed at the EU level (see discussion in section 3.3) and is not inherently
related to the choice of implementation pathway.
3.1.2.4 Calculation tools
As the SRI’s calculation methodology needs to be coherent across the EU (see

discussion in section 3.3), is wholly new and is derived from the public sector,
there is a rationale to consider the provision of centrally managed and open source
calculation tools to support the assessment process. Unlike the situation which
arose with EPCs in some member states there is no foundation based upon
proprietary assessment tools that could complicate the provision of a single open
source calculation tool. Theoretically the mode of applying the tool could vary by
implementation pathway, with 3rd party on-site assessment pathways using
software on a portable device and self-assessment pathways using an online
platform or a downloadable assessment tool, but practically the choice is more
related to the reliability of mobile access to the internet and data consent
constraints.
3.1.2.5 Management of data
Establishing clear and secure data management protocols linked with appropriate
levels of consent will be a priority in all SRI assessment pathways, but there is
greater risk of unauthorised use of data and greater data owner concern with
online and cloud-based platforms than those that rely on portable calculation
methods that do not report data back to a central database. On the other hand,
passage of data via the internet would allow the use of centrally managed online
calculation software with less risk of inconsistency in the application of version
control than downloadable software and greater opportunity to implement a
navigable, hierarchical SRI assessment that would allow users to continue to
analyse the information embedded in their data after a 3rd party assessor has left
the premises, to receive richer and more targeted advice and explore the impact
of potential upgrades in SRTs.
Any implementation pathway that makes use of digital data transmission will need
to respect GDPR requirements.
3.1.2.6 Promotion and awareness raising
Awareness raising and promotional activities will be required for all

implementation pathways, but this requires much greater focus for the pathways
(C & D) that do not link SRI assessments to other delivery mechanisms than those
which do (A, B, E and F). In those that do a large part of the promotional effort
can be targeted up-stream to the actors in the SRT and smart services value chain,
whereas for those that are reliant on users requesting an SRI assessment for one
to be conducted there would need to be very extensive down-stream (end-user)
promotional marketing if demand is to be created.
3.1.2.7 Quality assurance
Stakeholder consultation has confirmed the critical importance of establishing

adequate quality assurance and quality delineation mechanisms if the SRI
assessments are to carry weight in the market and among end-users. If self-
assessment mechanisms are to be permitted, then they must have a clearly
distinct and lower status among other market actors than qualified 3rd party
assessments per the certification discussion. All the standard means of assuring
quality are appropriate for consideration including: training and qualification of

assessors, accreditation of agencies conducting training and certifying assessors,
establishment of mechanisms to ensure there is an adequate availability of
qualified assessors, market surveillance applicable to both assessments and to
products and services supplied to the market that claim to provide a given service
functionality, imposition of legal liability for the veracity of assessments conducted
by 3rd party agencies.
3.1.2.8 Training
Training needs can be distinguished between the training of third-party assessors

and the guidance and training which could be provided to support self-assessment.
Training of 3rd party assessors would need to ensure they have acquired the
competencies necessary to deliver reliable and standardised SRI assessments.
They would be trained and required to prove they have the necessary competences
by passing qualification tests. Passage of the qualifications would result in them
becoming certified SRI assessors enabling them to be registered in the pool of
certified assessors. Those agencies providing the training and certification would
first need to acquire the necessary competences themselves, thus training the
trainer programmes would need to be established with an option of imposing
accreditation requirements on the training agencies. In the case of self-
assessments simple guidance and training tools could be provided online with
greater sophistication offered for those tools and training courses targeted at use
by building professionals, such as facility managers, than those required for self-
assessment of simpler buildings such as single-family homes and small commercial
premises.
If the SRI is to use a common calculation and assessment method across the EU
there would be a rationale for training of the trainers to be centrally initiated and
supported, at least in the initial stages of the scheme. This could help ensure a
standardised approach is followed from the outset and minimise variance in
implementation.
3.1.2.9 Conformity assessment and market surveillance
Conformity assessment is the process that the suppliers of goods and services
undertake to ensure their products comply with requirements. In the case of the
SRI this is the method, or methods, that would need to be specified in order for
suppliers to show that there is a legally accepted basis to support claims they
make about their products’ characteristics in relation to the SRI.
In regard to ensuring the quality of SRI assessments nationally-based Conformity

Assessment Bodies with responsibilities for certification and accreditation would
have a role in the up-stream assurance of the training and certification of
assessors. However, these agencies do not conduct market surveillance to ensure
the delivered services are reliable. Market surveillance for SRTs sold as finished
goods would be the responsibility of trading standards agencies including
designated market surveillance agencies with responsibilities for enforcement of
requirements under the Single Market; however, in practice this would mostly only
address safety related concerns. Establishing conformity with building regulations
applicable to TBSs (including BACS, Lighting and HVAC systems) is tasked to
authorised building inspectors. Unless Member States were to require it, there is
very little existing downstream market surveillance of SRTs and services unless
they fall within building-regulation requirements.

3.1.2.10 Managing an online presence
It will be beneficial to establish an online platform for the scheme to serve as the
focal point and information resource for the scheme and also to host and
implement any related online services, such as online assessment platforms or
downloadable assessment software, provide links to national implementation
hubs, provide training functions, etc.
3.1.2.11 Help desk and technical support
Establishment of a helpdesk and technical support service should be considered to

complement the scheme’s operation. Given national specificities and languages
this is best managed at the national and local levels.
3.1.2.12 Legal protection and enforceability
Aside from the mechanisms discussed under conformity assessment and market
surveillance the other aspect of legal protection and enforcement of the scheme
concerns the option to copyright it to protect its intellectual value and limit the
risk of misuse and mis-attribution.
Copyright is a form of intellectual property that grants the creator of an original

creative work an exclusive legal right to determine whether and under what
conditions this original work may be copied and used by others, usually for a
limited term of years. The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by
limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation
on copyright on ideas is that copyright protects only the original expression of
ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves.
Copyright is applicable to certain forms of creative work. Some, but not all
jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often
shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or
license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders. These rights
frequently include reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public
performance, and moral rights such as attribution.
Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial
rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state, do not
extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type
vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have
made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works
"cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent 101.
Also relevant to this are the recently adopted Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related
rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and
2001/29/EC, also known, together with the Infosoc Directive, as the EU Copyright
Directive.
Copyrighting the SRI would ensure the ownership and control of the intellectual
property of the scheme would be legally protected and ensure that designated
operatives had the right to use its intellectual property.
101
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

3.1.2.13 Legal liabilities
Risks of legal liabilities could be associated with any of the following:
• mis-claims or misrepresentation made through or on behalf of the scheme

which cause reputational damage or financial loss to a third party
• failures in data management, breaches in data security and failure to acquire
required consent
• the behaviour of employees working for entities implementing the scheme
• the liabilities scheme implementors have for the well-being of their employees
in the course of their duties.
The latter two are well-known and managed through normal employment
practices. Thus, the main need would be to put in place any additional risk
mitigation and limitation strategies necessary to minimise the risks associated with
the first two aspects.

3.2 ACTIVITY 2: TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EFFICIENT AND
COST-EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SRI
Following the formatting and implementation pathways identified in Task 2, this

activity translates the definition and calculation methodology consolidated in Task
1 into technical recommendations and guidelines for the efficient and cost-
effective assessment of the SRI.
These recommendations and guidelines further describe the step-by-step process

to be followed when assessing the SRI for a specific building and cover the three
main parts of the SRI assessment:
• data needs and data collection methods, e.g. through on-site inspections.
• processing the gathered data to rate the smartness of the various components
and services present in the building up to aggregated scores.
• procedures on storing and updating SRI data.
3.2.1 DATA NEEDS AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Depending on the implementation pathway and SRI calculation method favoured,

the assessment of the SRI can follow various approaches.
Various types of assessor profiles can be envisaged:
• independent external expert assessors – a detailed technical assessment

executed by a trained and potentially accredited expert
• technically trained, but not necessarily independent, assessors – these may
include facility managers, contractors, maintenance engineers of social
housing companies, employees of energy utilities, etc.
• self-assessment executed by non-experts, e.g. building owners and/or
occupants with no receive specific training on TBS or smart services
• in a forward-looking approach, a fully automated procedure where no human
interaction is needed, except perhaps for verification or accreditation of the
results.
As described in section 1.2.4, the technical study consortium advises the

implementation of the following approach:
• An independent external expert assessor is required whenever a formal

assessment is desired (methods A and B).
• Self-assessment can be made available but should be strictly framed as an
informative tool that does not issue a formal certificate (methods A and B).
Method A, the simplified method, is oriented towards small buildings with low
complexity (single family homes, small multi-family homes, small non-
residential buildings…). The checklist method is accessible for non-experts,
such as individual homeowners. Method B, the detailed method, is oriented
towards buildings with a higher complexity (typically large non-residential
buildings, potentially large multi-family homes). In these cases, a self-
assessment by technically trained, but non-independent individuals such as
facility managers is advised.
• Future evolutions of the SRI could envision self-reporting of functionality levels
by TBSs (an automated version of method B) or a fully automated SRI
assessment (method C). These evolutions could limit the required involvement
of an assessor, or even make it obsolete. A dedicated topical stakeholder

working group C has been set up to further assess the feasibility of these
evolutions (see section 5.1.2).
Alongside the type of assessor, the data collection procedure itself can vary
depending on the implementation pathways and the degree of accuracy and
representativeness favoured. Various procedures for data collection include:
• on-site inspections of technical features of the TBS present in a building

• on-site inspections of the actually delivered smart services by the TBS
• desk research on technical features of TBS
• checklist approach based on interviews, technical documentation or knowledge
of building owner or facility manager, without forcibly requiring on-site
verification
• an automated assessment procedure, whereby the identification and
assessment of smart services and the calculation of the SRI score is done in
an automated way based upon embedded data monitoring functionalities of
the TBS.
In practice, there may be a hybrid solution that combines elements from more
than one of the procedural categories. For example, on-site inspections may be
supported by automated remote detection procedures to automatically evaluate
part of the services in the service catalogue.
Because of various combinations of assessor profiles and data collection

procedures, the inspection guidelines need to be formulated in a broad sense,
describing the overall assessment processes, including the identification of
necessary input and inspection and evaluation steps, rather than concrete
assessment protocols. They are developed to facilitate the testing of the
assessment pathways but later on will need to be detailed at Member State level
to concrete assessment protocols.
It is expected that the efficiency of the assessment process will vary significantly
based on the expertise of the assessor, the accessibility of the building, the quality
of data available and the characteristics and complexity of the TBSs. Potentially,
other factors such as the type of buildings, climate zone and type of ownership,
etc., will equally affect the efficiency and effectivity of the assessment process.
The applicability of the proposed assessment procedures will be evaluated in terms
of time and cost for assessment, availability and accuracy of required building
technical information, access to technical services and data protection, etc.
Moreover, for each of the assessment pathways, the consortium will evaluate the
degree to which it is actionable now, or could be in the future, by identifying
potential barriers or technological evolutions that affect the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of the assessment. For example, an automated assessment is not
expected to be actionable now, as current technologies mostly do not support open
data access and a standardised protocol to compute and/or communicate the
smart readiness level of technology has not yet been established.
In order to assist the testing phase or the SRI concept (see section 5.1.3), a
provisional information package, including a calculation sheet and a guidance
document was developed (see 0). It mainly focuses on the approach of on-site
inspections through a checklist of smart services that could be performed by
various types of assessors. The document provides step-by-step instructions on
how to complete the calculation sheet, providing additional information on the
various options that may be selected.

The guidance document first describes the scope of the field trial, where the
participants were invited to test a building of their choosing. Participants were
given the option to apply method A (simplified method), method B (detailed
method) or both methods, where method B was put forward as the default option.
Second, the document provides guidelines on general information to be provided

by the assessor. This information may be divided into two categories. On the one
hand, general information on the assessor and the building are collected. This
includes informative input fields such as contact details of the assessor and a
description of the building. It also includes information on the building type,
building usage and geographical location (in terms of climate zones). These inputs
are used in the calculation methodology to select the appropriate weighting
factors.
Next, an essential element in this assessment guidance package is the provision

of a protocol to handle missing services. This process is referred to as the triage
process. As discussed in section 1.3.5, the triage process can have significant
implications in respect of the SRI assessment and scoring. In the calculation sheet
used in the field trial, two levels of information are collected to support the triage
process. First, the presence of each technical domain is indicated. When present,
additional specification of the TBS is required to enable further triage of relevant
services. The guidance document provides a detailed description of the various
subsystems, aiming to enable an unambiguous selection of the most appropriate
system. Further detail may be required as part of the training material for (future)
assessors.
Finally, instructions are provided to fill out the check-list based calculation sheet.
The instructions are strongly linked to the specific context of the calculation sheet,
which was developed for testing purposes only. The document focuses on the use
of the calculation sheet and does not elaborate on individual services or
functionality levels. As part of the implementation of the SRI methodology, it is
advised to develop a more elaborate inspection protocol that may include
additional details. Potentially, a protocol for documenting and collecting proof on
the functionality level of each service may be included.
As part of this field trial, the efficiency of the assessment process was probed in a
broad sample of buildings, comprising various building types, climatic zones and
types of assessors. Registered stakeholders were encouraged to take part in this
field trial and test the SRI assessment procedure on buildings of their choice.
Stakeholders who signed up for this field trial received an information package
comprising the calculation sheet and the assessment guidelines. The results of the
public field trial are discussed in section 5.1.3.
The lessons learned from the test phase were collected and consolidated in the
final technical recommendations on the SRI definition and methodology.
3.2.2 SRI DATA PROCESSING
During the assessment process, the assessor (or an automated system) collects
data on the various smart services present in a building. This can cover a wide
range of services, e.g. temperature regulation, EV charging capabilities and
provisions on automated solar shading control.
In the proposed SRI calculation methodology, information on the individual

services is translated into a multitude of impacts. Next, these impact scores are

processed into aggregated scores, either a single score at building level, or
multiple sub-scores at impact category or domain level.
To make the SRI effective and cost-efficient, the process of converting inspections
on smart services to SRI scores should be fully automated. This will also ensure a
far more objective and replicable approach, where one does not rely on the
appraisal of individual assessors to derive the impacts from smart technologies or
provide weighting factors for a multitude of domains and impact categories.
The calculation methodology for the SRI is straightforward and based on simple
summations using sets of weighting factors. Nevertheless, the number of services
and weighting factors and the potential need for normalisation would make a
manual calculation cumbersome and prone to errors. Therefore, it is suggested
that the calculation is embedded in a numerical tool. During the field trial a
spreadsheet application was provided to the assessors. The information to be
provided by the assessor is two-fold: on the one hand, general information on the
building and its technical building systems should be provided. This supports the
selection of the correct weighting factors and the triage process. On the other
hand, the functionality level should be provided for each service. To this end, the
list of relevant services – based on the triage process – is presented to the
assessor. The calculation of impact scores and the overall scores occurs in an
automated manner.
Given the low computational power needs, various other tools can be envisaged
during a later implementation phase, including smartphone or tablet applications
and online calculators. A priori, it would be possible to have one single calculation
core to be used across the entire EU. Some elements within the calculation core
(e.g. weighting factors for heating versus cooling needs) could then be further
tailored to local conditions in various climatic zones.
3.2.3 PROCEDURES ON STORING AND UPDATING SRI DATA
During the SRI assessment process, a significant amount of data needs to be

sourced on topics including:
• smart services that are either present or missing in a building

• the functionality level of the services present
• the type of building usage, in case this is relevant for the assessment.
Potentially, additional information is also collected or generated during the

assessment process, such as:
• technical information on specific TBSs, e.g. reporting technical interoperability

or cybersecurity aspects
• pictures or notes taken during on-site inspections
• feedback or recommendations given by the assessor.
Much of the data will be processed into an applicable format comprising the results
of the SRI assessment. It can be relevant to store such outcomes (label, report,
etc.) in a central database. This allows for the handing over of information to new
owners or tenants, carrying out statistical analyses to support policy-making and
the performance of quality control checks. One might also opt to open up specific
parts of the data to external actors, e.g. grid operators requesting insight on the

demand-side flexibility offered by a specific set of buildings. In any case, a sound
data management and data security process will be required to ensure compliance
with GDPR and cybersecurity regulations.
Apart from the assessment outcomes, the source data and accompanying data
generated during the assessment process could also be stored. This could be part
of an official accreditation process, allowing quality control on the SRI
assessments. Second, a data repository would be a powerful instrument when
updating the SRI of a building. Depending on the implementation pathways
favoured, such updates of an SRI score could happen at fixed intervals (say every
5 or 10 years) or trigger points (e.g. change of owner) or be more flexibly updated
(e.g. when installing a new TBS). A smooth and secure process for retrieving
previously entered SRI data will greatly support the efficiency of the SRI
assessment. For some of the implementation pathways, this could lead to a regular
update by the owner, facility manager or contractor every time the building
receives a TBS upgrade.
Finally, a secure set of SRI data for a particular building is also essential for
forward-looking SRI approaches. These could take various formats, including:
• a regular update of elements of the SRI methodology (e.g. SRI weighting

factors, functionality levels, etc.), leading to an automated recalculation of the
SRI score
• an automatic recalculation of the SRI score when a TBS receives new
functionalities, e.g. an over-the-air update of the control logic of a heat pump
that unlocks higher functionality levels compared to the prior assessment
• datasets are essential when one wants to rely on automatically reported data
to assess the functionality levels (Method B) or an assessment based on
metered performance (Method C). Further consideration needs to be given to
the data resolution required and the physical location of the data gathered
(e.g. on the premises in a TBS, in a BEMS, in a dedicated SRI dataset managed
at national level, etc.).
While the set-up and maintenance of databases can be left to implementation

bodies, it can be relevant to consider an overarching European initiative to define
a common database structure and ontology.
3.3 ACTIVITY 3: GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SRI AFTER

ADOPTION
Whereas the technical framework for the SRI definition and underlying calculation
methodology is proposed in a manner that is open for innovation, a key challenge
for the success of the long-term SRI impact is to stay aligned with the fast-growing
industry of smart technologies and quickly evolving smart services. This task
therefore formulates guidelines for maintaining and adapting the catalogue of
smart services and the methodology for calculating the SRI.
In the last part of this activity, implications for the effective management of these
processes are set out.
To address technological progress and related market developments the

management of the SRI catalogue of services and calculation methodology post
introduction of the scheme needs to include the following:
• A regular, periodic review and related development work

• A fast track option to consider the merits of promising emergent technologies
and services
• A process to agree and issue version changes and associated reporting
requirements
• An appropriate management structure.
Each of these are discussed below with regard to the set of activities that would
need to be done and in the case of the management structure it’s characteristics.
Topical group C has also reflected on the need for updating the SRI – both with
regard to the methods A and B and the potential evolution towards a performance
based method C. Their suggestions are discussed in the topical group C first
recommendations report.
3.3.1 REGULAR PERIODIC REVIEW AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT WORK
The regular periodic review can be broken down into two reviews:
• a review of the service catalogue

• a review of the calculation methodology.
3.3.1.1 Review of the service catalogue
The purpose of the periodic review of the SRI service catalogue is to ensure that:
• the classification of functionalities is appropriate in ensuring technology

neutrality while reflecting the current state of the art
• impact scores ascribed to the functionalities are in line with the evidence
• the most appropriate services are listed within the catalogue.
The steps necessary for these actions are now described in turn.
Ensuring the classification of functionalities is appropriate and reflects the

current state of the art
As technologies and services evolve so will the spectrum of functionalities that are
available or imminent on the market. As the SRI is a forward-looking tool designed
to accelerate the adoption of such functionalities, providing they are within the
scope set out by the EPBD, then there is a need to regularly review the
functionalities per service to ensure they are still fit for purpose. This review
process needs to consider the following for new service solutions:
• What new solutions are available to provide the service and what additional
level of functionality do they provide?
• How feasible is it to assess this functionality?
• Does the extra functionality provided merit either adding a new functionality
classification above the existing ones in the (usually ordinal) scoring system or
implementing a reclassification of all the functionality levels applied for the
service?
A review is also necessary for existing services to consider the following:

• Do the existing set of functionalities correctly capture the available means of
providing the service and frame them in a technology neutral manner?
• What has been learned about the viability of assessing these service
functionality levels and does this require any changes in their definitions which
could facilitate assessment?
• Are there any recommendations that could be made about: a) how the
operation of the scheme could facilitate more reliable assessment of
functionality levels, b) the actions market actors could take to facilitate
assessment?
Ensuring that impact scores ascribed to the functionalities are in line with
the evidence
The impact scoring used in the current iteration of the SRI service catalogue
ascribes ordinal rankings to each smart service functionality level per impact
criterion. The evidence used to inform these rankings needs regular review to
ensure they correctly reflect current understanding and that impacts are
appropriately mapped to functionality levels. This review can be conducted service
by service to clarify the relative ranking of impacts per functionality level, but this
then needs to be repeated horizontally across all the services to ensure maximum
consistency and coherence in how the scores are ascribed across the ensemble of
services.
This distinction is potentially important for the management of the review process
because while expertise at the service level is necessary to understand the distinct
characteristics of each service, multidisciplinary evaluation skills applied within a
transparent framework are required to provide an even-handed evaluation of
impact scores across the set of service offerings included in the catalogue.
Furthermore, for any specific impact criterion it will be necessary to review

whether it is possible to move from ordinal to quantified scoring. This has already
been mooted by the study team as a possible option for energy savings as the
underlying energy savings scores used for most of the smart services in the
current version of the catalogue are derived from the standard EN15232 and the
same standard includes BACS factors that report relative quantified energy savings
impacts associated with the BACS functionality levels. However, if a switch to
quantified impacts is to be made it has to be applicable to all the services that
score for the impact criterion in question and has to have a credible and reliable
technical foundation.
Ensuring that the most appropriate services are listed within the catalogue
To review whether the smart services contained within the catalogue are the most
appropriate the review body will need a distinct but related assessment process
for new prospective services that could be added to the catalogue and for existing
services. For new prospective services the review body will need to:
• map the array of new services that could theoretically be included within the
catalogue
• determine their compatibility with the scope of the scheme as set out in the
EPBD and exclude any services that are outside that scope
• assess the expected magnitude of benefits, in terms of the scheme’s impact
criteria, that each prospective new service offers
• consider how readily the service can be assessed in accordance with the
scheme’s assessment process (or processes) and determine the viability and
level of effort required to conduct such an assessment(s).

For existing services, the review needs to:
• assess the definition and boundaries of the service and whether they are still
appropriate given market and technology developments
• review whether the magnitude of impacts the service delivers is still in line
with previous expectations
• assess the evidence of the practicality of assessment of the service in terms of
its viability of being assessed and level of effort required to assess it.
Once both of the above set of actions are complete the review body should bring
the findings together and consider the relative merits of the existing and potential
new services for inclusion in the scheme. In doing this they need to consider:
• the relative ranking of benefits per service type

• the extent to which those benefits encompass the three pillars of the SRI to
ensure that the service coverage provides a suitable set of services responding
to the needs of each pillar
• the viability of adding potential new services without removing existing ones.
In the event that it is viable to add a new service without requiring the removal of
existing ones (i.e. that the extra assessment effort associated with the new service
would have little impact on the overall assessment process and level of effort)
then the prospective new services this applies to could be put forward for
consideration for inclusion in the next iteration of the scheme.
For prospective new services where it would not be not viable to include them
without excluding an existing service, then:
• the review body needs to determine whether any of the prospective new
services would bring more benefits than any of the existing ones
• if it is not the case then the service would not be recommended for inclusion
in the next iteration of the scheme but rather return to a prospective service
tracking list for future reviews
• if it is the case then an assessment needs to be made of the relative viability
of assessment of both the prospective new service and the service it could
replace before determining whether the expected extra benefits of the
prospective new service compared to the existing one and the practicalities of
assessment are sufficiently compelling that it would be recommended for
consideration for inclusion in place of the existing service on those grounds.
Once a list of prospective changes in the services to be included in the catalogue

is developed from the above processed then an additional assessment is needed
to consider whether the added value of including the proposed services (and
potentially removing existing ones) justifies the disruption that changes in the
service catalogue are likely to make in the implementation and communication of
the scheme.
The same is true of any modifications to be made in the catalogue, including those
concerning evolution in functionalities and impact scores.

3.3.1.2 Review of the calculation methodology
The review of the calculation methodology will consider a higher-level set of issues
than those discussed for the service catalogue. In particular, it needs to consider:
• whether the methodology adequately addresses the current scope of the

scheme
• whether the methodology is appropriate for the current implementation of the
scheme
• the suitability of weightings to be applied
• treatment of missing services
• suitability of the methodology as a function of building type
• suitability of the methodology as a function of climate type
• how the methodology needs to evolve to encompass envisaged changes in the
scope of the scheme
• how the methodology needs to evolve to address envisaged changes in the
implementation of the scheme.
Suitability of the methodology for the current scope of the scheme

This review step will consider whether there are any aspects of the methodology
which are incompatible with the current scope of the scheme and whether potential
changes in the methodology could improve how the scheme addresses the
scheme’s scope.
Suitability of the methodology for the current implementation of the

scheme
This review step will consider whether there are any aspects of the methodology
which are incompatible with the current implementation of the scheme and
whether potential changes in the methodology could be made that would help to
improve the scheme’s implementation and the reliability and value proposition of
the results.
This step will need to ensure that appropriate feedback on the interaction between
the scheme’s implementation and the calculation methodology is gathered and
analysed so the findings can be taken into account. This will need to take account
of the set of implementation pathways being followed, the type of SRI
methodology being used (if more than one type of SRI methodology is developed),
and the evidence from the field of how the issues encountered in using the
methodology in terms of the reliability of the results produced, the strength of the
value proposition to the target audiences, the readiness and uptake of the
methodology (and related interactions with the nature of the methodology). As
more than one SRI methodology could be in use (depending on decisions yet to
be made) the review will need to segment the review as a function of the permitted
set of combinations of the type of methodology and the implementation pathway
it is applied to.
Weightings
Review of the suitability of the weightings applied will be a critical element in the
review process and be can expected to require substantial analysis. As the
derivation of weightings can be partly deterministic e.g. for climate related impacts
on energy and partly subjective (based on application of a set of values which may
be held personally or intended to be representative of the broader community)
care needs to be exercised to ensure that weighting determinations are

documented, are transparent and to the extent possible based on an agreed
rationale. Furthermore, this is an area which requires as much impartiality and
representativeness as its possible to practically ensure in the composition of the
review body.
The weightings review will also need to distinguish any necessary differentiations
as a function of the following:
• impact criterion
• domain
• building type
• climate type
• missing services.
Treatment of missing services

The review will also need to consider how the methodology is addressing missing
services, including the extent to which the methodological rules:
• have been straightforward to implement, or whether issues have been

encountered with regard to their interpretation and application
• are appropriate as a function of the type of SRI assessment being done
• are appropriate as a function of the building type being assessed
• are appropriate as a function of the nature of the locale where the building is
located (e.g. as a function of the urban density, or historic nature, etc.)
• are appropriate as a function of climatic and geographical variations.
Evolution of the methodology in response to changes in the scope of the

scheme
A critical function and role of the methodological review will be to address changes
in the methodology that need to occur due to changes in the scope of the scheme.
For example, if changes in the regulatory framework or their interpretation lead
to the need to incorporate additional service domains or impacts such as access
and security, fire safety, earthquake protection, entertainment services etc. In
principle the existing methodology is structured so that it is flexible with regard to
the number of domains and impacts that are included, however, each time a new
one is added it has some ramifications that need to be addressed.
Evolution of the methodology in response to changes in the implementation

of the scheme
Decisions with regard to the specific implementation pathways to be used or with
regard to the ultimate choice of permitted assessment methods (especially those
concerning on-site versus online and simplified versus expert assessment
methodologies) and the ultimate set of calculation methodologies to be applicable
in the scheme could affect the nature of the calculation methodologies to be used
in the initial stages of the scheme. However, as the implementation of the scheme
matures these choices will need to be reviewed and potentially amended or added
to in response to developments in implementation.

In the future it is conceivable that tailored versions of the SRI methodology will
be required depending on:
• the applicable assessment method(s)

• the complexity and status of the assessment
• the nature of the building type being assessed
• the nature of data acquisition and how it is fed into the calculation tool(s)
• the reporting requirements.
The greatest methodological changes would occur were there to be a migration

towards the use of real time data potentially linked to assessment of actual
performance rather than just readiness. Such a migration would require a
substantial methodological development and maintenance effort.
3.3.2 FAST TRACK PATHWAY TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF PROMISING

EMERGENT SMART TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES
Because smart services are a rapidly evolving field addressing important

technology and market developments within the constraints of the regular review
and maintenance cycles of the SRI as set out in the previous sections may not
always be responsive enough to capture important emergent opportunities or to
avoid reputational risk e.g. the risk that the scheme claims to classify smart
readiness of buildings but isn’t smart enough to have included a new service with
well-known benefits. As a consequence, the management of the smart services
catalogue, in particular, and the methodology (less often) will need to have the
option of invoking a fast track process wherein a promising emergent smart
service can be scrutinised at short notice to determine whether it might merit fast-
tracking an amendment of the scheme to permit its inclusion.
This fast track process will need:
• a trigger mechanism wherein a candidate emergent service or service solution

can be put forward for a fast-track screening
• a provisional initial screening assessment wherein the merits of the candidate
are provisionally screened to see if it merits a full assessment
• a full assessment mechanism (if the screening stage is passed)
• invoking of the full review assessment steps (as set out in 5.4.1) but just for
application to the specific solution if the full assessment determines the
candidate solution is likely to merit such a step.
Potentially, the trigger mechanism could be any of:
• private or public-sector actors providing notice of a candidate service, or

service solution which they believe merits fast-tracking
• those charged with management of the scheme becoming aware of promising
candidates and requesting the mechanism be invoked.
The first point of contact would then ask for the basis of the suggestion and a
minimum set of supporting evidence or documentation. If the proposer does not
have all of the minimum set of evidence a process would have to be undertaken
to appraise if the evidence or arguments submitted are sufficiently compelling to
merit making additional efforts to acquire that information. In the event they are,

and a minimum required evidence set is compiled this could be submitted to the
body charged with the initial screening. That body would be invoked and conduct
the screening before making a determination of whether to propose a full
assessment be undertaken. If this is the case the body responsible for the full
assessment would set about compiling the necessary information, noting that most
commonly this would either be requested to be delivered by the proposer (for
example, if they are a commercial representative of a company offering the
service), or the details of the service provider could be requested (as part of the
minimum information set) and then the supplier could be contacted by the body
to request they supply the information. If enough information can be compiled the
body responsible for the full fast track review can then conduct their assessment
and determine whether the case is sufficiently urgent and compelling as to require
the full SRI catalogue and/or calculation methodology review process, be invoked
at the earliest possible notice. This set of stages and filters is necessary to avoid
spurious or immature proposals leading to the unnecessary frequency of a full
review process but also to ensure that a proper process is followed. If a candidate
service is precluded at any stage due to insufficient evidence the applicant can be
informed of this and invited to resubmit their application when the have compiled
the required evidence. At each stage the first respondent and scrutiny bodies
would be required to record the details of the application and their actions in
response to it, so a transparent paper trail is maintained to support the actions of
the application and review stages to ensure a proper and transparent process is
in place.
Maximum time delays associated with each stage would need to be established,
both with regard to the time given to applicants to compile required evidence and
with regard to the time the fast track respondents/bodies need to process the
material and make determinations.
3.3.3 PROCESS TO AGREE AND ISSUE VERSION CHANGES AND ASSOCIATED

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Every time changes are made to the SRI service catalogue or methodology it would
constitute a change in the manner of SRI assessment and hence would mean a
reduced comparability between one assessment and another. This reduction in
comparability has consequences in terms of the understanding of the SRI scoring
and the organisational effect the SRI has on service offers. If the scheme’s criteria
change too frequently, they will diminish the ability of service and SRT suppliers
to position their offers within the framework and reduce their engagement and the
associated strength of the “push” effect. If they change too slowly, they will render
the scheme obsolete and make it unresponsive to important changes in technology
and the market. Thus, the decision of whether such changes merit issuing a
revised catalogue and/or methodology will need to weigh-up the relative
importance of these effects. As a consequence, they are not purely technological
or technical in nature but require a much broader understanding of how the
scheme functions and the different consequences of issuing updated SRI versions.
It should be noted that changes that involve adding new services or domains do
not ordinarily affect the classification and assessment of existing ones (unless it
would lead to a service being demoted from the scheme) and thus, changes of this
nature can occur without any negative impacts on the positioning of existing
products and services within the framework. On the other hand, it is also the case,
as has been experienced with energy labelling, that taking too long to update
performance scales can also have a negative impact on the market as services
become bunched into the top of the scale and there is insufficient differentiation.

This leads to commoditisation which reduces the value of products and services
for their suppliers.
Many existing schemes confront version management issues and the usual
response is to clearly delineate versions in the reporting of the scheme, so users
are aware of the version which was used in the assessment and can take that into
account. It is also technically possible to take data submitted under an old version
and calculate how the scoring would change under the latest version. Thus, if the
data used under a previous version of the scheme is still accessible a facility could
be established to enable this recalculation.
In any case, as the decision regarding whether to issue a new distinct version
requires careful deliberation of the merits and demerits a body has to oversee this
which has the requisite mandate and competences. It could be imagined that a
periodic, or fast-tracked, meeting of the relevant review body leads to a
provisional recommendation that from a technical perspective the SRI should be
updated to accommodate various evolutions; however, the body charged with the
decision of whether to issue a new version (which could be the same as the review
body or separate from it) may consider that the stability of the scheme is more
important at that stage than the value of including the changes. In which case,
the proposed changes could be parked and reconsidered at the next review cycle
when additional proposals for change, creating more overall value from the
issuance of an up-dated version, may be put forward and lead to a critical mass
being reached in favour of issuance of an update.
3.3.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MANAGERIAL STRUCTURE OF THE SRI
The discussion above has set out the functions and some organisational aspects
that would be required to:
• conduct a regular, periodic review and related development work of the

catalogue and methodology
• provide and administer a fast-track option to consider the merits of promising
emergent technologies and services
• undertake a process to agree and issue version changes and associated
reporting requirements.
To be viable the management structure used to implement these functions needs

to map competences and mandates to the delivery process in an efficient manner
that allows effective and cost-effective operation.
The review and maintenance of the service catalogue requires service and domain
specific knowledge concerning the available technologies and markets but also
knowledge regarding the implementation of the scheme. It also requires
multidisciplinary appraisal competences capable of doing horizontal assessments
across service offerings and impact categories. In both regards this implies access
to experts rather than policy representatives. In principle, the organisation of this
work could best be managed by a blend of an overall working group (charged with
making overall determinations across services, domains and impacts) supported
by domain specific-working groups (perhaps established on a per need or ad hoc
basis). The option exists to establish formal “working group(s)” or to hire
consultants to conduct the assessments, or a blend of both. The advantage of a
formal expert working group structure is that it is more clearly transparent and
could bring in a broader set of subject matter experts chosen to represent the

range of relevant domains. The advantage of hiring consultants is that their
working methods are likely to be more focused and efficient. In either case
mechanisms will need to be established to both consult stakeholder input and
views and to receive feedback on any implementation issues that have implications
for the catalogue. The degree of permanency, and hence stability/coherence, of
the working arrangements also needs to be considered to ensure there is sufficient
institutional memory in the derivation of the catalogue.
It is a comparable situation with regard to the management of the calculation

methodology in that similar competencies are required (especially with regard to
the multidisciplinary appraisal skills and also knowledge with regard to assessment
and implementation). The same issues apply regarding the representativeness of
those charged with fulfilling this function. Given these overlaps and the need for
coherence in the evolution of the catalogue and the calculation methodology it
could be imagined that the same actors could fulfil the role of the multidisciplinary
appraisal function for the catalogue and the review and development of the
calculation methodology.
The provision and administration of a fast-track option requires the existence of a

permanent structure e.g. a focal point and/or secretariat that serves the role of
point of first contact and potentially also the screening and full appraisal roles. As
the screening and full fast-track appraisal roles require strong technical knowledge
and an in-depth understanding of the scheme they could potentially be outsourced
to a consultant or conducted by a lead expert (or small group of experts) who also
work on the catalogue and/or methodology.
The decision-making with regard to agreeing and issuing version changes and
associated reporting requirements could be undertaken by a more politically
representative management committee. It has a higher-level function and requires
less direct technical knowledge. Its meeting could be held periodically or convened
by request from those responsible for maintenance and upgrade of the catalogue
and methodology. Considering that it would be charged with appraising the
material presented to it by the catalogue and methodology managers to determine
whether an updated version needs to be issued it could also fulfil a scrutiny role
on the conduct of the catalogue and methodology managers.

4 TASK 4 - QUANTITATIVE MODELLING AND
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SRI AT
EU LEVEL
The objective of Task 4 is to quantify the costs and benefits of implementing SRI
in the EU building sector for the horizons of 2030, 2040, 2050. This impact analysis
encompasses the different implementation pathways proposed in Task 2. The
benefits and effects along the selected criteria will be accurately quantified
(primarily in monetary, energy and emission units) on a yearly and cumulative
basis and will be subjected to a sensitivity analysis. This analysis has built further
on the outputs from the preliminary analysis of impacts performed in the first
technical study on the SRI and has aligned with other recent studies on the wider
benefits of energy efficiency and smart ready technologies.
The impact analysis is organised into three parts. First, the building-level impact
of increasing levels of smart technology integration is quantified for a carefully
selected set of reference buildings covering single-family and multi-family (both
small and large) residential buildings as well as offices, wholesale and retail
buildings and education buildings. In addition, the analysis diversifies according to
climate region, construction period and renovation level.
Second, the impact of different implementation pathways and policy options on

the deployment of the SRI is evaluated. Structured around different trigger events
and the rate at which SRI assessments would be conducted during these trigger
events, depending on the implementation pathways, projections are made on the
share of buildings for which an SRI assessment is carried out. As the SRI is a
voluntary scheme, the calculation tool reflects implementation pathways and
policy options at both the EU level and the regional level. Moreover, differentiation
can be made between different building types.
Finally, combining the output from the building-level impact and the projections
on the deployment of the SRI, the impact of the different implementation
pathways and policy options at the EU level is quantified.
The overall methodology outlined above comprises the following four sub-
activities:
• Activity 1: determining the building-level impact of smart technologies and

services
• Activity 2: definition of impact scenarios reflecting policy options
• Activity 3: aggregation of individual variants and calculation scenarios
• Activity 4: sensitivity analysis.

4.1 ACTIVITY 1: DETERMINING THE BUILDING-LEVEL IMPACT OF SMART
TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES
The main objective of this activity is to quantify the impact of smart technologies
and smart services at the individual building level for a representative and diverse
set of reference buildings. The results can subsequently (in Activities 2 to 4) be
used to determine scaled impacts at the whole EU level. Furthermore, these results
will support the scenario analyses carried out in Task 1 Activity 3 in support of the
calculation methodology development and in Task 3 Activity 2 to investigate the
different implementation and assessment pathways.
The bottom-up approach followed in this study starts with the selection of a set of
reference buildings. A reference building is defined as a typical building in terms
of its function, geometry, thermal quality, HVAC system and BAC system within
the building stock. This allows for the subsequent analysis of an entire building
stock by conducting analyses – from the bottom up – on different reference
buildings and then aggregating the results as a function of how common these
buildings are within the whole stock.
The selection of the most relevant reference buildings significantly depends on

their shares in the building stock. A detailed presentation of the building stock
descriptions used for this study and the selection and definition of the reference
buildings is outlined in ANNEX C. Aligned with the first technical study on the SRI,
the specified reference buildings will primarily be used to calculate the energy use
and savings potentials of different smart technology and service measures at the
individual building level for five climate zones in Europe. This disaggregation
across both building types and climatic zones (i) allows the more accurate
assessment of potential impacts of smart technologies and services and (ii) takes
into account the potential differences in implementation pathways and policy
measures installed at the Member State level.
To determine the building-level impact of SRTs, six performance criteria have been
defined:
• energy use
• greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• self-consumption of renewable energy
• energy security
• material circularity
• comfort and well-being.
Since the building-level energy and GHG emissions savings are important input
parameters in assessing the EU-level impact of the SRI, a detailed model has been
developed and implemented to directly calculate these KPIs. These calculation
results are complemented with impacts estimated from a detailed literature study
on the other KPIs. The following sub-sections present the approach and results for
each of the KPIs.
4.1.1.1 Energy use
In the context of the EPBD, the impact of smart ready services and technologies
on the energy use of buildings is evaluated as a first key performance indicator.
For each of the reference building cases, the energy use is modelled in accordance
with the EN 52000-1:2017 series. The energy savings related to smart services
and technologies are quantified based on key EU standards such as EN 15232 for

the energy performance of BACS and EN 15500/ISO 16484-3 for electronic control
equipment in the field of HVAC applications. For TBSs, energy use is quantified
using the respective standards:
• heating, EN 15316-1 and EN 15316-4

• hot water, EN 15316-3
• cooling, EN 15243
• ventilation, EN 15241
• lighting, EN 15193
• specification requirements for integrated systems, EN ISO 16484-7.
Smart services and technologies may unlock energy savings both by improving
the energy efficiency at building level as well as by allowing the optimization of
energy flows on an aggregated energy grid level. The energy use impacts of smart
services and technologies targeted in this paragraph only considers the building
level impact, using the ‘on-site’ perimeter definition in EN 52000-1:2017. The
impact of smart buildings in relation to the energy grids, e.g. through offering
demand-response services, is accounted for in further KPI’s on “renewable uptake”
and “energy security”.
For each of the selected reference buildings, the net energy demand for heating,
cooling, ventilation, sanitary hot water and lighting are determined. Based on the
reference geometries and building envelope and TBS characteristics, the net
energy use for heating and cooling is assessed using EN 52016. As these net
demands are primarily governed by the building design and fabric characteristics,
which are assumed not to be affected by the SRI, these net energy demands are
verified and aligned to match the total energy use of the corresponding segment
of the building stock as presented in the EPBD impact assessment and the first
technical study on the SRI. Given the wide scope of the analysis and its main
purpose of feeding into the EU-level impact analysis, it was decided that the
different levels of smartness for the analysis of the impact of SRTs would be
defined only at the energy domain level (heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic
hot water, lighting) rather than at a technical system level. In other words, the
calculation method allows the assessment of the overall energy savings when, for
example, improving the level of smartness of the heating system by one or more
levels of smartness. As such, the calculation method is technology-neutral and
largely follows the proposed calculation method in EN 15232. The energy use for
each of these configurations is modelled according to the standards described
above. Based on EN 15323 the impact of increasing the smartness of TBSs on final
energy use is quantified. An overview of the calculation process, that is followed
for each of the building types, is given in Figure 31 based on the umbrella
document (CEN/TR 15615). It involves following the energy flows from the left to
the right.

(1) Represents the energy needed to fulfil user requirements for heating, cooling, lighting, etc.,
according to levels that are specified for the purposes of the calculation.
(2) Represents “natural” energy gains: passive solar heating, passive cooling, natural ventilation,
daylighting U factor together with internal gains (occupants, lighting, electrical equipment, etc.).
(3) Represents a building’s energy needs, obtained from (1) and (2) along with the characteristics of
the building itself.
(4) Represents the delivered energy, recorded separately for each energy carrier and inclusive of
auxiliary energy, used by space heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water and lighting systems,
taking into account renewable energy sources and co-generation. This may be expressed in energy
units or in units of the energy ware (kg, m3, kWh, etc.).
(5) Represents renewable energy produced on the building premises.
(6) Represents generated energy, produced on the premises and exported to the market; this can
include part of (5).
(7) Represents the primary energy usage or the CO2 emissions associated with the building.
Figure 31 – Schematic Illustration of the calculation methodology. Source: CEN/TR

15615.102
102The figure is a schematic illustration and is not intended to cover all possible combinations of energy supply,
on-site energy production and energy use. For example, a ground-source heat pump uses both electricity and
renewable energy from the ground; and electricity generated on site by photovoltaic could be used entirely within
the building, or it could be exported entirely, or a combination of the two.

As a reference for comparison, a comprehensive investigation into the energy
savings potentials of the proper utilisation of BACS in the EU’s building stock was
used103.
Figure 32 shows a snapshot of the calculation sheet outcome for one of the
reference buildings, i.e. a retrofitted single-family building for the Western
European climate zone. For the example building, the calculation sheet shows the
absolute and relative energy savings for each of the components of energy use
(heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, domestic hot water) when improving the
level of smartness of the TBSs. Evidently, the largest savings are obtained when
increasing the system smartness from level D to A according to EN 15232, with a
resulting 25% total energy saving. Note that just as the relative share of the
domains will vary for different building types, total energy savings will depend on
the building type as well as the boundary conditions (e.g. climate). The calculation
tool allows the rapid selection of combinations of building type, age class,
renovation level and climate region for analysis of the detailed energy saving.
103
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/white-paper/building-automation-scope-energy-and-co2-savings-
eu

Figure 32 – Example of the calculation tool for residential buildings
Based on current energy prices, annual savings are up to 6 €/m² for the oldest,
unrenovated houses and 2–3.5 €/m² for recent constructions or renovated
buildings when upgrading from level D to level A. When upgrading by one level of
smartness, savings vary between 0.2 €/m² and 2 €/m². As expected, these results
show a clear dependence on the original energy demand of the building prior to
installing the SRTs, since the calculated relative energy savings are found to be
independent of the building type. Considering specific investment costs of 4.8
€/m² and 16.8 €/m², respectively, for an upgrade of one level of smartness or an

upgrade to level A104, simple payback times vary between 2.8 years for the oldest
unrenovated houses and 4.8–8.4 years for new or renovated houses when
upgrading to level A, and 2.4–24 years when upgrading by one level of smartness.
The longest payback times are obtained when upgrading retrofitted buildings from
level B to level A, as for these cases the original energy demand and hence savings
potential were already the lowest.
Figure 33 – Specific annual energy cost savings resulting from energy efficiency gains
from SRT uptake for the example of single-family houses in Northern Europe as a function
of construction year and renovation level
Another outcome of the building level impact calculation are the relative energy
savings as exemplified in Figure 34 for offices. The results are shown as a function
of the construction period and renovation level. As correction factors defined in EN
15232 vary more significantly among the energy domains, a variation in the
relative energy savings is found as function of the building thermal quality depicted
by the construction period and building renovation level. Overall, relative energy
savings are higher than for the residential buildings, with a maximum relative
energy reduction of 45–49% when upgrading Northern European office buildings
from level D to level A.
As the distribution of energy use among the energy domains (heating, cooling,
ventilation, lighting and domestic hot water) plays a significant role in the relative
energy savings following SRT upgrades in non-residential buildings, differences of
up to eight percentage points are found when comparing the same buildings for
different climate zones (e.g. Figure 35) or different types of non-residential
building type (e.g. wholesale and retail buildings in Figure 36).
104 These figures are in line with values reported in Ecofys & WSE (2017), Optimising the energy use
of technical building systems: Unleashing the power of the EPBD’s Article 8 – Ecofys and Waide
Strategic Efficiency for Danfoss.

Figure 34 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for the example of offices
in Northern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level
Figure 35 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for the example of offices
in Southern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level

Figure 36 – Relative energy savings resulting from SRT upgrade for wholesale and retail
buildings in Southern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation level
The absolute energy cost savings depend not only upon the relative energy savings
obtained after integrating SRTs but also on the original energy demand. For the
example of offices in Northern Europe, annual energy cost savings resulting from
the efficiency improvements when upgrading from level D to A vary between 6.5
€/m² for unrenovated offices built before 1960 to 3.2 €/m² for offices that have
been under deep retrofit. In Southern Europe, the annual savings are 11 €/m² and
7 €/m², respectively, for those same building cases. Obtained savings are higher
for the Southern European offices as they show significantly higher initial cooling
needs. For upgrades by one level of smartness, annual cost savings vary between
1 €/m² and 3 €/m², with the highest savings achieved when upgrading from level
D to C in the oldest unrenovated buildings. Considering the investment costs for
SRT upgrades estimated in the first technical study (tabulated in Table 46 in
ANNEX D.c) significant variations in simple pay-back times are found depending
upon the building type and climate zone. When upgrading from a level D to A
average payback times may vary between 2 and 12 years whereby higher values
are generally obtained as the initial energy demand of the building decreases.

Figure 37 – Specific annual energy cost savings through energy efficiency gains from SRT
uptake for the example of offices in Northern Europe as a function of construction year
and renovation level
Figure 38 – Specific annual energy cost savings through energy efficiency gains from SRT
uptake for the example offices in Southern Europe as a function of construction year and
renovation level

4.1.1.2 Building GHG emissions
Based on quantified energy use for each energy carrier and including the CO 2
intensity of the energy vectors, the impact of SRTs and services on GHG emissions
are quantified.
CO2 intensities and prognosis for Member State GHG emissions are taken from the
European Energy Agency and Member state prognosis reports.
For the building-level impact, a snapshot for 2020 uses an EU carbon intensity for
electricity of 295.8 g CO2 per kWh105; for heating and domestic hot water
production the projection from the first technical study is used, resulting in a
carbon intensity of 191.5 g CO2 per kWh.
Figure 39 shows the relative CO2 emissions savings gained through improving
energy efficiency by upgrading the SRT in single-family houses. As these results
are directly obtained from the energy use calculations, similar trends are found as
for the energy use savings.
Figure 39 – Relative CO2 emission savings gained through SRT upgrades for the example
of office buildings in Northern Europe as a function of construction year and renovation
level
4.1.1.3 Renewable uptake (self-production)
The goal of the SRI, and hence this analysis of impacts, is not directly oriented
towards increasing the capacity of renewable energy production on site but rather
on stimulating smart technologies and services that allow for an optimal use of
105
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-5#tab-
googlechartid_chart_11_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%2
2%3A%7B%22pre_config_ugeo%22%3A%5B%22European%20Union%20(current%20composit
ion)%22%5D%7D%7D

on-site renewable energy production. Therefore, this section assesses the ability
of smart ready services to improve self-production of on-site or nearby renewable
energy production. Through quantifying the potential increase in self-consumption
by smart ready services and technologies, this assessment acknowledges that
increased self-consumption through demand-side management and storage
services in buildings is expected to increase the renewable hosting capacity of
energy grids106,107,108.
To quantify the measurement of self-consumption, the supply cover-factor method

(𝛾𝑠 ) is commonly used in literature. This indicator can be defined as representing
the percentage of on-site generation that is used directly on-site. Mathematically,
it could be defined as:
𝑡2
∫𝑡1 min[𝑔(𝑡) − 𝑆(𝑡) − 𝜁(𝑡), 𝑙(𝑡)]𝑑𝑡
𝛾𝑠 = 𝑡2
∫𝑡1 [𝑔(𝑡) − 𝑆(𝑡) − 𝜁(𝑡)]𝑑𝑡
where:
• g = the on-site generation

• S = the storage energy balance
• 𝜁 = energy losses, and
• l = the system load.109
Self-consumption and self-generation are widely investigated in scientific

literature, mostly focussing on improving the match between local energy use and
local renewable production from photo-voltaic production systems in residential
buildings. In general, improvements in self-consumption through optimised
control of 5–25 percentage points are found. These results depend significantly on
the climatic conditions and the ratio between the storage size and the size of the
energy generation system. It should be noted that the increase in cover factors in
Table 13 are mostly obtained from the combined effects of installing additional
storage capacity (e.g. batteries) and the smart control of these systems together
with demand response in general. When only smart control without additional
106
Camilo, Fernando M.; Castro, Rui; Almeida, Maria Eduarda; Pires, Victor Fernão: 'Self-consumption
and storage as a way to facilitate the integration of renewable energy in low voltage distribution
networks', IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2016, 10, (7), p. 1741-1748, DOI:
10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0431
IET Digital Library, https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0431
107
Joakim Widén, “Improved photovoltaic self-consumption with appliance scheduling in 200 single-
family buildings”, Applied Energy, Volume 126, 2014, Pages 199-212,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.008.
108
O. C. Rascon, B. Schachler, J. Bühler, M. Resch and A. Sumper, "Increasing the hosting capacity of
distribution grids by implementing residential PV storage systems and reactive power control,"
2016 13th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Porto, 2016, pp. 1-5.
doi: 10.1109/EEM.2016.7521338
109
Salom J., Marszal A., Candanedo J., Widén J., Lindberg K. (2014) Analysis of load match and grid
interaction indicators in net zero energy buildings with high-resolution data. Applied Energy. Vol.
136 pp 119-131 .

battery capacity is considered, 3–52% increases in self-consumption are found.
The high variation can be clustered in 3 main categories. When only load-shifting
of domestic loads and space heating are considered increase in self-consumption
is generally limited to 3-7%. Studies that also include the use of domestic hot
water storage tanks for demand response on average report increases in self-
consumption of 15-30%. In contrast to systems where only space heating is
considered, domestic hot water systems have a relatively constant heat demand
throughout the year whereas space heating requirements reduce over the
summer. Finally, the third category reports self-consumption increasing by up to
52% when smart electric vehicle charging is also included.
Based on the literature review, the model has been implemented under the
working assumption that only the first category of flexibility can be offered for
buildings with smartness levels C, resulting in an estimated 5% increase of self-
consumption. For buildings with smartness levels B and A, it is assumed also the
available battery or storage tanks systems may be controlled, which is
implemented by an increase in self-consumption of 25%. Finally, the additional
increase of self-consumption due to smart electric vehicle charging is modelled as
function of the uptake rate of electric vehicles.
Table 13 – Overview of the literature on self-consumption
Reference Technology measures Percentage of self-

consumption without and
with technology
measures
Braun et al.110 Residential battery ~35% without storage

storage
~45–50% with 2.3–
4.6kWh storage
Bruch & Müller111 Residential battery ~ 29% without storage

storage
~ 47–51% with 2–4 kWh
storage
Li & Danzer112 Residential battery ~26% without storage

storage
~50% with storage
110
Braun M, Büdenbender K, Magnor D, Jossen A. Photovoltaic self-consumption in Germany: using
lithium-ion storage to increase self-consumed photovoltaic energy. In: 24th European photovoltaic
solar energy conference (PVSEC). Hamburg (Germany); 2009.
111
Bruch M, Müller M. Calculation of the cost-effectiveness of a PV battery system. Energy Proc
2014;46:262–70
112
Li J, Danzer MA. Optimal charge control strategies for stationary photovoltaic battery systems. J
Power Sources 2014;258:365–73.

Schreiber & Hochloff113 Residential battery ~31% without storage
storage
~72% with storage
Waffenschmidt114 Residential battery ~38% without storage

storage
~58% with storage
Weniger et al.115 Residential battery ~35% without storage

storage
~65% with storage
Munkhammar et. al.116 Residential battery ~31% without storage

storage
~34% with storage
Osawa et al.117 Residential battery ~41% without storage or

storage (electric EV
vehicle)
~79% with storage + EV
Thygesen & Karlsson118 Residential thermal ~56% without storage

and battery storage
~88% with thermal
storage
~89% with battery

storage
Vrettos et al.119 Residential thermal ~20% without storage

and battery storage
~37% with storage
113
Schreiber M, Hochloff P. Capacity-dependent tariffs and residential energy management for
photovoltaic storage systems. In: IEEE power and energy society general meeting; 2013
114
Waffenschmidt E. Dimensioning of decentralized photovoltaic storages with limited feed-in power
and their impact on the distribution grid. In: 8th international renewable energy storage
conference and exhibition (IRES 2013). Berlin, Germany; 2013
115
Weniger J, Tjaden T, Quaschning V. Sizing of residential PV battery systems. Energy Proc
2014;46:78–87
116
Munkhammar J, Grahn P, Widén J. Quantifying self-consumption of on-site photovoltaic power
generation in households with electric vehicle home charging. Sol Energy 2013;97:208–16.
117
Osawa M, Yoshimi K, Yamashita D, Yokoyama R, Masuda T, Kondou H, et al. Increase the rate of
utilization of residential photovoltaic generation by EV charge-discharge control. In: 2012 IEEE
innovative smart grid technologies – Asia (ISGT Asia). Tianjin (China); 2012. p. 1–6.
118
Thygesen R, Karlsson B. Simulation and analysis of a solar assisted heat pump system with two
different storage types for high levels of PV electricity self- consumption. Sol Energy 2014;103:19–
27
119
Vrettos E, Witzig A, Kurmann R, Koch S, Andersson G. Maximizing local PV utilization using small-
scale batteries and flexible thermal loads. In: 28th European photovoltaic solar energy conference
and exhibition. Paris (France); 2013. p. 4515–26.

Williams et al.120 Residential thermal ~37% without storage
and battery storage
~55% with storage
Castillo-Cagigal et al.121 DSM and residential ~15% without storage or

battery storage DSM
~27% without storage,

with DSM
~35% with storage +

DSM
Castillo-Cagigal et al.122 DSM and residential ~33% with storage,

battery storage without DSM
~42% with storage +

DSM
Femia et al.123 DSM and residential ~16% without storage or

battery storage DSM

with DSM
~33% with storage,

without DSM
~48% with storage +

DSM
Widén & Munkhammar124 DSM and residential ~50% without storage or

battery storage DSM

with DSM
120
Williams CJC, Binder JO, Kelm T. Demand side management through heat pumps, thermal storage
and battery storage to increase local self- consumption and grid compatibility of PV systems. In:
2012 3rd IEEE PES international conference and exhibition on innovative smart grid technologies
(ISGT Europe). Berlin (Germany); 2012. p. 1–6
121
Castillo-Cagigal M, Caamaño-Martín E, Matallanas E, Masa-Bote D, Gutiérrez A, Monasterio-Huelin
F, et al. PV self-consumption optimization with storage and active DSM for the residential sector.
Sol Energy 2011;85(9):2338–48.
122
Castillo Cagigal M, Matallanas de Avila E, Masa Bote D, Caamaño Martín E, Gutiérrez Martín Á,
Monasterio-Huelin Maciá F, et al. Self-consumption enhancement with storage system and
demand-side management: GeDELOS- PV system. In: Proceedings of the 5th international
renewable energy storage conference IRES 2010. Bonn (Germany): E.T.S.I. Telecomunicación
(UPM); 2010
123
Femia N, Toledo D, Zamboni W. Storage unit and load management in photovoltaic inverters for
residential application. In: IECON 2013-39th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics
society. Vienna (Austria); 2013. p. 6800–5.
124
Widén J, Munkhammar J. Evaluating the benefits of a solar home energy management system:
Impacts on photovoltaic power production value and grid interaction. Proceedings of the eceee
2013 Summer Study. Toulon/Hyères, France: European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy;
2013.

~63% with storage,
without DSM
~65% with storage +

DSM
Luthander et. al. 125 Residential battery ~52% without EV or

and EV storage
~54% with EV (without

smart charging)
~64% with battery
van der Kam & van Sark126 EV smart charging ~49% without smart
charging
~79–91% with smart

charging
Widén127 DSM ~29–63% without DSM
~31–67% with DSM
Reynders et al.128 Residential thermal ~3–7.3% without DSM

storage
~7.3–11.7% with DSM
Vanhoudt et al.129 Residential thermal ~24% without DSM

storage
~30% with DSM
De Coninck et al.130 Office thermal storage ~25% without DSM
~35% with DSM
125
https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2015/5-energy-
use-in-buildings-projects-technologies-and-innovation/self-consumption-enhancement-of-
residential-photovoltaics-with-battery-storage-and-electric-vehicles-in-communities/2015/5-117-
15_Luthander.pdf/
126
van der Kam M., van Sark W.Smart charging of electric vehicles with photovoltaic power and vehicle-
to-grid technology in a microgrid; a case study, Applied Energy, Volume 152, 2015, pp 20-30,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.092
127
Widén J, Munkhammar J. Evaluating the benefits of a solar home energy management system:
Impacts on photovoltaic power production value and grid interaction. In: Proceedings of the ECEEE
2013 summer study. Toulon/ Hyères (France): European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy;
2013
128
Reynders G, Nuytten T, Saelens D. Potential of structural thermal mass for demand-side
management in dwellings. Build Environ 2013;64:187–99.
129
Vanhoudt, D., Geysen, D., Claessens, B., Leemans, F., Jespers, L., Van Bael, J., 2014. An actively
controlled residential heat pump: Potential on peak shaving and maximization of self-consumption
of renewable energy. Renew. Energy 63, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.021
130
De Coninck, R., Baetens, R., Saelens, D., Woyte, A., Helsen, L., 2014. Rule-based demand-side
management of domestic hot water production with heat pumps in zero energy neighbourhoods.
J. Build. Perform. Simul. 7, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2013.801518

4.1.1.4 Energy security (demand response)
In line with supporting renewable energy uptake, smart ready services and
technologies enable buildings to offer services to the energy grids. As such, smart
ready services aid in increasing energy security and the optimisation of flows in
the energy grids. In the context of the IEA EBC Annex 67 project “Energy Flexible
Buildings”, an extensive review of evaluation methodologies and indicators used
to quantify the demand-response services that can be offered by buildings has
been conducted. That study concludes that the energy flexibility that can be
offered by a building cannot be captured by a single-value indicator as it covers
multiple dimensions (time, power, energy, rebound, etc.). As an alternative to
these bottom-up quantification methodologies, the impact analysis will quantify
the impact of smart technologies and services based on quantitative evidence of
the energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions obtained when integrating
buildings in smart energy grids. This impact criterion will therefore only be
discussed from the EU perspective under Activity 3.
4.1.1.5 Material circularity
Smartness stems from combining sensor and actuator technologies with

communication and software services. A priori, the impact of the SRI on material
use is therefore expected to be limited. Even more, enhanced communication
between systems may even reduce the need for additional sensors and controllers
in buildings.
The lower the energy consumption in the use phase, the more the construction of
the building and the selection of (construction) materials and their processing
become important while considering the total environmental impacts of building
over their entire life cycle. Increasing the energy efficiency of a building and
improving energy system technologies, combined with an increase in the use of
renewable energy sources, will affect the total environmental impacts of buildings:
the impact of building construction and technical building systems will increase in
relative terms while the impacts of the operational energy use will decrease.
A study by Weissberger et. al. analyses life-cycle aspects and cost-benefits of

heating systems, derived from an examination of the eco-efficiency of heating and
storage systems for the Bavarian Ministry of Environment 131. The primary
objective of the study was to compare environmental and economic performance
of various heating and storage systems, using eco-efficiency analysis for new and
(partly) refurbished buildings. The simplified and holistic evaluation of different
heating and storage systems using the eco-efficiency analysis opens- up a fact-
based and application-specific selection of heating and storage systems for house
and apartment owners, taking into account the existing support measures and
programmes.
The study focuses on a comprehensive view of the various systems over their
entire life cycle (i.e. considering production, use, recovery/disposal), including all
associated energy sources and material supply chains, to enable a holistic and
complete basis for comparison.
The evaluation of the technologies takes place within their operational context,
and the influence of the following parameters were examined:
131
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814002485

• the energy performance of the building
• differing levels of hot water consumption
• technology lifetimes
• increases in energy prices
• heat pump efficiencies.
The eco-efficiency analysis in this study contrasts the environmental impacts with
the total cost over the whole life cycle of a technology, to identify highly eco-
efficient technologies with respect to determining the additional cost of reducing
the environmental impact. In order to achieve the broadest possible coverage of
environmental issues, in addition to the emission of GHGs, other environmental
categories such as acidification, eutrophication, particulate matter, toxicity and
resource consumption were included and aggregated via a weighting key (single-
score indicator) to allow direct comparability of technologies across all
environmental categories.
The study shows that during the lifetime of a heating system, the environmental
impact is highest in the utilisation phase. In a new building performing at the
passive house standard, the utilisation phase of a gas condensing boiler including
solar thermal has a share of 71% of CO2-equivalents (20-year lifetime). For heat
pumps this share is even higher, at 80–95% (including losses of refrigerant).
Based on these results, it can be derived that SRTs for HVAC systems, such as
control and feedback systems, positively affect the impact on the environment by
raising energy efficiency based on advanced methods such as data analytics, self-
learning control systems and model predictive control to optimise building
operations.
Looking at less efficient buildings, the share of CO2-equivalents in the utilisation

phase increases and consequently the impact of SRTs is higher. For partly
refurbished (heating system exchange and partly refurbished envelope) and for
un-refurbished buildings (only heating system exchange) the share of CO 2-
equivalents of a gas condensing boiler including solar thermal is up to 90%.
Trigaux (2017) compared the life-cycle material cost for different variants of
residential houses132. He observed that electrical services (6 in Figure 40) only
cause a significant impact (up to 10%) in new buildings, due to the installed PV
systems. In existing buildings, assumed not to have a PV system, the
environmental costs of electrical systems comprised about 1% of the total building
environmental cost. As the scope of the SRI concerns stimulating the uptake of
smart technologies that add communication and control services to technical
building systems, the environmental cost of the materials used for the smart
technologies within scope of the SRI might be expected to be in that same order
of magnitude.
132
Trigaux, D. (2017) Elaboration of a sustainability assessment method for neighbourhoods. PhD
Thesis, KU Leuven.

Figure 40 – Environmental cost of material use. Source: Trigaux, 2017
Based on these studies, it is concluded that the impact of the SRI on the
environmental cost of material use for buildings is likely to be marginal and the
environmental impact as a whole is expected to be positive due to the significant
reductions in energy use that can be linked to adopting smart technologies. This
conclusion evidently does not account for potential investments into energy
technologies such as heat pumps, batteries or PV that may be linked to
investments in smart technologies. This presumption is considered fair because
energy savings resulting from integration of these technologies are not included
in this analysis of impacts; only the impact of improving the smartness in terms
of providing controllability, flexibility and communication services to these systems
is included. Yet, in order to still include a quantitative estimate of the material
impact of the SRI an assessment methodology has been developed based upon
the available reports for relevant technologies under the Ecodesign Directive.
There are currently no publicly available compilations of data on the materials

used in the manufacture, wholesale, retail, installation and maintenance of SRTs
that the study team is aware of; however, there are statistics on these fields for
products which have been subject to regulation under the Ecodesign Directive. The
MEErP Task 5 analysis, which is conducted for every product subject to Ecodesign
regulations, entails the conduct of a lifecycle analysis of products using the
Ecoreport tool. This analysis includes the compilation of a bill of materials for

baseline products then determining the environmental impacts associated with the
materials and the manufacture, delivery, use, and end-of-life, lifecycle stages of
the products. These are assessed in the Ecoreport tool and used to determine
environmental impacts associated with other resources and waste, emissions to
air and emissions to water. In the absence of such a detailed study for SRTs the
approach taken in the current analysis is to post-process a basket of these
Ecodesign studies using a blend of products chosen to best emulate the nature of
SRT products. In each case the environmental impacts of the base case products
are normalised as a function of the average price per product so this can then be
related to expenditure on SRTs per each SRI implementation pathway.
The products chosen for this purpose and their relative normalised contribution to
the overall estimated SRT impact are:
• boilers (22.5%)133
• batteries (5%)134
• induction motors (22.5%)135
• LCD TVs (50%)136.
The rationale behind this blend is that SRTs are a compilation of electro-
mechanical and electronic products with a significant aspect associated with
displays, actuators (often motorised), sensors/thermostats, IT & communication
technologies, and sometimes also use batteries.
The analysis of material impacts has been directly carried out on the EU-level.
Results are presented in section 4.3.2.
4.1.1.6 Comfort and well-being
SRTs offer a range of health and well-being benefits. These include: improved
indoor air quality control, ability to better manage thermal comfort, lower pollutant
emissions due to reduced energy consumption, and maximising the use of natural
daylight while improving lighting regulation with associated well-being and
productivity benefits. While there are no current studies (known to the study team
consortium) which directly estimate the impacts that SRTs have themselves on
these aspects, there is a body of literature that considers the nature, magnitude
and monetised value of the co-benefits of energy efficiency in general and
especially within buildings. These have been compiled in a draft study under
preparation by the JRC137and applied to assess the expected impacts of the EPBD
https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-
133
2/ecodesign/products/Space%20and%20combination%20heaters/boilers_task_5_final_report_july_2
019.pdf
134
2/ecodesign/products/Batteries/ed_battery_study_task5_v3_20190823.pdf
135
2/ecodesign/products/electricmotors/finalreport-motors.pdf
136
https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/Energy/Energy%20Efficiency/Library/Ecodesign%20pre
paratory%20studies/Lot%20%205%20-%20Televisions/
137
Development of a Methodology to Include Multiple Benefits in Energy Efficiency Policy Development, European Commission
JRC Technical Reports – draft study, 2019

measures as a whole on co-benefits within Europe’s buildings by 2030. The JRC
reports a synthesis of co-benefit impacts from many studies but the most
significant is the so-called COMBI study (Calculating and Operationalising the
Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency in Europe)138, which compiled an assessment
of health and wellbeing impacts from all 28 EU countries and derived monetised
benefits for: asthma (DALY), excess winter mortality, indoor air pollution,
mortality - ozone, mortality -PM2.5, reduced congestion amongst others.
The JRC study compiles and synthesises the data on the impacts and monetised
values of the following:
• reduced winter mortality attributable to lower ozone and PM2.5

• reduced winter morbidity attributable to lower indoor air pollution (units of
1000 YOLL), lower asthma (units of DALY), lower PM2.5 (units of YOLL)
• reduced diseases arising from thermal discomfort
• learning and productivity benefits due to better concentration, savings/higher
productivity due to avoided “sick building syndrome” whose value can then be
assessed in terms of active days gained (indoor exposure) and workforce
performance (mn workdays).
As an illustration of the type of impacts that are reported Figure 41 show that the
probability of negative health issues across the EU-28 increases 17 percentage
points when living in buildings with bad thermal comfort in winter, while
overheating during summer increases this probability by 3 percentage points.
Overall, around 22 million Europeans (ca. 4.4%) suffer from bad thermal comfort
in winter or summer. Taking into account other deficiencies such as a lack of
daylight, damp, etc., the share increases to nearly 17%, i.e. 1 in every 6
Europeans reports living in unhealthy buildings. In some countries, that number
is as high as 1 in 3.139
Furthermore, a survey from 2015 and 2016 140 examined several characteristics of
a healthy home and the importance for healthy living. In this context, participants
were asked to score health categories from 1 to 7 (1 being “not important” and 7
being “very important”). Three of the five top drivers can be directly related to the
building and score significantly above 5:
• sleeping well received a score of 6.4

• ventilation for fresh air scored 6.1
• plenty of daylight received a score of 5.9.
In this context, SRTs contribute to a decreased probability of poor health caused

by functional deficiencies of the HVAC system or structural deficiencies of the
building. In addition, they can help occupants to achieve the characteristics of
healthy homes, by increasing the level of controllability/automatization with the
use of indoor environmental quality sensors (to regulate temperature, humidity,
138
https://combi-project.eu/
139
https://www.rehva.eu/fileadmin/REHVA_Journal/REHVA_Journal_2018/RJ3/19-22/19-
22_RJ1803_WEB.pdf
140
Healthy Home Barometer 2016 (Velux)

ventilation, lighting and CO2) and maintain healthy indoor climate conditions and
thermal comfort level141.
Share of adults reporting"poor general health" Share of adults reporting"poor general health"
in dwellings with good or bad thermal comfort in in dwellings with good or bad thermal comfort in
winter summer
20% 20%
16%: 10.0 Mio
13%: 11.3 Mio
9%: 33.7 Mio 10%: 32.3 Mio

10% 10%
0% 0%
Good thermal comfort Bad thermal comfort Good thermal comfort Bad thermal comfort
(warm during winter) (too cold during winter) (cool in summer) (too hot in summer)
Figure 41 – Share of adults in the EU reporting “poor general health” when perceiving
good or bad thermal comfort in winter (left) and summer (right). Source: Hermelink &
John, 2017 (Ecofys)
4.2 ACTIVITY 2: DEFINITION OF IMPACT SCENARIOS REFLECTING POLICY

OPTIONS
As with the first SRI technical study the starting point against which comparisons
with the potential SRI implementation pathways are compared is an EPBD
reference scenario, or more specifically the Agreed Amendments scenario from
the revised EPBD impact assessment. The range of impacts that could be
anticipated from implementing the SRI are considered through a set of SRI impact
scenarios. These assume identical implementation of all non-SRI related aspects
of the EPBD to the Agreed Amendments scenario (see the discussion of this
scenario in the first SRI technical study).
The definition of the most appropriate impact scenarios to be assessed is closely

related to the development of the implementation pathways established in Tasks
2 and 3. In the chapters covering these the following pathways were set out:

to pay for it
141
See also case study from S. Chen & J. Huang, 2012: A Smart Green Building: An Envirionmental
Health Control Design. Energies, 1648-1663, 2012.

D. As option C, but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by
the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out demand side flexibility, energy
efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures
E. Linkage to the BACS/TBS deployment trigger points in Articles 14 & 15,
and 8 of the EPBD
F. Linkage to smart meter deployment.
In principle, a mosaic of the above is also an option, noting that Member states
may choose any of these options – also combinations of A/B/C/D/E/F are possible
within any single MS.
The problem that these pathways aim to address is the limited deployment of
beneficial smart-services and SRTs within Europe’s buildings, which is considerably
below the techno-economic potential and is hindering the contribution to key EU
policy objectives in relation to energy and climate change. The SRI is an
instrument that is designed to provide consumers and market actors greater
awareness and clarity about the status of and potential for such products and
services within the building stock and thus aims to help overcome barriers related
to low awareness of and lack of clarity and understanding of the potential for such
services.
Each of the implementation pathways considered are associated with the manner
in which SRI assessments could be delivered and are mostly chosen because they
encompass the most logical set of trigger points which could be made use of to
implement the SRI. These trigger points constitute moments when there is an
event in the building life cycle that presents an opportunity for an SRI assessment
to be conducted and which might present synergies in any of the following:
• conducting an assessment
• installing technical building systems
• installing other smart system-related hardware
• trigger points in the building construction cycle
• trigger points in the building occupancy cycle
• the delivery of building services.
These pathways have been developed following consultation with specific

stakeholders/experts and encompass the broad set of opportunities that the SRI
could link to. The outlier to the above is the most laissez-faire approach of
implementation pathway case C. This case does not link the SRI’s delivery to any
specific set of trigger points but rather offers-up a service that users are free to
engage with at any moment. Case D is similar but includes incentives that could
encourage users to adopt the SRI – both in terms of conducting assessments but
potentially also in terms of subsidising the adoption of smart services and
technologies.
These implementation pathways can thus be converted into scenarios. For those
that concern forging linkages to trigger points (pathways A, B, E and F) the first
aspect to establish is the frequency of the trigger points concerned (which is the
moment that the SRI assessment would be offered). The second aspect is the rate
at which an SRI assessment is conducted when it is offered. The third is the degree
to which the conduct of an assessment is a stimulus to adopt smart services and
technologies (SRTs) and how strong that effect is. This logic presumes that the
action of conducting SRI assessment leads to greater awareness of the potential
for smart services and SRTs to be implemented and bring sought after benefits.

As this awareness rises it is further assumed that it raises the market value of
investment in these smart services and SRTs and that this generates extra
investment above that which would be expected otherwise i.e. under a default (no
SRI) base case scenario. Thus, the action of conducting an SRI assessment will
create “market pull” for the procurement, installation and commissioning of smart
services and technologies and will accelerate beneficial deployment – in line with
the value placed on these services by the market in response to the extra stimulus
brought by the SRI.
However, it is important to recognise that the SRI is also likely to have an impact
on the suppliers of smart services and SRTs. This is because it creates an
organisational framework wherein products and services can be positioned, and
their value proposition communicated on a common basis. The fact the that the
EU and the EU Member States are the progenitors and implementors of the scheme
and can provide a common structure across the Single Market creates an
organisational power for the market that individual private entities would not
ordinarily be able to generate. If the private sector engage with the scheme and
position their products and services within it – e.g. market their product as
providing a specific service functionality level as set out in the SRI, it helps to
organize and standardise how product value propositions are determined and
communicated. This has considerable market power potential because currently
almost all stakeholders agree that the major market failure that the SRI can help
to address is the lack of clarity in the market place about the benefits that can be
delivered by smart services/technologies and a means of classifying these that is
transparent to and trusted by the target users of these services. This is related to
the sheer range and diversity of smart services on offer, their comparative
newness and hence limited levels of familiarity, and the very diverse ways in which
they can be (and are being) marketed which risks confusion. In principle, the SRI
helps address this by providing a consistent framework across the EU, which
hopefully will be trusted and respected by the market. In part this is because the
government entities behind the SRI have no commercial stake in the sale of smart
services and have a mandate to support the interests of the public and thus can
better fill the role of a neutral arbiter of the market than any commercial
organization or alliance. Through this mechanism the SRI thus helps to create an
organisational power and coherence, much as commonly accepted standards do.
If the suppliers of services and products support this framework and position their
offer within it, it will provide a significant market push effect that could help
remove barriers to the faster deployment of smart ready services.
The strength of this market organisational “push” effect will also be contingent on
the strength of the SRI assessment “pull” effect. The more that SRI assessments
are conducted, the more than those that procure building technologies and
services will wish to know how new smart services will affect their buildings’ SRI
scores and the impacts it reports on. This means there will be greater reward for
service providers who are able to answer that question and offer smart
services/SRTs that produce tangible impacts within the SRI framework.
The experience of product energy labelling is instructive in this regard. In the early
1990s when energy labelling was undergoing its initial development the products
offered for sale were completely randomly distributed in terms of their energy
performance because the market was opaque with regard to product energy
performance and there was no agreed framework to report on it or market it. In
the case of refrigerators, for example, there was a factor of 8 difference between
the most and least efficient products offered for sale and on average the lifecycle
energy costs of products were 3 to 4 times the purchase cost. Once the energy
label began to be developed it started to influence the market even before it

became a regulatory requirement. As soon as the rules and pending performance
thresholds were known to industry they began to adjust their product offer to
position the energy performance within that framework ahead to the label
becoming a mandatory requirement. Within just three years the market evolved
from a situation where the energy performance was completely random and very
broadly distributed around what would become the class D/E boundary to one
where almost all products were either at the class C, B or A boundary – and
approximately 1.5 label classes more efficient on average (prior to labelling there
were only about 1% of products in the A class).
The SRI is broader and hence necessarily not as focused as the energy label, so
its organizational power is unlikely to be so pronounced, but nonetheless it will
exist and the greater the proportion of the market which is exposed to the SRI the
greater that power will become. Thus, there can reasonably be expected to be a
clear feedback between the proportion of buildings that undergo an SRI
assessment and the extent to which smart services and products use the SRI to
classify their performance and value proposition. The more they do this the more
the market will make use of the SRI to frame their procurement decision-making
because the market suppliers will add their promotional power to the informational
pull effect. Thus, under the more proactive pathways there is expected to be
“virtuous circle” where greater deployment of SRI assessments stimulates greater
promotion of the SRI by market actors, leading to greater transparency of the
value proposition of smart products and services and greater uptake rates.
The challenge for the analysis of impacts is first to structure the analysis (and
associated analytical tools) so it is capable of capturing these effects and secondly
to quantify/estimate their magnitudes. To address this as effectively and plausibly
as possible the responses are broken down by logical step. Beginning with the
factors that affect the rate of SRI assessments (the first component of the “pull
effect”) the study team has compiled evidence of the frequency of the trigger
events in pathways A, B, E and F – each of these events constitutes a moment
when an SRI assessment would be offered. However, simply offering an
assessment does not ensure that the offer is accepted. Rather that is contingent
on whether the assessment is:
• offered by default or whether it has to be requested

• is free or has to be paid for
• is mandatory or not
• is incentivised, or not.
Uptake of assessments will be lowest where market actors have to request it and
pay for it and will be highest when it is offered as a default (or is mandatory) and
is free. The case of subsidised or incentivised assessments falls between these
such that adoption rates will depend on how strong the subsidies and incentives
are.
For these reasons the scenarios associated with the major implementation
pathways set out above are further differentiated as follows:

Option A1 Linkage to EPC is mandatory

Option A2 Linkage to EPC is voluntary
Option A3 Linkage to EPC is voluntary but is subsidised

to pay for it
D. As option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidised, by

the state and/or private players (e.g. utilities) seeking to roll out demand
side flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation
measures
E. Linkage to the BACS deployment trigger points in Articles 14 & 15 in the

EPBD
Option E1 Linkage is mandatory
Option E2 Linkage is voluntary
Option E3 Linkage is voluntary but subsidised

Option F1 Linkage is mandatory
Option F2 Linkage is voluntary
Option F3 Linkage is voluntary but subsidised.
For each of the scenarios associated with clear trigger points of when an SRI
assessment could be offered the structure set out above distinguishes between
when the offer is a mandatory requirement (and hence would be done), when it is
a voluntary requirement (and hence would only be done if the market actor with
responsibility for the building wished it to be done and was willing to pay its costs
or implement it directly) and when it was subsidized (and thus would be done if
the market actor wished to have the information and found the subsidies
sufficiently compelling). Note, the term “subsidies” is rather loose in this framing
as its intention is to cover the whole spectrum of potential financial inducements.
These could encompass at the least the following:
• subsidies to cover the cost of the SRI assessment (from partially to wholly)
• direct subsidies to offset the cost of procuring specific smart services or SRTs
which are contingent on an SRI assessment being conducted first
• direct subsidies to offset the cost of procuring specific smart services or SRTs
where it is recommended that an SRI assessment is conducted first or that
greater subsidies are offered to those that have had an SRI assessment
• free assessments combined with incentives to adopt specific smart services or
technologies – for example higher grades of BACS or the capability to use EV
batteries as grid power storage with two-way communication and control
• soft loans with low interest rates and favourable repayment terms for smart
services and SRTs that are contingent on an SRI assessment being conducted
• soft loans with low interest rates and favourable repayment terms for smart
services and SRTs that are contingent on an SRI assessment being conducted
and the cost of the assessment is subsidized (partially or fully).
In fact, many more cases can be envisaged, but from a modelling and scenario
perspective the important aspect is that they create an added inducement to have

an SRI assessment, of varying strength depending on the financial value and
overall attractiveness of the incentive (subsidy).
In the scenario cases where SRI assessments are not only offered but are
mandatory then the rate that the assessments are conducted is the same as that
of the trigger events they are related to. For the voluntary cases the rate of
assessment will be the product of the trigger rate and the voluntary uptake rate.
For the subsidised rates it is the same except that the voluntary uptake rate will
be increased by a factor that reflects the attractiveness of the incentive. The
strength of the incentive is thus a kind of floating variable that operates between
the upper boundary of a mandatory assessment and the lower one of a completely
voluntary and unsubsidised assessment.
It is also important to understand that the trigger events where the SRI is offered
are also likely to be much softer trigger events for market actors to consider
undertaking an SRI assessment, providing they are aware that the SRI exists and
that having an assessment is an option. This is because the trigger events are all
related in some way to building energy performance and smartness and hence will
have a natural association with thinking of and potentially planning to address this
issue. For example, when a TBS is being replaced and/or BACS are being installed
service providers might draw it to the relevant market actor’s attention that the
SRI exists and can help to understand their buildings’ capabilities. This can create
a much softer linkage between the trigger events and SRI assessments than the
directly linked cases, but still a degree of linkage can be anticipated. As a result,
it makes sense to relate the SRI assessment uptake rate to the frequency of these
trigger points even for the wholly voluntary and passive (laissez-faire)
implementation pathway C.
The analysis of impacts is thus structured to model the assessment rates under
each of these cases by multiplying the frequency of the trigger points to the
probability that the trigger point will result in an SRI assessment being carried
out. While the conduct of an SRI assessment for the majority of these scenarios
is clearly strongly related to a specific type of trigger point (e.g. to the installation
of a smart meter for case F) this does not necessarily preclude the possibility of
an SRI assessment being conducted at another moment than the trigger point.
For case C, where an SRI assessment is purely voluntary and is unsubsidized, all
or the set of trigger points present limited stimuli to the conduct of an SRI
assessment and this would be true for all other cases unless SRI assessments
were to be exclusively bound to a single or specific set of trigger events. This is
not assumed at present, but rather it is assumed that there is always an option to
request an SRI assessment and pay for it (if it is not a self-assessment), outside
of any other specifically mandated or supported pathway.
Aside from the rate of assessment it is also necessary to consider the stimulus
effect that the conduct of an SRI assessment would be likely to have on the rate
of procurement of SRTs and smart services. This is likely to be higher in cases
where SRTs are subsidised or were there to be any mandatory limits imposed on
the level on smartness required in buildings. The former case has already been
discussed and is assumed to be so for the subsidized scenarios of A3, D, E3 and
F3. The latter case is not considered to be very likely for an ostensibly voluntary
scheme and hence is not considered further.
It is also apparent that the implementation pathways scenarios set out above also
directly map to policy choices at the Member State and EU level. For example, a
Member State policy decision and issuance of a related policy instrument would be
necessary to link the SRI assessments to the issuance of EPCs, or to the roll out

of smart meters. This necessitates being able to consider the impact of
geographical diversity (as a proxy for diversity in Member State policy decisions)
to treat the diversity of cases which could occur.
In addition, the building stock is not monolithic and hence nor is the manner in
which these implementation pathways could be mapped to it. It would be perfectly
possible for a Member State to require issuance of an SRI with an EPC for large
non-residential buildings but to apply a less binding pathway (such as scenarios C
or D) for non-residential and small commercial buildings, for example. Thus, a
blend of pathways could be imagined being applied to different parts of the
building stock at the member state level.
Considering these aspects, it is necessary for that modelling of the impacts of

these various options should allow differentiation in the implementation of these
main scenarios by building type and geography. The impact analysis model is
structured to allow this kind of differentiation to occur. E.g. to be able to treat
each geographical region distinctly and each building type distinctly142.
4.3 ACTIVITY 3: AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL VARIANTS AND CALCULATION

SCENARIOS
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
Activity 3 develops the calculation tool – and applies it – to determine the impacts
of the various SRI scenarios at the EU level. Thereby, the tool primarily focusses
on modelling the uptake of smart ready technologies and services (SRTs) and the
resulting the energy savings and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Aside
from the impact parameters explicitly mentioned above this activity reports the
remaining set of impact criteria as discussed with the Commission services. These
include parameters such as comfort and well-being, impact to self-consumption
and demand response, costs and macro-economic benefits, etc. These KPIs are
quantified based on impacts quantified following the results in terms of uptake of
SRTs and based on impacts identified from an extensive literature review.
The modelling starts by taking the individual reference building level results from
Task 4 Activity 1 and applying representative aggregation methods to create
estimates of the EU level impacts in line for the scenarios defined in Activity 2.
The methodology involves mapping the reference buildings to the building stock
for each EU region to be simulated and then projecting them through time in line
with the Activity 2 scenarios to 2050. This is done using a vintage stock model
approach as is detailed in ANNEX D, and which draws upon the preceding analysis
of impacts done for the first SRI technical study.
Under this approach, the building stock for each EU region is characterised in terms
of the types of buildings (i.e. SFH, SMFH, LMFH, office, retail and educational), the
types of technical building system (TBSs)/smart service domains found in the
buildings and the prevalence of SRTs. In this regard it is similar to the first impact
analysis study model but is more detailed. In modelling terms this is done by
establishing the distribution of reference buildings (from Activity 1) as a function
of the total regional building stock floor area that most closely matches the
142
The same five regions as used in the first technical study and in the EPBD impact assessment are
treated

available data on how the regional building stock is structured in terms of type,
TBSs/smart service domains, and SRTs but also the basic energy performance of
the building (related to the energy performance of the fabric and characteristics
of the TBSs). Once this distribution is known per climatic region for the start year
it is possible to project the stock of buildings forward within the model in a manner
that characterises the annual changes in its makeup and allows the impacts to be
accounted for on an annual basis.
To establish the stock distribution as a function of reference building type in the

base year the different blends of reference building types (from Activity 1) are
ascribed a share of the building stock by analysis of data on the distribution of
buildings as a function of floor area per region considered (see Data section for
sources). A similar process is undertaken to establish the prevalence and
distribution of TBS/service domains and the expected distribution of SRTs as a
function of their service and functionality level (again see the Data section for
sources). The result is that each EU climatic region is correctly represented by the
ensemble of the building stock that is ascribed to it. This disaggregation of the
building stock is detailed further in ANNEX C.
Once this starting point (base year characteristics) is established the evolution of
the stock under each of the scenarios is modelled through the systematic
replacement of SRT reference buildings in line with the Activity 2 scenario drivers
and installation/replacement cycles. This uptake of SRTs linked to the Activity 2
scenarios is modelled using the “SRI and SRT uptake model”, as detailed in ANNEX
D. Note, as SRTs are liable to be installed/replaced faster than the building fabric
is renovated or replaced then this process reflects the installation and renewal of
SRTs rather than the fabric. Nonetheless, the dynamic evolution of the fabric, the
underlying TBSs/service domains and energy system is also simulated so that the
outcome in any given year reflects the overlay of all the relevant effects. As the
building stock of each Member State are attributed (i.e. apportioned) to the main
regions it subsequently becomes possible to decompose the impacts to the
Member State level in approximate terms (by considering each Member State’s
share of the building stock within their broader aggregate region). Annual impacts
fall out of this stock modelling process by applying per-unit-floor-area values of
impacts from the Activity 1 reference buildings to the regional stock in a manner
that reflects their relative share in the total regional building stock distribution.
Thus, as the building stock evolves towards a distribution of the Activity 1
reference buildings that has a higher proportion of SRTs with more advanced
capabilities the floor area weighted impacts evolve accordingly.
The scenarios are simulated by considering how rapidly the building stock is
expected to evolve as a function of building type, TBS and SRT under the drivers
in each scenario defined in Activity 2. The reference scenario is aligned with the
reference scenario(s) of the EPBD impact assessment (minus the impact of the
SRI on SRTs). Similarly, the SRI scenarios are aligned with the implementation
pathways and organisational frameworks being considered in Task 2 Activity 1 and
Task 3 Activity 1 (see discussion in Activity 2). Thereby, the effect of the drivers
per scenario is determined by mapping realistic impact functions to each scenario,
considering the boundaries that they operate within (i.e. their scope of
applicability) and the nature of the barriers that they seek to overcome and then
applying available evidence to replicate the strength of the drivers and barriers to
allow the simulation of the net effect. As was the case for the first SRI study, this
needs to simulate SRT adoption rates and the rate of evolution in SRT functionality.
This is done by assuming the rate of SRT adoption follows a logistics function (an
S-curve). Supporting analysis of the relative strength of the barriers and drivers
enables coefficients that describe the curve to be characterised for each segment

of the building stock. This is done per SRI implementation pathway scenario
considered. The adoption curve coefficients are derived by analysis and simulation
of the underlying factors such as the elasticity of demand of SRTs as a function of
awareness/exposure, SRT price, life-cycle cost benefits, etc. The same kind of
approach is used to simulate the rate of change in the distribution of SRT
functionalities. In both cases, the innate characteristics of the SRI scenario and
the impacts of supporting measures need to be characterised, decomposed and
simulated. Evidently, projections on the SRT adoption rates and market push and
pull effects are prone to a high degree of uncertainty and will therefore be
subjected to a sensitivity analysis as part of Activity 4.
As SRTs are progressively added to the building stock their associated investment
costs will be accounted for and investment and operating costs simulated. Given
that the expected savings in operating costs from SRTs lag the up-front investment
costs the model simulates and reports annual investment costs, annual operating
costs and discounted life cycle costs (using the EU’s standard real discount rate to
discount the value of future savings as per the Ecodesign Directive Impact
Assessments143 for example). Projected future energy tariffs are in line with the
values used in the EPBD Impact Assessment 144.
A more detailed description of the model implementation is given in ANNEX D.

Details on the building stock characteristics implemented in the model are given
in ANNEX C. Significant effort is put into designing the model to be transparent.
4.3.2 IMPACT FOR DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS
This section discusses the results obtained following the scenarios defined under
Activity 2. While the modelling analyses variations in e.g. the implementation
pathways across climate regions or building types, it was chosen to present here
only the results on the EU28 level. Thereby, scenarios regarding the
implementation pathways for the SRI have been applied to the building stock as a
whole and assuming the “agreed EPBD amendments” scenario for the building
stock evolution. The analysis of a more diverse implementation will be performed
during the sensitivity analysis in Activity 4.
4.3.2.1 SRI deployment
As a starting point, Figure 42 shows the deployment rate of the SRI for the
different implementation pathways. The deployment rate has been defined as the
share of the buildings for which an SRI assessment has been carried out.
Significantly higher deployment rates are found between pathways that foresee a
mandatory linkage to the trigger events rather than a voluntary link. For the
completely voluntary pathways (A2, C, E2 and F2), deployment rates generally
reach about 5% coverage, except for the 26% coverage found for pathway A2 for
which the SRI assessment is linked on a voluntary basis to the EPC assessment.
Due to the high volume of EPC assessment compared to the other triggers,
143
Ecodesign Impact Accounting – Status Report 2018 -
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/eia_status_report_2017_-
_v20171222.pdf
144
Commission staff working document SWD(2016) 408 final – Evaluation of directive 2010/31/eu on
the energy performance of buildings
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/1_en_impact_assessment_part1_v3.pdf

significantly higher deployment rates are also observed for the voluntary pathway
with supporting measures (A3) and the mandatory pathway (A1). The fastest
uptake is obtained for implementation pathways A1 and E1, reaching a coverage
of more than 75% of buildings by 2035145. It should be noted that the scenarios
leading to high deployment rates are driven by the frequency of the trigger events
which they are linked to, but do not yet factor in other potential constraints, such
as the viability of forming a sufficiently qualified pool of assessors, quality control
or rolling out mandatory requirements.
Figure 42 – Evolution of the SRI deployment rate for the implementation pathways as
defined in Activity 2
4.3.2.2 SRT uptake and investment cost
Figure 43 and Figure 44 show the evolution of buildings that have undergone an
upgrade of their technical building systems increasing the level of smartness of
the building respectively by 1 level or to an A level 146. Under BAU conditions, hence
assuming no SRI assessments are carried out, 36% and 0.6% of buildings will by
2050 have been upgraded by 1 level smartness or to an A level respectively.
Compared to this BAU scenario, the results for the fully voluntary implementation
pathway C show an increase of 4% for SRTs upgrades by 1 level and 0.85% for
upgrades to an A level. In the voluntary pathway that foresees a linkage to EPC
(A2), increases of respectively 14% and 2.6% are found. These relatively low
uptake rates evidently follow from the low SRI deployment rates for the fully
voluntary pathway scenarios found in Figure 42 and primarily follow from the
145
This is because of the high frequency of trigger events under scenario E1; however, the present
analysis does not consider other aspects of the suitability of the pathway, such as the viability of
requiring assessment to be done by specific market actors.
146
Note that, the rate at which SRT upgrades are carried out in the business as usual (BAU) scenario
and following SRI assessments being carried are detailed in ANNEX D.d.ii.

market push and pull effects that are unlocked due to the uniform characterization
and communication offered by the implementation of the SRI. When supporting
measures are linked to the voluntary pathways (A3, D, E3, F3) an increase of SRT
upgrades by 1 level of smartness between 12% and 30% are found compared to
the BAU scenario, resulting in 48% to 66% of buildings that have undergone an
upgrade by 1 level of smartness by 2050. An increase of 2.5% to 6% of SRT
improvements towards an A level smartness is found for those respective cases,
resulting in 3.1% to 6.6% of buildings having undergone an update from
smartness levels D or C directly to level A.
The highest uptake of SRTs is found for the implementation pathway scenarios A1
and E1. For these pathway scenarios 81% and 76% of buildings undergo an
upgrade by 1 level respectively. In addition, 9.6% and 8.6% respectively move
immediately to an A level of smartness. Note that compared to the SRI deployment
(Figure 42), the SRT uptake due to A1 and E1 only differ marginally. This can be
attributed to two effects. Firstly, in A1 there is a large number of buildings that
undergo more than one EPC assessment (trigger for A1) and hence SRI
assessment over the period until 2050. A second or third SRI assessment for a
specific building does not contribute to the deployment but can lead to an SRT
upgrade. Hence, it should be noted that theoretically values above 100% are also
possible as buildings may follow several consecutive upgrades to go from level D
or C to level A. Secondly, market push and pull effects play a significant role and
are more important when SRI assessments are clustered to specific buildings
and/or climate regions.
Figure 43 – Evolutions of buildings that have undergone an increase by 1 level of

smartness

Figure 44 – Evolution of buildings that have undergone an upgrade to smartness level A
Figure 45 and Figure 46 show the annual investments in smart technologies again
respectively for buildings increasing their level of smartness by 1 level and
buildings upgrading immediately to an A level. Apart from the differences in height
across the analysed implementation pathway scenarios, also a significant
difference in trend can be found between the voluntary and mandatory pathway
scenarios. For the mandatory scenarios the investments start at a high value while
slowly decreasing towards 2050. For the voluntary scenarios a slow increase
towards 2050 is observed. The decreasing effect for the mandatory cases results
from market saturation, whereby the share of buildings that can still do an SRT
upgrade rapidly decreases due to the relatively high uptake rate. In contrast, the
increasing investments for the voluntary pathways demonstrate the market push
and pull effects.
As shown in Figure 47 the high uptake rates for implementation pathway scenario
A1 result in a total cumulated investment of 58 billion euro by 2030 and 181 billion
euro by 2050. This scenario is closely followed by pathway E1 resulting in a total
cumulated investment of 56 billion euro by 2030 and 180 billion euro by 2050.
Compared to a BAU investment of 24 and 74 billion euro respectively. The SRI
would hence be responsible for a market increase of 32 to 34 billion euro by 2030
for respectively pathways A1 and E1. By 2050 that market increase would evolve
to 105 billion euro by 2050 when following respectively implementation pathway
A1 and E1.

Figure 45 – Annual investment cost in SRT upgrades by 1 level of smartness
Figure 46 – Annual investment cost in SRT upgrades to smartness level A

Figure 47 – Cumulative total investment in SRTs
4.3.2.3 Energy Use
This section presents the results of the impact of the SRI on the final and primary
energy use in the EU28 building stock as a result of TBS efficiency improvements
by upgrading the level of smartness of these systems. As emphasized in section
4.1, the energy savings shown here only represent the energy savings at the
building sector resulting from the efficiency gains. The potential energy savings
resulting from an improved interaction with the energy grid, is discussed further
in the section on “demand-response and self-consumption”.
Figure 48 presents the evolution of the primary energy use of the EU building stock
as a result the “agreed EPBD amendments” scenario147 and the energy efficiency
gains from the increased SRT uptake as a result of the SRI. The results are shown
for the different implementation pathways whereby the BAU depicts the scenario
without an SRI implementation. From this figure it clear that energy savings in the
building sector will primarily come from the measures proposed in the “agreed
EPBD amendments” scenario. On top of these savings, the SRI can unlock up to
5% greater final energy savings by 2050. As shown in more detail on Figure 49
and Figure 50, the highest energy savings are obtained for the A1 and E1
implementation pathways, resulting in final energy savings up to 183-198 TWh or
201-219 TWh primary energy savings by 2050. By 2030, primary energy savings
of 96 TWh and 89 TWh are predicted for pathways A1 and E1 respectively.
147
The results for the reference scenario “agreed EPBD amendments” are taken from the first technical
study on the SRI

Figure 48 – Evolution of EU28 building stock final energy use as result of different
implementation scenarios for the SRI
Figure 49 – Annual final energy savings as compared to the BAU scenario

Figure 50 – Annual primary energy savings as compared to the BAU scenario
The energy savings shown in these scenarios are quite compatible with the
provisional impact analysis results presented in the first technical study. The first
technical study considered moderate and ambitious implementation scenarios that
resulted in primary energy savings in 2050, compared to the BAU, of 204 and 270
TWh/year respectively. In the current study the A1 pathway savings are 219 TWh
in 2050. The first technical study did not explicitly link the deployment
assumptions in its scenarios to specific implementation pathways tied to any
events or trigger points. When this is done, as it has been in the current analysis,
the implications of the intervention frequency and strength of implementation
mechanisms become more apparent.
4.3.2.4 Greenhouse gas emissions
Based on the energy use obtained by the SRI and SRT uptake model, the
reductions in CO2 emissions have been calculated. Thereby average CO 2 intensities
for the building energy use are implemented until 2050 in function of the building
type, climate region based on the results of the “agreed EPBD amendments”
scenario as modelled in the first technical study on the SRI. Figure 51 shows the
CO2 emission reductions compared to the BAU scenario. In line with the energy
savings, the largest reductions are found for the implementation pathway
scenarios that consider a mandatory link to the trigger events, resulting in annual
savings of up to 32 million ton per year by 2050. For the implementation pathway
scenarios involving a voluntary link to the trigger events, emission reductions
between 8 and 20 million ton per year are obtained by 2050 given adequate
supporting measures are included in the implementation pathway.

Figure 51 – Annual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) compared to the BAU
SRT integration scenario
4.3.2.5 Demand-response and self-consumption
In the future energy system, storage and demand side flexibility – provided by
amongst others smart use of appliances and technical building systems – will play
an important role in assuring system adequacy and in optimizing the uptake of
renewables by reducing curtailing needs. The Metis study S1 “Optimal flexibility
portfolios for a high-RES 2050 scenario, outlines four levels of flexibility:
• at the hourly and sub-hourly level, increase of flexibility needs are mostly
driven by the required ability to face imbalances caused by RES forecasting
errors.
• at the daily level, the flexibility needs are found to be mostly driven by daily
patterns of demand and the daily cycle of solar generation
• at the weekly level, the flexibility needs are mostly driven by wind regimes
and by the weekday/weekend demand structure
• at the annual level, needs are driven by seasonal effects and the load-
temperature sensitivity.
From a technical perspective, the impact of smart technologies targeted by the

SRI is primarily expected to support the (sub)hourly and daily flexibility level. For
example, smart control of heating and cooling systems can efficiently support
variations in load profiles on time scales of minutes to few hours, allowing to shift
demand away from peak periods and improve match with daily solar production
cycles148. Smart charging of electric vehicles is similarly constraint by the daily
148
Stinner, S., Huchtemann, K., Müller, D., 2016. Quantifying the operational flexibility of building
energy systems with thermal energy storages. Appl. Energy 181, 140–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.055; Reynders, G., Nuytten, T., Saelens, D., 2013.
Potential of structural thermal mass for demand-side management in dwellings. Build. Environ.
64, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.03.010

usage cycle and hence allows variations up to 4-8h during the stationary hours of
the vehicle149.
In this macro-economic assessment, the consortium does not separate as such

the impact of energy flexibility – unlocked by the increased smart ready technology
uptake following the adoption of the SRI – in terms of improved self-consumption
and security of supply. Rather, we follow the approach outlined in the COWI and
METIS studies whereby offering demand response services – or energy flexibility
– creates multiple benefits to the energy system, amongst others reduced peak
capacity and avoided grid infrastructure extensions, that overall reduce the total
system costs at high penetrations of renewables as foreseen in 2050 150. Hence,
taking the increasing share of intermittent renewable production towards 2050 as
a given, avoided OPEX and CAPEX cost due to demand side flexibility are
quantified. Evidently, prognosis on the value for flexibility in future energy
systems, especially towards 2050, depends significantly on the assumed pathways
for the energy system in terms of flexible production capacities, interconnection
of transmission systems151, evolution of costs of production and storage
technologies, etc.
To estimate the value for increasing flexible capacity due to the uptake of SRTs
that is stimulated by the SRI, this impact analysis builds on four important studies
related to energy flexibility in the energy sector:
• The final report of DG ENERGY framework service contract SRD

MOVE/ENER/SRD.1/2012-409-LOT 3-COWI: “Impact assessment study on
downstream flexibility, price flexibility, demand response and smart metering”,
referred to as the COWI study
• The PhD-thesis of H.C. Gils (2015): “Balancing of Intermittent Renewable
Power Generation by Demand Response and Thermal Energy Storage”,
referred to as the Gils study
• The research paper by A. Faruqui, D. Harris and R. Hledik: “Unlocking the €53
billion savings from smart meters in the EU: How increasing the adoption of
dynamic tariffs could make or break the EU’s smart grid investment”, published
in Energy Policy 38 (2010), referred to as the Faruqui study
• The METIS study S1: “optimal flexibility portfolios for a high-RES 2050
scenario”, referred to as the METIS study.
In the COWI study, the potential system cost savings resulting from the adoption
of flexibility services at the demand side are estimated until 2030. Economic
savings up to 6180 M€/year are reported for the most ambitions policy option
(option 3 in the study), compared to 4497 M€/year for the BAU scenario. These
scenarios would reflect a flexible capacity in 2030 of 34 GW in the BAU scenario
(6% of peak load) and 57 GW or (10% of peak load). From these results the value
for flexible load can be deduced, leading to a value of 144 €/kW of potential power
149
Roy, J. Van, Leemput, N., Geth, F., Salenbien, R., Buscher, J., Driesen, J., 2014. Apartment building
electricity system impact of operational electric vehicle charging strategies. IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy 5, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2013.2281463
150
The METIS study finds that for the METIS-S1-2050 scenario, which is based on the European
Commission’s EUCO30 scenario and assumes high shares of variable renewable energy production
(80% of production from RES of which 60% from PV and Wind), requires a significant increase of
flexibility compared to the EUCO30 scenario for 2030: +80% for daily flexibility, +60% for weekly
timescale and +50% at the annual timescale.
151
The METIS study concludes that most of this flexibility shall be delivered from cross-border
exchanges (164 GW).

reduction capacity. In contrast, the study by Faruqui presents value of 95 €/kW
as the sum of the avoided production capacity (87.12 €/kW) and avoided costs in
transmission and distribution system (10% of production capacity costs). The
demand side flexibility offered by smart control (hybrid) heat pumps in METIS
study is estimated at a peak reduction capacity of 37 GW, unlocking an annual
cost reduction of 2.4 billion euro. Hence, an economic value of 65 €/kW for flexible
capacity. In summary, the different studies provide a range for the economic value
of flexible capacity between 65 €/kW and 144 €/kW annually. In a conservative
approach, this impact analysis will work further with the lower value of 65 €/kW
per year.
The adoption of the SRI is expected to lead to an increase in smart technology

integration in buildings. As outlined in the previous section, SRTs with their ability
to provide the necessary communication, control and optimization infrastructure,
may have an important effect on the response to grid incentives, hence increasing
the offering of flexibility to the grid. The COWI study, based on international
studies on price-based DR for domestic costumers and SME’s, states that for
typical appliances, in the absence of smart, automated control, response rates of
the peak demand to the grid incentives are expected to be 2-6% in a time of use
pricing context. Yet, when automation is available activated capacity can increase
to 21-44%.
To map this with the impact calculation method for the SRI and the resulting SRT
uptake, it is assumed that buildings with a smartness level D offer 6 % of flexibility,
level C results in 10 % of flexibility, 21% for level B and 44% for level A. Following
the modelled distribution of the EU building stock among these classes of
smartness, the response rate in the residential sector to grid incentives for the
BAU scenario without any impact of the SRI is 6.8% in 2020. Under this BAU
scenario for SRT uptake, hence without any effect of the SRI, this would increase
to 8.8% in 2030, 11.2% in 2040 and 14.2% in 2050. Remaining at the
conservative side, the theoretical demand reduction potential for the traditional
residential appliances is based on Gils. The SRI BAU scenario would represent a
flexible capacity of 3.1 GW in 2020, 4.0 GW in 2030, 4.9 GW in 2040 and 5.7 GW
in 2050.
For the assumption of implementation pathway A1 (a detailed expert assessment),

these values would increase to 10.8% (5.0 GW) in 2030, 15% (7.1 GW) in 2040
and 19.5 % (9.2 GW) in 2050. In that scenario, the SRI would hence increase the
available demand side flexibility by 1 GW in 2030, 2.1 GW in 2040 and 3.5 GW in
2050. Assuming the conservative value of flexibility of 65 €/kW, the SRI would
annually unlock 65 M€/year, 137 M€/year, 227 M€/year in respectively 2030, 2040
and 2050, or 3.3 billion euro of cumulated savings (Figure 53). The increase in
flexible capacity unlocked for the other implementation pathway scenarios is
shown in Figure 52.

4
Increase in flexbile capacity [GW]

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
A1 A2 A3 B C D
E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3
Figure 52 – Increase in flexible capacity (GW) compared to the BAU SRT integration
scenario
Figure 53 - Annual value of increased demand side flexibility compared to the BAU SRT
integration scenario
4.3.2.6 Employment
The approach used to estimate the employment impacts of the SRI is two-fold.
First, an analysis is done on the employment related effects due to the influence
of the SRI on the uptake of smart ready technologies (SRTs) and related services,
and the effect it has on employment in the energy supply sector. Second, an
analysis is done of the expected impact of the SRI on employment associated with
assessment of the SRI. In both cases the influence that the SRI is expected to

have will be contingent on the manner in which it is implemented, expressed
through the set of implementation pathways.
SRT and services uptake impacts on employment
In all cases the SRT and related services value chain can be decomposed into the
following aspects:
• Manufacture
• Installation
• Wholesale
• Retail
• Maintenance.
The approach taken in this IA is to base the estimated SRI employment effects on
the estimated SRT revenues attributed to each of these activities in the SRT value
chain. Given the plethora of SRTs and services it is impractical to conduct a
detailed analysis of the exact costs and breakdowns related to each type of SRT
and related service. Rather the approach adopted is to draw upon the evident
parallels with investment and employment effects due to the uptake of more
energy efficient products under the Ecodesign directive – many of which exhibit
very similar market characteristics in terms of the nature of the market structure
to the types of SRTs that could be stimulated by the SRI.
The set of SRTs and related services that could be stimulated by the SRI are rather
diverse. They include the following: BACS, EV charging systems, indoor air quality
control and monitoring systems & shading controls amongst many others. Overall
though the types of technologies that will be used in SRTs include a blend of
actuators, motors, sensors, IT systems, monitors and displays, out-stations and
batteries. Thus, without knowing in advance the exact blend of technologies and
components it is possible to derive estimates based on the evident parallels with
similar technologies that have been the subject of Ecodesign assessments and
impact analyses. In particular, this analysis makes use of the findings of the 2016
Ecodesign impact assessment by VHK that derived employment impact values for
each product subject to Ecodesign requirements.
Direct employment creation in the SRT sector
There are no publicly available statistics on employment in the manufacture,

wholesale, retail, installation and maintenance of SRTs; however, there are
statistics on these fields for products which have been subject to regulation under
the Ecodesign Directive. The Ecodesign Impact Accounting study152 produced a
thorough analysis of the energy and employment impacts of Ecodesign and energy
labelling regulations for regulated products in the EU and provides data on many
product types that can be used as a proxy for the SRT sector. SRTs are a blend of
electro-mechanical technologies such as valves, actuators, thermostats related to
heating and cooling systems and of IT technologies (electronic controls, sensors,
communication). A significant part of their cost is concerned with system design
and installation, rather than hardware. In this regard, it is expected that their
152
Ecodesign Impact Accounting: Summary Report, Van Holstiejn en Kemna, 2016

levels of employment per unit revenue generated resemble a blend of technical
building systems costs (especially those associated with space heating) and of IT
equipment costs. The VHK study contains EU average employment per unit
revenue data for each aspect of the supply chain for a large variety of equipment
types. The current IA assumes that SRTs will have the same level of employment
per unit revenue as a blend of combination boilers, space heating only boilers and
imaging equipment as follows:
• Average number of industry jobs per €bn of incremental industry revenues

• For imaging equipment = 19946
• For Central Heating combi, water heating = 20078
• For Central Heating boiler, space heating equipment = 19998
• Mean =20007.
• Average number of wholesale jobs per €bn of incremental wholesale revenues

• For Central Heating boiler, space heating equipment =3972
• Mean =4213.
• Average number of installer/retail jobs per €bn of incremental installer/retail

revenues
• For Central Heating boiler, space heating equipment =29304
• Mean =22325.
Where the average EU employment per €bn of revenue per part of the supply
chain for imaging equipment, central heating combi systems, and central heating
boilers comes from the VHK (2013) study. Analysis of the data in the same study
shows that on average for these three equipment types that:
Acquisition cost = (Ind Rev + Install Rev + Wholesale Rev + Retail Rev) / 0.90
Where:
• Ind Rev = industry revenue i.e. the cost to manufacture the product
• Wholesale Rev = wholesale revenues for the product
• Retail Rev = retail revenues for the product
• Install Rev = installation revenues for the product.
Analysis of the average share of revenues by supply chain activity for these three
products shows the following relationships:
Wholesale Rev = 0.23 * Ind Rev
Retail Rev = 0.26 * Ind Rev

Install Rev = 0.84 * Ind Rev
Thus, the acquisition cost formula can be expressed as:
Acquisition cost = (Ind Rev + Ind Rev * 0.84 + Ind Rev * 0.23 + Ind Rev * 0.26)
/ 0.90
and rearranged to be expressed in terms of the industrial revenue as:
Ind Rev = (Acquisition cost * 0.9) / (1 + 0.84 + 0.23 + 0.26)
The estimated SRT acquisition cost per year following the SRI’s launch is derived
as explained in ANNEX D and summarized in Table 46 as a function of
implementation pathway scenario. Thus, the time series of acquisition costs for
each scenario can be inserted into the formulae above to create a time series of
estimated revenues for each SRT supply chain activity. These can then be
multiplied by the average number jobs per €bn of revenues figures presented at
the start of this section to create the time series of expected direct employment
per supply chain activity.
It is worth noting that while the blend of values for heating systems and imaging
systems were used in the current analysis the VHK values are quite similar across
diverse equipment types thus there is a high degree of consistency in the expected
ratios of employment per unit spend and equally of the division of employment
across the supply chain.
Direct employment losses in the energy sector
Some SRTs are expected to lead to energy savings and hence reduce the
consumption of energy – this in turn is likely to produce a reduction in employment
in the energy sector. To estimate the expected direct employment losses from
reduced energy sales due to the energy efficiency benefits of SRTs it was
necessary to establish the employment per unit of revenue in the energy supply
sector. Most of the expected energy savings from SRTs are from gas and electricity
savings. Scouring the Eurostat datasets did not reveal employment per industry
activity data; however, data for the UK (2016) was found for the energy sector
and was used as a proxy after adjustment for currency exchange rates. This data
showed that the average number of employees per €billion of revenue in the
energy sector was just 1607. Employment per unit revenue in the manufacture of
equipment is more than a factor of 12 above this, which reflects that the energy
supply sector has a very low employment intensity and is the principal reason why
energy efficiency measures in general create more jobs than they destroy.
Indirect employment effects
The implementation pathway scenarios show that the value of net savings from
greater deployment of SRTs exceed the investment and assessment costs by
between ~€4 bn and €13 bn per annum by 2050 depending on the implementation
pathway considered. In principle, the money saved from reduced energy bills will
be recirculated in the economy and this will generate additional employment. A
simple method to estimate the magnitude of this effect is to multiply the average
number of employees per €bn of GDP in the EU economy by the net cost savings
expressed in €bn to derive the number of indirect jobs created. Analysis of
Eurostat (2017) data shows that there were 202 million employees in the EU in
2015 and the GDP was €14600 bn, thus the average number of people employed
per €bn GDP is 13808, which implies that there could be additional net indirect

employment created of between ~55 and 193 thousand depending on the
implementation pathway; however, as these effects are highly uncertain they are
not included in the SRI impact accounting presented here. Note, there is expected
to be more uncertainty in the indirect employment estimates than the direct
employment effects, not least because of the tangential relationship between
saved money, expenditure in other areas and related investment in other
employment generating activities; but also the degree of delay in the recycling of
the expenditure savings into employment creating activities and the extent to
which these savings trigger investments within the EU as opposed to elsewhere.
Thus, the indirect employment impact estimates are not as robust as the direct
employment impact estimates.
Employment impacts related to the assessment of the SRI
The manner in which the SRI is to be assessed could also create direct employment
associated with the assessment of the SRI. If professional third-party assessors
are used these would need to be hired, trained and certified. If in-house
professional assessors are used to conduct self-assessments of properties owned
or managed by their employers, then these would also need to be trained and part
of their duties assigned to conducting SRI assessments and thus this would also
be expected to create a need for more employment of such assessors. However,
this kind of “in house” assessment could also potentially be absorbed in the
existing duties of facility managers and hence has a much less certain effect on
employment than the establishment of qualified 3rd party assessors. In
consequence it is, conservatively, assumed not to add to direct employment
although in practice it almost certainly would but to a lesser extent than 3rd party
assessment.
To estimate the impact of 3d party assessment data from the experience of SRI
assessment in the test phase is analysed to determine how long it takes to conduct
an SRI assessment in practice. Reasonable assumptions are then made about the
length of time it takes to travel to and from a property and, depending on the
implementation pathway, the additional time it would take to arrange an SRI
assessment. These figures are then processed to determine how much floor area
could be assessed per type of building stock per annum by a trained certifier and
adjusted to take account of average staff utilisation factors that are consistent
with the experience of conducting other kinds of 3rd party building assessments,
such as EPCs or environmental assessment. Direct employment impact is
determined by dividing the total floor area assessed per type of building per annum
by the estimated average annual floor area assessment per 3rd party SRI
assessor.
Note, the direct employment data so derived is multiplied by the EU average

employment costs for a job of a similar standing to an assessor to determine the
estimated assessment employment costs reported in the Costs and Benefits
section 6 below.
The share of third party assessment as a proportion of all SRI assessment is

assumed to vary by implementation pathway such that all assessment is assumed
to be conducted by a 3rd party except for implementation pathway C (where it is
assumed to be 5% 3rd party assessment and 95% self-assessment) and
implementation pathway D (where it is assumed to be 50% 3rd party assessment
and 50% self-assessment). The rationale behind these assumptions is that for the
mandatory pathways it is implicit that 3rd party assessment would be used. For
all the other pathways that are explicitly linked to an externally driven intervention
(trigger point) then again it is assumed that the assessment would be done by the

entity concerned with that trigger point and hence would be 3rd party. In the case
of implementation pathway C, it is assumed that only a small proportion of market
actors are willing to pay for a 3rd party assessment and hence the vast majority
of assessments are self-assessments. For pathway D the share of 3rd party
assessments rises considerably because the cost of the assessment is assumed to
be covered by a subsidy.
Direct employment impacts of the SRI – estimated results
The estimated net employment impacts of the SRI as a function of the

implementation pathway are shown Figure 54. Full data showing impacts per
pathway on each aspect of employment are presented in Annex D.
Figure 54 – Net additional employment created compared to the BAU SRT integration
scenario
4.3.2.7 Material Circularity
The estimated material related environmental impacts derived from this method
are reported in Table 14 and Table 15 for SRI implementation pathways A1 and C
respectively, which cover the two extremes from the set of pathways. These
include impacts associated with all the product lifecycle stages except the use
phase which is already accounted for in the energy and greenhouse gas analysis.
The values reported are those which are incremental to the base case (business
as usual) scenario, and hence are the additional impacts associated with the higher
SRT use induced through the SRI. Full data showing impacts for each
implementation pathway are presented in Annex D.

Table 14 - Estimated material related environmental impacts (from manufacture,
distribution, EOL) compared to BAU for implementation pathway A1
Impact Units 2023 2030 2040 2050

parameter
Other
resources &
Waste
Total Energy PJ 20.1 23.2 24.3 21.4

(GER)
of which, PJ 5.9 6.8 7.1 6.3

electricity (in
primary MJ)
Water billion ltr 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2

(process)

(cooling)
Waste, non- kt 172.3 198.9 208.3 183.5

haz./ landfill
Waste, kt 32.4 37.4 39.2 34.5

hazardous/
incinerated
Emissions
Air
Greenhouse Mt CO2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2

Gases in eq.
GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Acidification, kt SO2 eq. 6.2 7.1 7.5 6.6

emissions
Volatile kt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Organic
Compounds
(VOC)
Persistent ng i-Teq 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2

Organic
Pollutants
(POP)

Heavy Metals t Ni eq. 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.8
PAHs t Ni eq. 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.8
Particulate t 9.2 10.6 11.1 9.8

Matter (PM,
dust)
Emissions
water
Heavy Metals kg Hg/20 1280.6 1477.8 1547.8 1363.6
Eutrophication kt PO4 78.8 90.9 95.2 83.9
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 15 - Estimated material related environmental impacts (from manufacture,
distribution, EOL) compared to BAU for implementation pathway C
Impact Units 2023 2030 2040 2050

parameter
Other
resources &
Waste
Total Energy PJ 3.1 4.5 7.0 9.2

(GER)
of which, PJ 0.9 1.3 2.1 2.7

electricity (in
primary MJ)

(process)

(cooling)
Waste, non- kt 26.7 38.2 60.1 78.8

haz./ landfill
Waste, kt 5.0 7.2 11.3 14.8

hazardous/
incinerated
Emissions
Air
Greenhouse Mt CO2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5

Gases in eq.
GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

emissions
Volatile kt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Organic
Compounds
(VOC)

Organic
Pollutants
(POP)

PAHs t Ni eq. 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8
Particulate t 1.4 2.0 3.2 4.2

Matter (PM,
dust)
Emissions
water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.3.2.8 Health & Wellbeing
To give an indicative estimation of the potential comfort, health and wellbeing co-
benefits from the SRI the study team has post-processed the JRC findings of the
monetized impacts of these benefits due to the energy savings attributable to the
EPBD in 2030 to derive the estimated monetised value of SRI benefits for each
implementation pathway for the years 2023, 2030, 2040 and 2050 (as shown in
Table 16 to Table 19). The method assumes that the energy savings expected
from the greater deployment of SRTs under the various SRI implementation
pathway scenarios are a proxy for the health and wellbeing co-benefits
proportional to the projected energy savings under the EPBD to 2030. While this
exercise has been conducted to determine some tentative values of these co-
benefits it should be noted that these are clearly subject to significant uncertainties
in the absence of a specific investigation of the health and wellbeing impacts
directly attributable to SRTs and also given the large spread in values reported in
the JRC study itself.

Table 16 - Estimated Value of incremental SRI health & wellbeing benefits compared to
BAU in 2023 (€m)
Scenario Asthma Indoor PM2.5 Excess Mortality Lighting Total

Air winter ozone
Pollution mortality
A1 207 247 480 64 108 52 1157
A2 62 74 144 19 32 15 346
A3 128 152 297 39 67 32 714
B 100 119 232 31 52 25 558
C 54 65 126 17 28 14 304
D 131 156 303 40 68 33 730
E1 204 243 474 63 107 51 1143
E2 55 66 128 17 29 14 308
E3 118 140 273 36 62 29 658
F1 78 93 181 24 41 19 435
F2 54 65 126 17 28 14 304
F3 66 79 153 20 35 16 369

BAU in 2030 (€m)

Air winter ozone
Pollution mortality
A1 681 812 1582 210 356 170 3811
A2 215 257 500 66 113 54 1205
A3 433 517 1007 133 227 108 2425
B 337 402 784 104 176 84 1888
C 191 227 443 59 100 48 1067
D 448 535 1042 138 235 112 2509
E1 667 795 1549 205 349 167 3732
E2 193 231 449 59 101 48 1082
E3 398 474 924 122 208 99 2226
F1 266 317 619 82 139 67 1490
F2 191 228 444 59 100 48 1069
F3 229 272 531 70 120 57 1279

BAU in 2040 (€m)

Air winter ozone
Pollution mortality
A1 1158 1380 2690 356 606 289 6479
A2 326 389 758 100 171 82 1827
A3 740 882 1718 228 387 185 4139
B 562 670 1306 173 294 140 3145
C 279 333 649 86 146 70 1564
D 785 936 1825 242 411 196 4395
E1 1135 1353 2637 349 594 284 6351
E2 284 339 661 87 149 71 1591
E3 681 812 1582 209 356 170 3810
F1 424 505 985 130 222 106 2371
F2 280 334 651 86 147 70 1568
F3 351 419 816 108 184 88 1966

BAU in 2050 (€m)

Air winter ozone
Pollution mortality
A1 1618 1930 3760 498 847 405 9057
A2 574 684 1333 177 300 143 3212
A3 1114 1328 2588 343 583 278 6233
B 895 1067 2080 275 468 224 5009
C 509 607 1182 157 266 127 2848
D 1183 1411 2749 364 619 296 6621
E1 1600 1908 3718 492 837 400 8955
E2 516 615 1198 159 270 129 2886
E3 1050 1252 2440 323 549 263 5878
F1 710 846 1650 218 371 177 3973
F2 510 608 1185 157 267 127 2853
F3 608 725 1413 187 318 152 3404
4.3.2.9 Costs & Benefits
The estimated costs and benefits of the SRI are summarized in Table 20 to Table
23. These include the additional costs for the acquisition and installation of SRTs
above the business as usual (reference) case (Table 20), the cost of conducting
the SRI assessments (Table 21), the value of the SRI induced energy bill savings
(Table 22) and the net cost savings attributable to the SRI (Table 23) which is the
simple sum of the above. It should be noted that the value of additional benefits
(associated with the health & wellbeing impacts of the SRI, reduced maintenance
costs, higher convenience and comfort) and the additional costs (associated with
the environmental impacts of materials used in the SRTs) are not included in these
assessments due to the high uncertainty in, or unfeasibility of estimating their
monetised value.

Table 20 – Incremental SRT cost of the SRI compared to the BAU (€m per year)
Implementation pathway 2023 2030 2040 2050
A1 3125 3606 3777 3328
A2 616 841 1261 1598
A3 1754 2198 2650 2644
B 1180 1480 2029 2242
C 483 692 1089 1429
D 1709 2227 2775 2761
E1 3026 3499 3767 3358
E2 497 707 1107 1445
E3 1513 1914 2484 2569
F1 841 1091 1562 1896
F2 485 694 1092 1431
F3 663 891 1320 1654
Table 21 –SRI assessment costs (€m per year)
A1 434 460 515 560
A2 39 42 64 92
A3 307 325 475 526
B 114 121 194 273
C 1 1 1 2
D 299 317 440 513
E1 379 401 474 514
E2 12 13 19 26
E3 223 236 379 500
F1 61 65 101 149
F2 10 11 15 21
F3 48 51 73 103

Table 22 –Value of SRI induced energy bill savings compared to the BAU (€m per year)
A1 2150 7079 12035 16823
A2 643 2239 3394 5966
A3 1327 4503 7688 11578
B 1036 3507 5841 9305
C 564 1982 2905 5290
D 1357 4661 8163 12298
E1 2122 6932 11797 16633
E2 573 2010 2956 5360
E3 1223 4134 7077 10918
F1 808 2768 4405 7380
F2 565 1986 2912 5300
F3 686 2376 3652 6323
Table 23 –Value of net SRI induced cost savings compared to the BAU (€m per year)
A1 -1409 3012 7742 12936
A2 -12 1357 2069 4275
A3 -734 1981 4563 8408
B -258 1906 3619 6789
C 80 1290 1814 3859
D -651 2117 4949 9023
E1 -1283 3033 7556 12761
E2 63 1290 1831 3889
E3 -514 1983 4214 7849
F1 -95 1612 2742 5335
F2 70 1282 1805 3849
F3 -25 1434 2258 4567

4.4 ACTIVITY 4: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
As the quantitative modelling of the SRI impact involves a significant amount of

simplifications and assumptions a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to
investigate the impact of variations to the key model parameters on the uptake of
the SRI and the effect on the analysed KPIs. The sensitivity analysis is split in
three parts. Firstly, the impact of model parameters on the amount of conducted
SRI assessments is evaluated. Secondly, the sensitivity of the uptake of smart
ready technologies following an SRI assessment to the model parameters is
assessed. In the final step, based on the first two steps, four extreme scenarios
are defined in terms of parameter definitions. For these scenarios, the impact of
the model parameters to the evaluated KPIs (energy use, CO2-emissions, etc.) are
analysed.
4.4.1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON THE AMOUNT OF SRI ASSESSMENTS
The amount is SRI assessments that is being conducted given an implementation

pathway is modelled based on a set of trigger events and the likelihood that an
SRI assessment will be conducted given a certain trigger event. These likelihoods
dependent on the implementation pathway. For example, in implementation
pathway A1 a mandatory coupling to EPC is foreseen leading to a 100% likelihood
that an EPC assessment will lead to an SRI assessment. The underlying modelling
is based on statistical evidence of the occurrence of these trigger events as well
as a set of model parameters that reflect at which rate a trigger event will lead to
an assessment. Especially for the implementation pathways that include some
form of voluntary coupling to a trigger event, the likelihood an SRI assessment
will be carried out is subject to a significant level of uncertainty.
4.4.1.1 Impact of SRI assessment rate for voluntary links to trigger

events
Table 41 (ANNEX D) gives an overview of the implemented rates as implemented

in the base scenario. As limited evidence is available to support the SRI uptake
rates when a voluntary implementation is proposed, a first step in the sensitivity
analysis is to vary these uptake rates to high and low uptake rate scenarios.
and Table 25 show the rates applied under respectively the high and low impact
scenario. Note that in both cases only the rate of SRI assessments for voluntary
links to a trigger event have been modified. This is done only for the targeted
trigger events in that specific implementation pathway. For example, In A2 – a
voluntary link to EPC assessments – the rate of SRI assessments has increased
from 10% in the default scenario to 20% in the high uptake scenario. In the low
impact scenario, these have been reduced to 5%.

Table 24 - rate of SRI assessment per triggers under high impact scenario (in %)
A1 A2 A3 B C D E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3
EPC ASSESSMENT 100 20 60 0.5 1.0 40 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
REPLACEMENT OR UPGRADE OF 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 20 100 0.5 40 0.1 0.1 0.1
TECHNICAL BUILDING SYSTEMS
MAJOR RENOVATIONS 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 3.0 40 100 1.5 60 1.5 1.5 1.5
NEW CONSTRUCTION 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 3.0 40 100 1.5 60 1.5 1.5 1.5
INSTALLATION OF LOCAL RES (E.G. PV) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 20 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
EV PURCHASE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
SMART METER DEPLOYMENT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 20 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 10 60
HVAC INSPECTIONS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 0.5 40 0.1 0.1 0.1
OTHER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 25 - rate of SRI assessment per triggers under low impact scenario
A1 A2 A3 B C D E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3
EPC ASSESSMENT 100 5.0 20 0.5 0.5 10 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
REPLACEMENT OR 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.0 30 0.5 10 0.1 0.1 0.1
UPGRADE OF
TECHNICAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS
MAJOR RENOVATIONS 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.5 10 100 1.5 20 1.5 1.5 1.5
NEW CONSTRUCTION 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.5 5.0 100 1.5 20 1.5 1.5 1.5
INSTALLATION OF 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
LOCAL RES (E.G. PV)
EV PURCHASE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
SMART METER 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 3.0 20
DEPLOYMENT
HVAC INSPECTIONS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 0.5 10 0.1 0.1 0.1
OTHER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 55 – Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock for
which an SRI assessment is available. Results for the high SRI uptake rate scenario
which an SRI assessment is available. Results for the low SRI uptake rate scenario
As expected, the high impact scenario, especially benefits the outcome of the
implementation pathways that provide a voluntary but support link to the trigger
events. Under this high impact assumption, also implementation pathways A3, D
and E3 lead to more than 85% of the building stock having an SRI assessment
carried out by 2050. Also, under these assumptions the E1 scenario has the fastest
uptake, exceeding implementation pathway A1 which has the highest uptake in
the default scenario. The latter stems from the increase of SRI assessments for

technical buildings system upgrade and replacements. In the default scenario, this
uptake rate was set to 40% as it was argued unrealistic to expect all TBS upgrades
or replacements to yield in an SRI assessment, even under a mandatory
implementation pathway. In the high uptake scenario, the 40% value has been
increased 100% in line with the other implementation pathways assuming a
mandatory linkage. As shown on Figure 56, the unsupported voluntary schemes
are not able to exceed a 10% coverage by 2050.
4.4.1.2 Impact of market push and pull effects
In order to reflect that voluntary implementation pathways may gain interest as

the SRI get more mature, market push and market pull factors have been
introduced. These factors model the increase of the rate of SRI assessments as
function of the growing share of buildings with an SRI assessment. In the default
scenario, maximum pull and push effect factors are limited to a 2% increase for
implementation scenarios with a subsidized voluntary assessment and 1% for a
non-subsidized implementation scenario.
To assess the importance of these factors on the results a high- and low-impact
scenario is again evaluated. In the high-impact scenario market push and pull
effects are set to 4% and 2% for respectively the subsidized and non-subsidized
implementation pathways. In the low-impact scenario both are set to 0%. For the
implementation pathways that propose a mandatory coupling of an SRI
assessment to certain trigger events, the market push and pull effects are
assumed to be 0%.
which an SRI assessment is available. Results for the high market push and pull effect
scenario

which an SRI assessment is available. Results for the low market push and pull effect
scenario
4.4.1.3 Impact of assessment method
In the methodology description a distinction was made between a detailed and a

simplified assessment methodology as well as between a self-assessment and an
expert assessment. Given the differences in complexity and cost for the end-user
– being the building owner asking for the SRI – an impact of the methodology
choice on the SRI deployment rate has also been modelled. Hereto, a correction
factor is introduced on the SRI assessment rates.
For the default calculation, a correction of 0.9 and 1.1 was given to respectively
the expert assessment and the self-assessment. This reflects that if an external
expert needs to be involved in the assessment process, the uptake of the SRI is
expected to be lower. Similarly, correction factors of 0.9 and 1.1 were used for
respectively the detailed and simplified method. This reflects that a more simplified
assessment protocol may yield a higher amount of assessments being carried out.
In the low-impact scenario, the 1.1 values for self-assessment and a simplified
methodology have been reduced to 0.8. As such, self-assessment and a simplified
method are assumed to result in less SRI assessments compared to detailed and
expert assessments. In the high-impact scenario these values have been increased
to 1.3, favouring the simplified, self-assessment.

Figure 59 - Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock.
Results for positive scenario promoting self-assessment
Figure 60 - Sensitivity of SRI deployment rate as percentage of the EU building stock.

Results for scenario promoting expert-assessment

4.4.1.4 High and low SRI deployment scenario
Based on the cases above, 2 extreme scenarios are compiled that reflect a high
and low deployment scenario for the amount of SRI assessment.
The high uptake scenario assumes the uptake rates of SRI assessments linked to
a trigger event as tabulated in Table 24. In addition, high values of market push
and pull effects are assumed. The low uptake scenarios assumes uptake rates as
specified in Table 25 and low values for the market push and pull effects. The
correction factors for the impact of the assessment methodology are kept at the
default rates.
4.4.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE UPTAKE OF SMART READY

TECHNOLOGIES
The uptake of smart ready technologies is modelled based on the deployment of

the SRI. Hereto three main factors are defined. The base uptake rate as a result
of an SRI assessment. In the default scenario these are set to 15% and 3% for
respectively an upgrade of SRTs resulting in an SRI score increase by 1 level of
smartness and a score increase to level A. Secondly, there is again a market push
and pull effect at play that increases the amount of SRT upgrades due to an SRI
assessment as the total amount of SRI assessment increases, i.e. as the SRI gains
maturity and popularity. Lastly, there is again a correction for the SRI assessment
method being applied. The impact of all three factors is evaluated separately.
4.4.2.1 Rate of SRT uptake following an SRI assessment
In the default scenario the rate of SRT uptake following an SRI assessment is set
to 15% for upgrades by 1 level of smartness and 3% for upgrades to class A. This
value is a conservative estimate compared to values reported in e.g. early energy-
labelling studies or the energy star label that was introduced in the US. Reports
on the energy star label state that 90% of customers recognize the label. 45%
have both labelled products and 74% of those acknowledge that the label has
influenced their choice. Therefore, in this sensitivity analyses a high uptake
scenario is defined using an uptake rate of 33% and 3% for respectively upgrades
by 1 level of smartness and to a level A. Note that the value of upgrades to a level
A has not been increased. This is kept constant because upgrades to a level A
would in most cases require more disruptive changes to the technical building
systems which may require a certain level of building renovation. Increasing this
uptake rate above the ambitious 3% building renovation rate target was therefore
deemed unrealistic. For the low impact scenario, the 15% rate of upgrades by 1
class has been reduced to 10%. The 3% value for upgrades to level A has been
reduced to 1% being in line with the current renovation rate.

Figure 61 - Results for the high uptake rate scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1 level
(top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an
upgrade.

Figure 62- Results for the low uptake rate scenario, showing SRT upgrades by 1 level
(top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building stock that has had an
upgrade.
4.4.2.2 Impact of market push and pull effects
The uptake of SRTs in the impact analysis model is influenced by the maturity and
popularity of the SRI after implementation. This reflects that as the SRI gets more
mature and more widespread, it will have a positive impact on the uptake of smart
ready technologies.
In the default scenario market, the maximum value of market push and pull effects
was limited to 0.41% and 0.082% for respectively upgrades by 1 class or to a
level A. For the high impact scenario, these values are increased to 1.2% and
0.2%. For the low impact scenario, both values are set to 0%. Note that for
implementation pathway C, the maximum values for the market push and pull
effect parameters have been reduced to half the values of the other
implementation pathway. This assumption is maintained in the sensitivity analysis
to maintain consistency with the base scenario.

Figure 63 - Results for the high market push and pull effect scenario, showing SRT
that has had an upgrade.

Figure 64 - Results for the low market push and pull effect scenario, showing SRT
that has had an upgrade.
4.4.2.3 Impact of the assessment methodology
In the SRI methodology proposition a differentiation was made between a detailed

and simplified assessment method which could be carried out as self-assessment
or by an expert assessor. In the default scenario, it is assumed that a detailed
assessment carried out by an expert assessor would yield higher uptake of smart
ready technologies. This is modelled by introducing a correction for the uptake
rate of SRTs. In the default scenarios these factors were set to 0.7 and 0.8 for
respectively a simplified methodology and a self-assessment.

Two alternative scenarios are evaluated here. In the positive impact scenario, a
simplified self-assessment is expected to yield higher SRT uptake. The correction
factors are therefore set to 1 and 1.1 respectively for the simplified method and
the self-assessment. In the negative impact scenario, values are set to 0.5 and
0.6, reflecting that due to a lack of confidence in the methodology a simplified
self-assessment would yield even lower uptake of SRTs.
Figure 65 - Results for the positive impact scenario (promoting self-assessment), showing
SRT upgrades by 1 level (top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the building
stock that has had an upgrade.

Figure 66 - Results for the negative impact scenario (promoting expert-assessment),
showing SRT upgrades by 1 level (top) and to level A (bottom) expressed as share of the
building stock that has had an upgrade.
4.4.2.4 High and low SRT uptake scenario
Based on the specific analysis in previous section, 2 reference scenarios are

deduced which will be further used to evaluate the sensitivity of the other KPIs.
The high impact scenario combines both the high uptake rates (respectively 33%
and 3% for upgrades by 1 class or upgrades to class A) with the default market
push and pull effects (0.41% and 0.082% respectively). The low impact scenario
combines the low uptake rates (10 % and 1% respectively) but combines these
with the market push and pull effects set to 0%.

4.4.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE ENERGY USE, CO2 EMISSION
REDUCTIONS AND ENERGY COST SAVINGS
Based on the high and low impact scenario for SRI deployment and the high and
low impact scenarios for the SRT uptake, four scenarios have been composed and
compared against the default scenario that formed the basis for the impact
analysis. The four scenarios are listed in Table 26. Scenario 1 and 2 represent the
two extreme cases with respectively the highest and lowest estimated effects of
the implementation of the SRI. Scenario 3 represents a scenario where the SRI is
well appreciated and picked up by the market, but it does not yield the expected
uptake of the market in smart ready technologies. This scenario is expected to
yield worst case results in terms of costs and benefits as the scenario would reflect
a high cost scenario in terms of implementation of the scheme (high number of
assessments) yet low investments in SRTs and corresponding benefits. On the
contrary, scenario four reflects a case where the number of SRI assessments
would stay limited, yet the rate of SRI assessments leading to an SRT upgrade is
high.
Table 26 - Overview of sensitivity scenarios
Scenario Scenario on number of SRI Scenario on SRT uptake rate

assessments linked to an SRI assessment
1 High High
2 Low Low
3 High Low
4 Low High
Figure 67 and Figure 68 show the impact of the scenarios on the cumulated
investment into smart ready technologies in respectively 2030 and 2050. These
results are the increased investment compared to the business as usual SRT
uptake and hence clearly demonstrate the impact of the SRI on this market.
Comparing scenarios 3 and 4, shows significantly higher uptake of SRTs in scenario
4 compared to scenario 3. This suggests that it is more important to assure that
SRI assessments lead to an upgrade of SRTs for that building. As pointed out by
scenario 3, striving for increasing the number of SRI assessments without assuring
an adequate rate of SRT upgrades is not efficient.

Figure 67 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the additional cumulated investment in
SRTs by 2030
Figure 68 – Impact of sensitivity scenarios on the additional cumulated investment in

SRTs by 2050
Figure 69 and Figure 70 show the resulting primary energy savings. These values
evidently follow the trends for the results of the SRT uptake. For the high impact
scenario (scenario 1), primary energy savings are up to 50% greater. These trends
are similar for all pathways. Note the high differences for implementation pathway
E1. This follows from the change in the rate of SRI assessments linked to the
trigger “upgrade or replacement of technical building systems.” Corresponding
CO2-emission savings and energy cost savings are reported in

implementation pathways by 2030



4.4.4 SENSITIVITY FOR COSTS AND BENEFITS
The spread in the estimated costs and benefits for the four sensitivity scenarios
are shown in Table 27 to Table 30 for the year 2030. In each case the values for
the original scenario are also shown as a reference.
Table 27 - Incremental SRT costs compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030
Implementation Original Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

pathway 1 (high, 2 (low, 3 (high, 4 (low,
high) low) low) high)
A1 3606 6502 1577 1684 6160
A2 841 1435 62 219 869
A3 2198 5403 387 1351 2047
B 1480 2373 431 479 2209
C 692 840 17 54 706
D 2227 6843 346 1763 1900
E1 3499 8394 1384 2231 5553
E2 707 784 30 39 754
E3 1914 5571 758 1387 3389
F1 1091 1560 232 253 1485
F2 694 825 29 55 728
F3 891 1360 74 198 914

Table 28 - Assessment costs (external) (€m) in year 2030

A1 460 474 446 474 446
A2 42 84 25 84 25
A3 325 511 150 511 150
B 121 127 116 127 116
C 1 2 1 2 1
D 317 635 127 635 127
E1 401 553 349 553 349
E2 13 15 12 15 12
E3 236 472 273 472 273
F1 65 68 62 68 62
F2 11 22 12 22 12
F3 51 75 29 75 29

Table 29 – Energy bill savings compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030

A1 7079 12068 3075 3215 11634
A2 2239 3417 145 480 2296
A3 4503 10018 790 2552 4269
B 3507 5230 1012 1062 5066
C 1982 2320 44 136 2012
D 4661 12871 753 3427 4149
E1 6932 16017 2709 4453 10447
E2 2010 2182 77 97 2115
E3 4134 10484 1684 2683 7250
F1 2768 3746 568 599 3644
F2 1986 2293 76 143 2066
F3 2376 3409 188 483 2417

Table 30 – Net cost savings compared to BAU (€m) in year 2030

A1 3012 5092 1052 1057 5028
A2 1357 1898 59 176 1402
A3 1981 4105 253 689 2072
B 1906 2730 465 456 2742
C 1290 1478 27 80 1306
D 2117 5393 280 1029 2122
E1 3033 7070 976 1669 4545
E2 1290 1383 35 44 1350
E3 1983 4441 653 825 3588
F1 1612 2119 274 278 2097
F2 1282 1446 35 66 1326
F3 1434 1974 85 210 1474

4.4.5 SENSITIVITY FOR EMPLOYMENT
The spread of the estimated employment impacts for the four sensitivity scenarios
are shown in
Table 31 for the year 2030. In each case the values for the original scenario are
also shown as a reference.
Table 31 - Incremental net employment compared to BAU (no. of jobs created) in year
2030
Implementation Original Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

pathway (high, (low, low) (high, low) (low, high)
high)
A1 72394 138451 66870 69135 102051
A2 6713 56306 35910 39502 44378
A3 48569 124108 43336 65430 63319
B 32895 70558 43053 44076 64076
C 647 45762 34733 35288 41344
D 48654 147691 42166 74055 60360
E1 69392 166908 61909 78446 99719
E2 19204 45257 35164 35360 42349
E3 42161 125820 51183 65061 81755
F1 25943 57488 39097 39550 53593
F2 18955 46374 35158 35784 42314
F3 22719 54791 36155 38931 45011
4.4.6 SENSITIVITY FOR MATERIAL CIRCULARITY AND HEALTH & WELLBEING
The spread of the estimated material circularity for the four sensitivity scenarios
basically scales proportionately to the SRT cost expenditure (e.g. see Table 27)
while the health and wellbeing impacts scale proportionately with the energy
consumption.

4.4.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The sensitivity analysis has evaluated the impact of two main parts of the impact
analysis calculation method. First, the assumptions regarding the number of SRI
assessments that would follow each of the implementation pathways has been
analysed. In the second step, the rate at which SRI assessment would lead to
action – in the sense of resulting in increased uptake SRTs – has been studied.
Based on the sensitivity analysis of the underlaying model parameters describing

these two aspects, four main sensitivity scenarios have been defined and
compared against the default scenario used in the body of the impact analysis.
These four scenarios correspond to combinations of ‘high’ and ‘low’ scenarios in
terms of the number of SRI assessments and ‘high’ and ‘low’ scenarios in terms
of the SRT uptake following an SRI assessment:
• Scenario 1: high SRI assessment scenario and high SRT uptake scenario
• Scenario 2: low SRI assessment scenario and low SRT uptake scenario
• Scenario 3: high SRI assessment scenario and low SRT uptake scenario
• Scenario 4: low SRI assessment scenario and high SRT uptake scenario.
Analysing the resulting volume of SRT upgrades clearly outlines the effect of these
scenarios. Note that the other KPIs scale in either a linear or non-linear way with
the amount of SRT upgrades.
Compared to the original impact scenario, the total SRT investment in

implementation pathway A1 increased with 62% for scenario 1 by 2050. For
scenario 2, the total investment for pathway A1 decreased with 57%. Comparing
scenarios 2 and 4 demonstrates that it is primarily the amount of SRT uptakes
following an SRI assessment that has a significant impact on the final results, since
the total investment increases from 45.6 billion euro to 165.9 billion euro. As such,
scenario 4 is only 4% lower than scenario 2.
For implementation pathways for which a voluntary link is to the trigger events is
assumed, the impact of stimulating the amount of SRI assessments is greater. For
example, in the case of pathway A3, for which a voluntary link to EPC assessments
with supporting measures is assumed, the original impact analysis results in a
total cumulated investment of 70.9 billion euro by 2050. Sensitivity scenarios 2
and 4 respectively lead to 11 and 66 billion euro. In the original scenario, it was
assumed that for pathway A3, 40% of EPC assessments would result in an SRI
assessment. Sensitivity scenario 2 clearly shows that if these numbers would only
reach 20% or less, e.g. through inadequate supporting measures, and if at the
same time the conducted SRI assessments have a limited uptake rate of SRTs,
the SRT investments are marginal. This evidently reflects on the other impact
criteria, such as CO2-emission savings, employment, etc.
Based on this analysis it can therefore be concluded that regardless of the

implementation pathway it is key to provide a proper value proposition that
guarantees that when SRI assessments are carried out that these also lead to SRT
upgrades. If the implementation of the SRI fails to unlock these increased SRT
investments, the impact of the SRI may be 57% lower compared to the original
impact analysis values. Yet, when the SRT uptake rate would exceed the estimates
in the original impact – which are deemed conservative estimates, the impact of
the SRI may increase by 62%.

For implementation pathways that link an SRI assessment in a voluntary way to
the trigger events, it is in addition essential to provide adequate supporting
measures that will guarantee high assessment rates. However, also in those cases
supporting the SRT uptake should get priority over increasing the amount of
assessments.

5 TASK 5 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
AND STUDY WEBSITE
The objective of Task 5 was to establish an open and inclusive consultation process
to provide support to the development of the SRI, by ensuring that all relevant
stakeholders are involved and have the opportunity to express their views on the
project. Particular emphasis has been given to build a wide consensus among the
stakeholders of the construction/renovation value chain – from the architect to the
operator of the building – on the design and development of the SRI.
5.1 ACTIVITY 1: ORGANISATION OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION MEETINGS

AND OTHER STAKEHOLDER INTERACTIONS
Eight different ways for the stakeholders to interact with the study team have been
available during the course of the two technical support studies:
• stakeholder consultation meetings

• topical stakeholder working groups
• testing the SRI in a field-trial
• consumer focus groups
• written comments
• surveys and open public consultations
• dedicated stakeholder interactions upon invitation
• project website (discussed in Activity 2).
5.1.1 PLENARY STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION MEETINGS
To give a broad range of stakeholders the optimal possibilities to contribute,

stakeholder consultation meetings have been organised in Brussels in the course
of the project, in close agreement with the Commission Services.
In the framework of the first technical support study, a first stakeholder meeting
took place on 7th June, 2017 in Brussels, dedicated to introducing the objectives
and scope of the study, the work plan and the first findings. Several invited
external speakers presented relevant other initiatives related to the themes of the
SRI. More than 65 representatives were present, from a broad variety of
stakeholder organisations representing Member States, EPBD Concerted Action
members, industry associations, research institutes, NGOs and individual
companies.
A second stakeholder meeting took place on 21st of December 2017, with an

attendance of 88 representatives. During this meeting, the progress of the study
as presented in the interim report was shared with the stakeholders. An overview
was given of the received comments and how these have been taken into account
in the drafting of the interim report.
In consultation with DG Energy, it was decided to organise a third stakeholder

meeting within the scope of the first technical study. This meeting took place on
28th May 2018 in Brussels. At this meeting, 71 representatives were present. Prior
to this meeting a summarising report was sent out to inform stakeholders on the

status of the project. During the meeting, the progress of the technical study and
legal framework was discussed and feedback from stakeholders was collected. This
was accompanied by the presentation of two practical case study examples.
The fourth stakeholder meeting (the first of the second technical support study)
took place on 26 March 2019 and was attended by 120 stakeholders – as well as
the numerous stakeholders who followed the web-stream. The study team briefly
reminded participants of the outcomes of the first study and presented the work
plan of the second technical study. The study team also described the various
ways in which stakeholders are invited to be involved in the second technical
study. Finally, the study team presented the working assumptions of the second
technical support study, based on the feedback from stakeholders collected during
and after the first technical support study.
The fifth stakeholder meeting took place on 9 October 2019 and was attended by
71 stakeholders – as well as the numerous stakeholders who followed the web-
stream. During this meeting the technical study team consortium presented
interim conclusions on the calculation methodology and consolidated results on
the evaluation of quantitative impacts as presented in the interim report. Also,
ongoing work regarding the format of the SRI and its potential implementation
pathways was discussed. Finally, the study team also presented intermediate
results from the public bèta testing and reported on the contributions of the Topical
Working Groups.
5.1.2 TOPICAL STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUPS
In the context of this study, the study team has reached out to actively engage
stakeholders to cluster with other stakeholders in dedicated thematic groups.
Using such an approach, inputs can be gathered more effectively and a consensus
on many important issues will likely be more easily obtained.
Initially, two Topical Stakeholder Working Groups were set up, a third one was
added more recently:
• Topical Group A on the SRI value proposition and implementation

• Topical Group B on the SRI calculation methodology.
• Topical Group C on future developments of the SRI (added in the autumn of
2019).
All registered stakeholders were invited to apply for membership of one of the
Topical Groups. Drawing from the applications received, the study team – in
consultation with the Commission services – composed compact and well-balanced
expert groups of approximately 30 members, representing different (mainly
European) sector organisations and Member States.
Topical Group A and Topical Group B gathered twice in Brussels for meetings in
person, back to back with the first and second stakeholder meeting. A plenary
feedback meeting with stakeholder topical groups A, B and C was organised on 13
February 2020 to feed the further consultations with EU Member States and
support the process of drafting the delegated and implementing acts.
Next to the meetings in person, teleconference meetings have been set up to

discuss specific topics.

5.1.2.1 Topical group A: SRI value proposition and implementation
The Topical Group A on SRI value proposition and implementation aims to

reflect upon the business value of the SRI from an end-user perspective and to
discuss possible approaches for an effective implementation of the SRI. In total,
five meetings were organized, covering the following topics:
• Brussels meeting 26 March 2019:

• SRI value proposition and audience
• SRI assessment process: method A/B/C.
• Web meeting 17 May 2019:
• SRI format.
• implementation pathways: links to other initiatives.
• Brussels meeting 9 October 2019:
• implementation pathways and issues
• formatting
• interoperability, cybersecurity, & connectivity
• Brussels meeting 13 February 2020 with topical groups A, B and C:
• Review of the draft legal texts
Topical Group A members are:
Organisation
1 ACE
2 AIE
3 AT – Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism
4 AT – OIB – Austrian Institute of Construction Engineering
5 AVERE
6 DK – Danish Energy Agency
7 EBC
8 EDSO
9 EPBD CA/BBRI
10 EPF
11 eu.bac
12 EURELECTRIC
13 EURELECTRIC (replacement)
14 EuroACE
15 FI – Finnish nat. SRI methodology/Aalto Univ.
16 FR – Developpement Durable
17 FR – SBA
18 GCP
19 GGBA
20 Housing Europe

21 HQE
22 IFMA
24 REHVA
25 smartEn
26 UEPC
27 UIPI
28 UIPI (replacement)
* Two participants did not consent to sharing their organisation
5.1.2.2 Topical group B: SRI calculation methodology
The Topical Group B on SRI calculation methodology aims to focus on the

consolidation of the SRI methodological framework, including the selection of
services, the definition of weighting factors and impacts, etc. In total, nine
meetings were organized, covering the following topics:
• Brussels meeting 26 March 2019:

• calculation framework: impact criteria and weightings.
• calculation framework: domains and weightings
• SRI assessment process: method A/B/C.
• triage process & missing services
• updating the SRI framework.
• Web meeting 11 June 2019:
• simplified calculation method: database approach.
• Web meeting 28 June 2019:
• update on the framework of domains and impact criteria
• simplified calculation method: simplified service catalogue.
• Web meeting 23 August 2019:
• simplified calculation method: simplified service catalogue.
• Brussels meeting 9 October 2019:
• Beta testing
• Simplified method
• Interoperability
• Review of the service catalogue
• Contextualisation of the methodology.
• Web meeting 4 November 2019:
• Interoperability, cybersecurity & connectivity
• Methods A & B
• Weightings for domains and impact criteria.

Topical Group B members are:
Organisation
1 Applia
2 AT – EE Institute for Sustainable Technology
3 BBRI
4 BDEW
5 BU – Budapest University of Technology and Economics
6 COGEN Europe
7 CY – Cyprus
8 DE – Federal Energy Efficiency Center
9 DE – IFEU (replacement)
10 DK – Danish Energy Agency
11 EHI
12 EHI (replacement)
13 EHPA
14 EPEE
15 ES – CENER
16 Eu.bac
17 EURIMA
18 Euroheat
19 EVIA
20 FI – Aalto University
21 FI – Aalto University (replacement)
22 FIEC
23 FR – CEREMA
24 FR – IFPEB
25 KNX association
26 Lighting Europe
27 NL – The Netherlands Enterprise Agency
28 REHVA
29 Smart Building Alliance
30 SmartEn
* Four participants did not consent to sharing their organisation

5.1.2.3 Topical group C: future evolutions of the SRI
The Topical Group C on future evolutions of the SRI aims to explore how the
SRI can remain sufficiently future proof. Members of this topical group have been
discussing:
• All elements related to a data-driven assessment; e.g. methodological

requirements (benchmarking of smartness, dealing with qualitative SRI
impacts such as convenience); technological requirements (data formats,
disaggregating data to extract the smartness aspects, required monitoring
infrastructure, etc.), and other aspects such as privacy concerns and
cybersecurity.
• A process for updating methods A and B; e.g. updating the service catalogue
by adding or removing domains, services, or functionality levels, etc.
Unlike topical groups A and B, this topical group is self-managed in terms of

organisation and content and reports to the technical study consortium and the
Commission services. The work of topical group C is intended to continue beyond
the time frame of the technical support study. At some point, topical group C could
potentially evolve into a more permanent structure, potentially with a different
set-up and composition.During the course of the technical study meetings have
been held, covering the following topics:
• Web meeting 2 December 2019

• Kick-off: scope and practical arrangements.
• Web meeting 27 January 2020
• Practical arrangements
• Work plan
• Web meeting 13 March 2020
• Outline for a first internal survey on current status and future evolutions of
the SRI
• Planning for a second internal survey to start approximately mid-May 2020
• Planning for a recommendations report towards the technical study
consortium and the commission services
• Web meeting 20 April 2020
• Presentation of the results of the first internal survey
• Planning the recommendations report aggregated 1st draft and
recommendations report consolidated 1st draft
• Web meeting 4 May 2020
• Discussion recommendations report aggregated first draft and finalising
recommendations report consolidated 1st draft
• Web meeting 13 May 2020
• Handover meeting: presentation of intermediate recommendations to the
technical study consortium and the Commission Services
• Presentation of the quasi-final SRI TGC 1st recommendations report which
is a snapshot of the progress of the ongoing work in topical group C.
The topical working group has provided recommendations to the technical study
consortium and the Commission Services, which are summarised below.

5.1.2.4 Summary of Topical Group C first recommendations report
Topical group C, the independent body operating in parallel to this study, have
made the following recommendations regarding the SRI within their 1st
recommendations report. The report is available on the project website 153.
Concerning the objectives of the SRI and the definition of smart buildings they
recommend:
Overall, the SRI should serve towards the achievement of the EU Green Deal goals,
and especially through the Renovation Wave initiative. It should not be just an
image tag. Moreover, the SRI assessment should be incorporated in all phases of
the building life cycle and furthermore be validated and tracked, therewith
providing comfortable buildings at minimum use of energy and maximizing the
flexibility potential buildings can deliver in a smart energy grid.
Specifically, for advancing the development in the field of smart buildings,

especially in light of the need to continuously improve the SRI methodology and
its implementation (as it deals with fast evolving building technology), it would be
helpful to have a very basic acknowledged definition of a Smart Building e.g.
“A building that can leverage metadata from technical building systems

(building services), occupants and surrounding environment to deliver all expected
benefits associated with:
• Satisfying the evolving needs of the people.

• Continuously improving the building’s performance.
• Continuously improving the energy system’s performance.”
More generally the other recommendations are structured under three main
pillars:
• Updates to the existing methodology.

• In-use SRI - automated methods A and B (software synced with technical
building systems).
• In-use SRI – a new method C based on measured data (real-time building
performance).
Concerning updates to the existing methodology Topical Group C state:
For coordinating the process of updating the existing methodology considering

both lessons learned and emerged needs during the testing and implementation,
the key is to ensure consistency between the assessment and final SRI scores at
EU level. The Member State level tailoring of the methodology should be done in
such a way that the seamless conversion to the EU SRI default methodology is
ensured. This would enable and facilitate analysis and comparison of the readiness
level in different Member States and regions providing the basics for an inclusive
and streamlined updating process.
153
The full report of topical group C can be found on www.smartreadinessindicator.eu/ stakeholder-
consultation

Concerning automating methods A and B they state:
Automating methods A and B is highly likely to increase the EU-wide market

uptake of the SRI which in turn would support the performance improvement (also
indoor climate) process of the EU’s building stock. In many buildings and with the
introduction of the revised EPBD, automation or at least more control possibilities
than currently available will be introduced in buildings. Developing an SRI which
can use these systems to generate automatically comparable indicators on
different levels would help the market. The same building technology needed for
automated methods A and B enables continuous real-time data monitoring of
technical building systems’ operation which has high potential in closing building
performance gaps throughout a building’s life cycle and so introduce a new method
C.
Concerning a new method C they state:
For a new method C it is very important to keep in mind that the whole point of
this method is to let the SRI evolve from a parameter which consists of factors
levelling functionalities of services from the Smart Services Catalogue (currently
methods A and B) to a parameter which quantifies the building’s impacts for all 3
relevant categories (building occupants needs, building operational efficiency and
building energy flexibility) with a strong focus on the impact upon the reduction of
CO2 emissions. A new method C would add further value to real estate. Therefore,
go-to-market strategy should be considered to support added-value in the market.
As such, having a clear and transparent (sustainable) business case (value
proposition) from the very beginning is essential. Just considering the goal of
decarbonising the EU’s building stock, monetisation should be quantified at least
in terms of CO2 savings. In addition, benefits like enhanced productivity by an
improved indoor work environment, reduced investment cost for upgrading the
energy grid by fully employing the building flexibility potential and reduced total
cost of ownership by the use of data driven predictive maintenance techniques
should be quantified.
The entire SRI process will be managed and further developed via the so called
“SRI platform”. The “SRI platform” (for which a basic concept is proposed in the
report) should be established by end 2020 to support the work of the SRI TGC and
enable the exchange with and between Member States during the SRI national
testing.
The national testing provides a unique window of opportunity to assess if/how it

is sensible and market relevant to apply the recommendations provided within this
report aiming at further consolidating the SRI. Furthermore, having the “SRI
platform” operational would also enable the coordination of ongoing and upcoming
EU funded projects (e.g. Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, both Coordination and
Support Actions and Innovation Actions) that include activities related to SRI,
especially testing, demonstration, further development and market uptake.
Currently, EU strategic priories in the post-COVID Recovery Plan are to invest in

green, digital and resilient future including the Renovation Wave as a key
component. In this respect, we believe that the SRI has an important role to play
in turning our European buildings into healthy, eﬃcient and smart places, and
advocate for the SRI broad and fast uptake (as element in the Renovation Wave)
in order to speed-up this transition.

More specific recommendations on the above are reported in Topical Group C’s 1st
recommendations report.
In addition, Topical Group C make the following general considerations and

recommendations:
• The options on the table are either a "checklist" approach (A or B) or an

assessment based on measured data (C). A or B and even C would rely on
"qualified assessors". It should be acknowledged that this adds a level of
subjectivity to the process and as such quality assurance is among the top
priorities.
• SRI Method C could be used for planning purposes e.g. the desired smart
services/capabilities should be specified together with their respective
KPIs. For actual performance assessment a link to the CEN/ISO set of EPB
standard would be needed e.g. CEN/ISO set of EPB standards might define
minimum requirements of capabilities of a smart building.
• One challenge to be tackled in method C is how to handle user behaviour.
For example, the flexibility of the building's performance, much depends
on the user’s willingness to be flexible with his needs. Method C will most
likely require normalization of the measurements to make results
comparable, especially when considering user behaviour.
• The lift industry sees several advantages to include lifts within the heart of
the discussions or proposal as they can address all the concerns.
• All lessons learned from the smart meters’ roll-out activities need to be
valued to ensure the SRI delivers all (or most) of its promises.
• It might be useful to analyse the international building rating schemes
using digital online platforms, e.g. LEED ARC platform that calculates a
performance score out of 100 across multiple performance dimensions such
as Energy and Human Experience, based on data from many sources.
• In-use-SRI (automated methods A and B + new method C) should contain
and tell the public and market much more than the currently developed
SRI. EU-wide SRI communication campaign should be prepared asap.
• For the SRI's evolution process to be meaningful and useful it is invaluable
to leverage to the maximum extent possible the national SRI testing and
ongoing H2020 projects.
• Include SRI scores in the EU Building Stock Observatory.
• Incorporate SRI assessment in all phases of the building life cycle, validate
and track. The SRI should serve towards the achievement of EU Green Deal
goals, and especially through the Renovation Wave initiative. It should not
be just an image tag.
• Integrate SRI in BIM.
5.1.2.5 Feedback meeting for topical group members
A plenary feedback meeting with stakeholder from topical groups A, B and C was
organised on 13 February 2020 to feed the further consultations with EU Member
States and support the process of drafting the delegated and implementing acts.
Prior to the meeting, the attendees were provided with a draft version of the
interim report and its summary, service catalogues A and B, and a draft version
of the discussion documents on the implementing and delegated act.

During the meeting various topics were discussed, including the links between the
proposed methods A and B and the viability of a future method C incorporating
measured building performance, the potential of online self-assessments, the
definition of weighting factors, and the balancing the desire for allowing flexibility
in parts of the method versus sufficient commonality to create a common EU
market.
Next, stakeholders were able to provide comments on the discussion documents

on the implementing and delegated act.
5.1.3 PUBLIC TESTING OF THE SRI
Stakeholders were given the opportunity to test a draft version of the SRI
calculation framework. The aim of the public testing is to receive targeted feedback
on the feasibility of the approach, allowing the study team to fine-tune
methodological framework. Public testing took place in two phases:
• Dry-run testing by the members of topical groups A and B

• Public beta testing, open to all stakeholders.
The dry-run testing took place in August 2019. Topical group members were
invited to test a draft version of the SRI calculation methodology on buildings of
their choice. To this end, they received an information package, including a
calculation spreadsheet (for method B) and a guidance document (see extracts in
0). In total, 11 members of topical groups A and B participated to the dry-run
testing. Participants were asked to assess the feasibility of the assessment,
provide feedback on the user-friendliness of the spreadsheet and the clarity of the
guidance document. They were also invited to signal any calculation errors or
linguistic issues in the information package. Based on the received feedback, a
number of updates were made to the information package.
The wider stakeholder community was invited to participate in the public beta
testing. Stakeholders who are interested in participating to the public beta testing
were asked to sign up on the SRI website before end of August 2019. Participants
received the updated information package on 15 September 2019 and were asked
to provide us the completed calculation sheet and their feedback by 15 November
2019. The information package (all in English), including a guidance document
and two calculation sheets (methods A and B) were provided to perform an SRI
assessment on one or more buildings, chosen by the stakeholder. The beta testing
was carried out on a voluntary basis and did not require any specific prior
knowledge on the SRI.
5.1.3.1 Description of the dataset
In total, 112 complete and unique calculation sheets were received, covering 81
unique buildings. For 31 buildings, both methods A and B were applied to the same
building. Two buildings were only assessed using method A, whereas 50 building
were assessed using method B. In total, the dataset contains 33 buildings
assessed with method A and 79 buildings assessed with method B.
Figure 75 illustrates the participation by member state and by calculation method.

In total, 21 member states participated to the public testing phase. Figure 76
provides additional insights in the types of buildings that were assessed. The table

shows that – in terms of climate zone – buildings in Southern (n=43) and Western
Europe (n=38) are most represented. Fewer buildings participated in Northern
(n=14), North-Eastern (n=7) and South-Eastern (n=10) Europe.
The dataset of 112 buildings composes of 47 residential buildings and 65 non-

residential buildings. Within the set of residential buildings, single family homes,
small multifamily homes and large multifamily homes are represented. The non-
residential buildings include office buildings (n=36), educational buildings (n=14),
healthcare buildings (n=5) and other buildings (n=13). In terms of surface floor
area, the tested buildings cover a wide range of sizes, ranging from buildings
smaller than 200m² to buildings larger than 25.000m². Most tested buildings are
already constructed, with a relatively large share of buildings constructed after
2010 (n=40). Only 5 buildings are not yet constructed.
Figure 75 – Buildings participation to public testing by method and member state

Figure 76 - Detailed description of the tested buildings
5.1.3.2 Discussion of the results: total SRI score by method and building
type
Figure 77 illustrates the distribution of the obtained SRI scores by method (left)
and by building type (right). When comparing the results for methods A and B, no
statistically significant difference between these methods is found. This confirms
that method A, although using a subset of the full service-catalogue, sufficiently
reflects the smart readiness of the building as compared to method B. The
distributions for residential and non-residential buildings do reflect significant
differences. In general, lower scores are found for residential buildings, compared
to non-residential buildings. This is in line with the expectations, since smart ready
services are typically found in more advanced technical building systems that are
not widely applied in residential buildings. It should be noted that Figure 77 (right)
only distinguishes on building type and hence includes both methods A and B. A
further break-down of the results by method and building type can be found in
Figure 78. The boxplot confirms similar means for both methods, but clearly
illustrates the differences between residential and non-residential buildings.

Figure 77 - Distribution of the total SRI score by method (left) and building type (right)
Figure 78 - Box plot of the total SRI score by method and building type
During the public testing, 31 buildings were assessed applying both methods A
and B on the same building, and by the same assessor. Figure 79a shows the
density plots of the obtained results. Figure 79b presents a direct comparison of
the results obtained by both methods. The graphs show that scores obtained
through method B tend to be slightly lower than the scores obtained through
method A, although the results are generally well-aligned. The statistical analysis
revealed no significant difference between both method (p >.46). The perceived
alignment between methods A and B by assessors is further discussed under
“feedback from stakeholders”.

Figure 79 - Comparison of methods A and B, applied to the same buildings during the
public beta test
5.1.3.3 Discussion of the results: impact scores and domain scores
In addition to the overall SRI scores, a comparison of the impact scores as a

function of the calculation methodology was performed. Figure 80 illustrates the
median score by impact criterion and by calculation method. The results showed
no significant difference in the impact scores, except for the impact criterion
“flexibility for the grid and storage”. Impact scores on “Flexibility for the grid and
storage” are higher when evaluated with method B (mean =34.7%) when
compared to method A (mean = 14.6%). This might suggest that method B is
more sensitive to measure this impact factor.

Figure 80 - Analysis of the mean impact score by method
Similarly, the results for various domains are depicted in Figure 81. None of the
domains showed significant differences when comparing the two calculation
methods. This illustrates that method A sufficiently captures the smart readiness
of the individual technical domains as compared to method B, despite the limited
set of services.
Figure 81 - Analysis of the mean domain score by method

5.1.3.4 Feedback from stakeholders
As part of the public beta testing, participants were asked to provide their feedback
on the assessment. The following questions were asked:
• Is the SRI score in line with initial expectations by the assessor or building
owner/user?
• Did you do an onsite walkthrough of the building?
• How much time did the assessment process take you (excluding travel,
administration, intake discussions)?
• Which information was missing to complete the assessment?
• Are there smart services relevant for this building which are currently not part
of the draft SRI methodology?
• Were any relevant functionality levels missing for this particular building?
• Do you have any indications on the interoperability or cybersecurity of the
technical building systems?
• For this particular building, you have any other comments?
The stakeholders participating in the public beta test were offered the opportunity
to provide additional feedback in a survey, which was completed by 26
respondents. The survey included the following additional questions:
• Did the SRI assessment provide you with new insights on how to upgrade the
assessed buildings?
• If you assessed multiple buildings, are the results well-balanced?
• Did you discuss the results with the occupants or the facility manager? Please
share feedback
• In your opinion, what are the training needs for an assessor?
• Is the triage process (= the initial multiple-choice questions on the "building
information" tab) straightforwardly applicable?
• If you applied both methods to the same building, do you have any comments
on the comparability of the results?
• In your opinion, are the services sufficiently forward-looking?
A selection of these questions will be further discussed below. All comments were
carefully analysed by the technical study consortium and were taken into
consideration for the update of the calculation methodology and the service
catalogue.
On the question whether the SRI score is in line with initial expectations by
the assessor or building owner/user, 52% of the respondents reacted
positively (see Figure 82). For 16% of the respondents the results were not in line
with their expectations. Within this group, 9 respondents explicitly stated they
expected a higher score and 4 respondents stated they expected a lower score.
Furthermore, 18 respondents indicated they are lacking a baseline or benchmark.

Figure 82 - Is the SRI score in line with initial expectations by the assessor or building
owner/user?
A selection of comments received from respondents:
• “Yes. It's a new building in which we invest time and money to reach high
energy efficiency and smartness level. It appears to us that the score is in line
with what we can expect.”
• “No. The first building (an office building) we assessed includes all the technical
building systems listed in the triage process. The global SRI score is 51%. It
is less than we expected for a building that was awarded in 2013 as a smart
building.”
• “Yes. The […] building opportunity to increase its score is hindered by the
limited control over the scheduling of facilities, which is one of the conclusions
of the project, the lack of organisational readiness.”
• “Yes, for assessor. Owners having no awareness of the calculation method
have no specific expectations”
The study team concludes that the results were generally well in line with
expectations of the assessor. The analysis did reveal that end users – and in some
cases the assessors – were lacking a frame of reference to determine whether the
score was “good” or “bad”. Special attention should be given to this issue upon
implementation, through proper communication and formatting of the SRI. This is
discussed in detail in section 2.2.
In the additional survey, stakeholders were asked if the assessment provided

new insights on the potential upgrade of the building. Out of the 26
respondents, 77% indicated that they gained new insights. A selection of
comments received from respondents:
• “Yes. The SRI methodology is a good guidance to explore some other smart
functionalities. Overall, during the design project of a new building phase, it is
a reminder for not forgetting (to consider certain smart functionalities, editor’s
note)”
• “Yes. It was interesting to see the score divided by impacts and domains
because it quantifies the current strengths and the weaknesses of the building.
Also, during the referred H2020 project (HOLISDER) diverse smart devices had
been deployed in the assessed buildings, so we could check how thanks to
these devices some functionalities have been upgraded.”

• “No. All necessary measures were already identified. The SRI supports in
confirming the already identified actions.”
• “No. The final SRI result is not informative enough. Default recommendations
and/or reporting would be highly beneficial. E.g. the building doesn't have
Cooling, Controlled ventilation nor Renewable generation or storage on site.
Having controlled ventilation can support the IAQ, cooling can support your
thermal comfort, your heating system can be upgraded to support the grid
etc.."
It is concluded that sub-scores at the level of the domains and impact criteria were
appreciated by the assessors, as they provided or confirmed insight with regard
to the strengths and weaknesses of the building. The provision of (default)
recommendations was identified as a way to potentially strengthen the role of the
SRI as an informative tool.
As mentioned before, 31 buildings were assessed using both methods A and B by

the same assessor. In the additional survey participants were asked if they had
any comments on the comparability of the results. A selection of comments
received from respondents are:
• “[…] Generally, the SRI scores using Method A are higher than the SRI scores
with Method B. This means Method B provides more precise and realistic
assessment. There are significant deviations in the results for certain Impact
categories (e.g. Flexibility) and Domains (e.g. Electricity) […]”
• The global score is close but domain and impact scores are quite different.
Thus, there is not a good comparability between both methods. My
recommendation is maintain only one simplify method (Method B).
• “The results were almost the same (2% difference) so it might not have a large
impact.”
• “[…]Totally different results. I.E Method A Wellbeing 0% while method B
100%”.
Combining the findings from the statistical analysis and the stakeholder feedback,
it is concluded that although objectively the results for both methods are generally
well-aligned, the differences in results may be undesirable to some stakeholders.
Therefore, it is important to ensure than in practice only one of the two methods
would be applied to a given building, so no problem of comparability can arise.
Additionally, when SRI results are communicated it should be made clear which
assessment method was used. In any case, it is desirable from a methodological
point of view to align the methods as much as possible. Based on the received
feedback, the study team has updated the service catalogues, including a
harmonization of the services and ordinal scores in the catalogues for both the
simplified and detailed method (see ANNEX E and 0).
Participants were also asked to indicate the time spent on the assessment.
Figure 83 shows that the assessment typically took less than one hour for method
A, whereas most assessments with method B did not take more than 4 hours. The
slightly longer assessment time for method B may be explained by the more
elaborate service catalogue, including more detailed and complex services. In this
context, it is worth mentioning that at least 53% of the respondents did an on-
site walk-through, whereas 30% did not do an on-site walk-through. 14% of the
participants did not respond to the question.

Furthermore, it should be noted that most assessors were very familiar with the
buildings they assessed. They were also not required to formally document the
assessment or collect evidence. As a results, slightly higher assessment times may
be expected.
Figure 83 - How much time did the assessment process take you (excluding travel,
administration, intake discussions)?
To assess the feasibility of the assessment method and the completeness of the
guidance document, participants were asked if there was any information
missing to complete the assessment. As shown in Figure 84, 44% of the
participants did not report any missing information, and many others did not
respond to the question. A limited number of participants (18%) provided
comments on missing information. These comments mainly include the request to
further clarify the definition of services and functionality levels. Others suggested
to include examples in the guidance document to further support assessors, in
particular for more complex buildings with multiple systems serving a single
technical domain. Finally, some participants highlighted the role of the facility
manager as a necessary source of information for the assessment.
Figure 84 - Which information was missing to complete the assessment?

A selection of comments received from respondents are:
• “No. There was not missing information, however the support of the facility
manager in conducting the assessment is required.”
• “No. As-built documentation together with on-site walk-through were sufficient
to complete the assessment.”
• “Yes. The buildings in the hospital are very complex and have a mix of solutions
in the assets implemented. More examples of functionality levels could have
been helpful.”
5.1.3.5 Conclusions from the public testing
During the public testing, 112 assessments were performed covering 81 unique
buildings from 21 member states. For 31 buildings, both methods A and B were
applied to the same building.
Based on the analysis of the calculation sheets and the feedback received, the
study team concludes that the SRI calculation methodology is generally well-
received. Results were generally in line with the expectations, and the results were
found to be insightful. The formatting and communication on the SRI will play an
important role in creating a reference frame for the results. Additional (default)
recommendations could strengthen the role of the SRI as an informative tool.
It is concluded that objectively the results for both methods A and B are generally
well-aligned. Furthermore, issues of comparability are not likely to arise since in
practice only one of the two methods would be applied to a given building.
Nevertheless, both service catalogues were updated to harmonise the methods. It
is suggested to include a clear reference to the method used in the communication
of the SRI for a particular building.
From a practical perspective, the assessment typically took less than one hour for
method A, whereas most assessments with method B did not take more than 4
hours. This is in line with the expectations. In general, sufficient information was
available to perform the assessment. To facilitate the assessment, the guidance
document should include more detailed definitions of the functionality levels, and
provide additional examples or guidelines for complex systems. The role of the
facility manager as a source of information was highlighted.
5.1.4 CONSUMER FOCUS GROUPS
Consumer focus groups were organised to test the understanding of the SRI by
end users. Section 2.3.12 describes the set-up and feedback retrieved.
5.1.5 WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DELIVERABLES
After the plenary stakeholder consultation meetings, all materials, including the
presentations and meeting minutes, have been made available through the project
website. Stakeholders had the opportunity to send written comments on draft
deliverables. The study teams of both technical studies have collected and
processed the comments to support the finalisation of the deliverables.
In addition to the structured surveys and requests for feedback on interim

deliverables, some stakeholders have reached out to the study team and/or the

Commission Services with position papers. During the first technical support study
38 position papers were received. The technical study team of the second study
has received 17 additional position papers. These position papers cover a wide
scope, ranging from a general appreciation of the SRI concept to feedback on very
specific technical suggestions.
Most position papers originate from European organisations, covering the following
sectors:
• technical building systems (HVAC, lighting, etc.)

• organisations representing the construction sector and architects
• property and land-owner organisations.
A number of sector organisations were highly involved, submitting multiple

position papers throughout the studies. In cases where additional clarifications
were required, additional meetings or conference calls with the stakeholders were
set up.
5.1.6 TARGETED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Commission’s DG Energy set up a targeted consultation on its website, to

collect further feedback from stakeholders on some key issues related to the SRI.
This consultation opened from 9 August 2019 to 11 October 2019. The consultation
was open to all and sought in particular feedback from stakeholders from the fields
of interest to the development of the SRI (e.g. product manufacturers, installers,
building designers, building developers, contractors, etc.). The survey included 27
questions, articulated in five different sections:
• general information on the respondent

• questions about the audience and scope of the SRI
• questions on communication of the SRI154
• questions on the implementation of the SRI
• additional, free comments.
The consultation resulted in the collection of detailed feedback from 93

respondents located in 21 countries. This feedback was processed by the study
team to inform the developments on the SRI methodology and implementation
pathways. An analysis of the responses received is included in 0.
5.1.7 DEDICATED STAKEHOLDER INTERACTIONS UPON REQUEST
Aside from the large plenary stakeholder consultation meetings, it is deemed

important to organise bilateral meetings with individual stakeholders or a group of
stakeholders working on the same topic, with (a selection of) individual companies
or with key persons from Member States, local authorities or NGOs. Such meetings
can be very helpful for in-depth discussion of topics that are not relevant for the
whole group attending the large stakeholder meeting, for collecting specific data
or viewpoints, for explaining certain issues, for convincing stakeholders to be more
active, etc.
154
Here, communication refers to the way the information on smart readiness is communicated to end
users.

5.2 ACTIVITY 2: DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT WEBSITE
During the course of the technical studies, the dissemination and written
consultation open to the public was managed via a public website
(https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/).
The website served as a channel of information, distribution (of questionnaires,

results, etc.) and registration. The draft reports, interim overview and other
relevant documents have been published regularly.
Stakeholders were able register on the website to be updated of any changes.

During the course of the second technical support study, 813 people have
registered as a stakeholder on the project website.

6 GENERAL CONCLUSION
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) introduced the concept of

a Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) which is expected to become a cost-effective
measure that can effectively assist in creating healthier and more comfortable
buildings with a lower energy use and carbon impact, and can also facilitate the
integration of renewable energy sources. Within the scope of the first and second
technical study on the SRI, the following definition has been adopted:
“Smartness of a building refers to the ability of a building or its systems to sense,

environment (including energy grids) and to demands from building occupants,”
The SRI aims to raise awareness of the benefits of smarter building technologies
and functionalities and their added value for building users, energy consumers and
energy grids. Thereby it can support technology innovation in the building sector
and become an incentive for the integration of cutting-edge smart technologies
into buildings.
A first technical study developed a definition and draft methodology for the SRI.
The second technical support study has built further on the available knowledge
of the first technical study to deliver the technical inputs needed to refine and
finalise the definition of the SRI and the associated calculation methodology.
Furthermore it explored possible options for the implementation of the SRI and
evaluated their impact at the EU level in order for the Commission Services and
Member States to be informed on the possible modalities for an effective
implementation of the SRI scheme and related potential impacts.
Throughout this work the consortium partners of both technical studies have
consulted with relevant stakeholders and used the findings to inform the analysis
while helping to build awareness and consensus with regard to the project’s aims
and the most viable approach to achieve them.
In the final report the technical study team propose a consolidated methodology
to calculate the SRI of a building. The methodology is a flexible and modular multi-
criteria assessment method which builds on assessing the smart ready services
present in a building. Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready
technologies, but are defined in a technology neutral way. The proposed
calculation methodology is structured amongst 9 technical domains and 7 impact
criteria. For each of the services several functionality levels are defined. A higher
functionality level reflects a “smarter” implementation of the service, which
generally provides more beneficial impacts to building users or to the grid
compared to services implemented at a lower functionality level.
In the proposed method, the smart readiness score of a building or building unit
is expressed as a percentage which represents the ratio between the smart
readiness of the building or building unit compared to the maximum smart
readiness that it could reach.

The disaggregated scores can express smart readiness for one or more of the
following:
• Three key smart readiness capabilities as highlighted in Annex Ia, point 2 of

the EPBD:

3. Comfort
4. Convenience

1. Heating
2. Cooling
5. Lighting
7. Electricity
A smart service catalogue for both a detailed and a simplified assessment method
was elaborated in extensive consultation with stakeholders. The simplified Method
A would be mainly oriented towards small buildings with low complexity (single
family homes, small multi-family homes, small non-residential buildings, etc.),
whereas the more detailed Method B is mainly oriented towards buildings with a
higher complexity (typically large non-residential buildings, potentially large multi-
family homes). For either method an informative self-assessment could be made
available as an alternative to a formal certificate. The final report of the study also
includes a proposal for weighting factors, a methodology for normalisation of the
scores and a suggested triage process which details how to deal with absent
services.
The SRI calculation methodology was successfully tested in a public beta test
comprising 112 cases across Europe, which proved the viability of the approach.
The feedback from the stakeholders participating in this test led to further
finetuning and harmonisation of the SRI calculation methodology and the delivery
of two consolidated service catalogues which are distributed as annex C and annex
D of the full report. The proposed SRI calculation methodology is flexible to allow
for adaptations to specific local contexts and allows for future updates in order to
keep pace with new innovations in smart products and technologies available on
the market.

The study also investigated the potential pathways for the effective
implementation of the SRI in the EU. The review of various schemes and initiatives
on which the SRI could build or connect to has led to the development of a set of
six primary potential implementation pathways and the identification of various
trigger points in the building lifecycle that the SRI deployment could link to. The
SRI is expected to exert an influence on the market adoption of smart services
and technologies by both a “market pull” and a “market push” effect. The market
pull effect is driven by the impact that SRI assessments on properties have on the
deployment of smart services and technologies, through raising awareness among
stakeholders in the value chain at the property level. The market push effect is a
result from the common framework that the SRI provides for service providers to
self-organise and promote their service offers on a common basis in line with the
SRI criteria across the EU. Research was initiated to determine potential designs
for the format of the SRI. This recognises that for the scheme to be effective it will
need to have an attractive and recognisable format that gives visibility to the SRI
and effectively conveys information to users of the scheme.
Building on the outcomes of this work, the study provides technical guidelines and
recommendations addressing (1) the operational, organisational and legal design
of the SRI scheme, (2) the efficient and cost-effective assessment of the SRI and
(3) the management of the SRI after adoption. These were informed by
considerations of costs, data needs, training for assessors, etc. which helped to
shape the development of the methodology and implementation pathways in an
iterative manner.
Finally, the study quantified the costs and benefits of implementing an SRI in the
EU building sector for the horizons of 2030, 2040, 2050. The impact analysis
reveals that rolling out the SRI across the EU would be strongly beneficial, with
the greatest net benefits arising from linking the SRI assessments to the Energy
Performance Certification (EPC) assessments of buildings, or the article 8
requirements under the EPBD. The SRI could lead to 5% higher final energy
savings by 2050, unlocking an increase in investment of 181 billion euro over 30
years compared to a business-as-usual case and up to 32 million tonnes of avoided
greenhouse gas emissions per year.
The study team concludes that the roll-out of the SRI would result in a strongly
beneficial impact and observes a broad consensus among stakeholders on most of
the key principles and methodological choices of the proposed SRI developments.

ANNEXES

ANNEX A. GLOSSARY
Attribute: An attribute of a service is a variable (typically a piece of data) which

may take different values, thereby influencing the state of the service. A basic
switch of a heating system would for instance take a binary value (on or off), while
more complex control devices could take discrete or continuous control values.
Building user is defined as a stakeholder of the building, who can have different
roles, e.g. the owner of the building or the occupant. The building user interacts
with the services provided by the building, therefore, his or her viewpoints are of
highest interest in assessing the perceived smartness of individual technologies in
the building and the overall perceived smartness of the building. In addition, the
building user can interact with the grid, providing his building to the grid as an
asset for flexibility, generation or storage of energy.
(Service) Catalogue: A service catalog (or catalogue), is an organized and

curated collection of technology-related services. Each service within such a
service catalogue is usually repeatable and is associated to well-defined inputs,
processes, and outputs.
In the scope of this study, we define a smart service catalogue for a building
technology as the overview of the services provided by a smart building.
Cyber security is defined as preservation of confidentiality, integrity and

availability of information in the Cyberspace wherein Cyberspace means the
Cyberspace the complex environment resulting from the interaction of people,
software and services on the Internet by means of technology devices and
networks connected to it, which does not exist in any physical form. The relevant
standard is ISO/IEC 27032 - Information technology -- Security techniques --
Guidelines for cybersecurity.
Domain: Within this project, domains are high-level viewpoints used to structure
the smart services models. Each domain focuses on a key aspect of the building.
Heating, lighting, cooling, etc., are domains of services which are provided by the
building.
Enabling technologies: some technologies do not provide smart services

themselves, but are providing infrastructure provision to the higher level
operations. As an example, a fieldbus or bus system in a house would be an
enabling (interoperability) technology. The same way, the broadband connection
to a household itself is an enabler to let the building communicate with other
buildings in order to, e.g. create a swarm or sensor community.
End user is defined as a building user who always interacts directly with the
services provided by the building. The end user is typically providing the trigger
event to start a service and use it. In the case of a building this can be an occupant,
or a technical facilities manager.
Function: A function represents an interaction between a building user and a

building system. In comparison to a service, a function is more basic (in particular
with regard to the number of inputs and outputs involved). Functions can be
combined into services.

A typical function would be a state change based on a trigger event, e.g. change
of state of a switch.
Interoperability: According to ISO/IEC 2382-01 on Information Technology

Vocabulary, Fundamental Terms, interoperability is defined as follows: "The
capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various
functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge
of the unique characteristics of those units". This definition is also in line with the
IEEE definition “the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange
information and to use the information that has been exchanged.” which was, e.g.
also used in the context of the EU M/490 mandate and recommended by some
stakeholders in the consultation process. Note that the “user” can be a digital
device or object within a network.
Readiness: refers to the capability of a technology, a system or a building to

implement smart functions and services. This capability is based on the
corresponding technology is enabled and the related function is invoked.
For instance, a system can be smart-ready (e.g. a controllable heat pump) but not
smart (the controllable heat pump is not connected to a controller and / or has no
configuration interface).
Smartness of a building refers to the ability of a building or its systems to sense,

environment (including energy grids) and to demands from building occupants.
On top of this definition, it is useful to refer to the three key ‘smartness’

functionalities given in the Annex 1a of the revised EPBD, as discussed in section
1.1.1.2.
Smart ready technologies are the foundation for the services to be implemented
on. Services use those technologies like e.g. bus systems, communication
protocols or building automation systems. These smart ready technologies can
either be digital ICT technology (e.g. communication protocols or optimization
algorithms) or physical products (e.g. ventilation system with CO2 sensor, cabling
for bus systems) or combinations thereof (e.g. smart thermostats).
The smart ready technologies referenced in this study are considered to be active
components which could potentially:
• raise energy efficiency and comfort by increasing the level of controllability of

the technical building systems – either by the occupant or a building manager
or via a fully automated building control system;
• facilitate the energy management and maintenance of the building including
via automated fault detection;
• automate the reporting of the energy performance of buildings and their TBS
(automated and real time inspections);
• use advanced methods such as data analytics, self-learning control systems
and model predictive control to optimise building operations;
• enable buildings including their TBS, appliances, storage systems and energy
generators, to become active operators in a demand response setting.
Service: a service is a function or an aggregation of functions delivered by one or

more technical components or systems. Services are invoked in order to serve a

(business) purpose of a stakeholder and can range from simple (micro services)
to complex. In this study, a Smart service makes use of Smart ready technologies
and orchestrates them to higher level functions.
Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready technologies, but are
defined in a technology neutral way, e.g. ‘provide temperature control in a
room’. Many of the services listed in the catalogue are based on international
technical standards, for example BACS control functions (EN 15232-1:2017),
lighting control systems (EN 15193-1:2017) and Smart Grid Use cases (IEC
62559-2:2015).
The term “ready” indicates that the option to take action exists, but is not
necessarily realized, e.g. due to cost constraints, legal or market restrictions, or
occupant preferences. However, the equipment needed to implement the service
has to be present in the building.
Taxonomy: In the scope of the project, a taxonomy is the result of the practice
and science of classification of things or concepts, including the principles that
underlie such classification. Within this context, the aim is to classify certain
attributes of building technologies and link to their characteristics in order to find
functionality levels.
Technology: Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and

processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of
objectives. Within this project, we consider technology as enabler of functions and
services or even readiness.
Technical building system: In the EPBD a “technical building system” is defined

as technical equipment for space heating, space cooling, ventilation, domestic hot
water, built-in lighting, building automation and control, on-site electricity
generation, or a combination thereof, including those systems using energy from
renewable sources, of a building or building unit.
Viewpoint is a modeling concept. Modeling has the purpose of reducing the

complexity of a given system in order to focus on particular aspects, which are
particularly relevant to one or more stakeholders. Viewpoints generally differ from
one stakeholder to the other (e.g. for a building, the architect viewpoint will differ
from the facility manager or aggregator viewpoint). In modeling, one key objective
is to agree on harmonized and complementary viewpoints.

ANNEX B. STANDARDISATION RELATED TO
SMART BUILDINGS
a. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), the

Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and its relationship to
standardisation and Mandate (M/480)
It is worth noting that the EPBD is an EU directive, which transposition and

enforcement are under the responsibility of the Member States and which allows
for some flexibility at National and local levels. This is illustrated by the variety of
standards and regulations that co-exist in the EU. In order to support a reliable
comparison of calculation methods across the EU, and with the aim to support
National Authorities in the effective implementation of the EPBD, the European
Commission issued mandate M/480 to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for the elaboration
and adoption of standards for a methodology calculating the integrated energy
performance of buildings and promoting the energy efficiency of buildings, in
accordance with the terms set in the recast of the Directive on the energy
performance of buildings.
Complementary to this, the European Commission adopted the Construction

Products Regulation (CPR) that lays down harmonized rules for the marketing of
construction products in the EU, i.e. Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. Note that CPR
is EU Regulation and not a Directive, therefore there is no need additional step for
transposition in local requirements neither standardization. The regulation is
embedded in the goal of creating a single market ("Article 95") for construction
products through the use of CE Marking. It outlines basic requirements for
construction works (as the sum of its components) that are the basis for the
development of the standardization mandates and technical specifications i.e.
harmonised product standards and European Assessment Documents (EADs). The
basic idea is to harmonise the way the performance of a construction product is
determined and declared in levels or classes while each Member State may have
individual requirements regarding the required minimum level or class for a given
use.
b. Interaction with the electrical grid and the Smart Grid

Standardization Mandate (M/490)
The M/490 Smart grid mandate was issued to the three large standardisation
bodies CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in order to consolidate the standardization
landscape for smart grids. In order to ensure interoperability for the
heterogeneous systems at infrastructure level, standards had to be either found
or defined in later stages. The working groups within the mandate created a
process for governance of smart grid standardization, created an overview and
mapping of existing standards taking into account the various viewpoints from the
stakeholders involved and did a gap analysis for the standardization bodies in
order to find gaps for new working item proposals for those bodies and their
working groups. In the second stage of the four year term of the mandate, security
and interoperability testing were the focus. In addition, the results from both the
metering mandate as well as the electric vehicles mandate were harmonized and
taken into account, making the overview of smart grid as an infrastructure, smart

metering as well as electric vehicles seamless. Currently, the platform of ETIP
SNET155 will build upon those results.
c. Interaction with Ecodesign product regulation and standardisation

mandate (M/495)
The request from the Commission (EC mandate M/495) is a horizontal mandate
covering more than 25 different types of products that use energy or have an
impact on the use of energy. Types of products covered by this mandate include:
air conditioning and ventilation systems, boilers, coffee machines, refrigeration
units, ovens, hobs and grills, lamps and luminaries, tumble dryers, heating
products, computers and monitors, washing machines, dryers and dishwashers,
sound and imaging equipment and water heaters, etc.
d. Background information on European and international

standardization bodies
In the European Union, only standards developed by CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are
recognized as European standards.
CEN is the European Committee for Standardization.
Within CEN Standards are prepared by Technical Committees (TCs). They do not
deal with electrical equipment neither telecommunication which is within the scope
of CENELEC and ETSI.
Within CEN TC 371 is the Program Committee on EPB standards. This TC 371
organizes this central coordination team in cooperation with the other relevant
CEN TC’s:
• CEN TC 89, Thermal performance of buildings and building components
• CEN TC 228, Heating systems in buildings
• CEN TC 156, Ventilation for buildings
• CEN TC 247, Controls for mechanical building services (EN 15232)
• CEN TC 169, Light and lighting (EN 15193, prEN 17037)
CENELEC is the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

and is responsible for standardization in the electro-technical engineering field. It
cooperates in International level with IEC, hence within CENELEC are often mirror
committees to what is developed within IEC and therefore often the relevant TC’s
with work in progress can be found at IEC level.
Relevant CENELEC TC’s in the scope of the SRI are:
155
http://www.etip-snet.eu/

• CLC/TC 205 is responsible for Home and Building Electronic Systems
(HBES)
• Much are mirror committees of IEC, therefore see also IEC operating at
international level.
ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, produces

standards for Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), including
fixed, mobile, radio, converged, broadcast and internet technologies.
An overview of important smart grid and building communication and

interoperability standards can be found on their website156.
A European Standard (EN) is a standard that has been adopted by at least one
of the three recognized European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs): CEN,
CENELEC or ETSI.
Beyond Europe is also the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) for non electro-technical standards.
When an ISO document is released, countries have the right to republish the
standard as a national adoption. When CEN adopts an ISO standard its reference
becomes, e.g. EN-ISO-52000-1, and later on when a Member State adopts this
e.g. DIN-EN-ISO. In the context of the ongoing review of EPB standards, many
are expected to be published as EN & EN-ISO standards. This means that the old
numbering system of 2007 in an EN 15000 series of standards is not necessarily
maintained and sometimes replace by the ISO 52000 series of standards.
Relevant ISO TC’s are:
• ISO/TC 163 is responsible for Thermal performance and energy use in the
built environment and part of the EPBD related standards.
• ISO/TC 205 is responsible for Building environment design, a.o. is
responsible for ISO 16484 on BACS.
At international level the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is

the overarching organization of CENELEC.
Within IEC the most relevant TCs from our view are:
• IEC TC 8 is responsible for Systems aspects for electrical energy supply

• IEC TC 64 is responsible for IEC 60364-8-1 ED2 on Energy Efficiency and
IEC 60364-8-1 ED2 on Smart Low-Voltage Electrical Installations
• IEC TC 69 is responsible for Electric road vehicles and electric industrial
trucks, amongst they take care of EV chargers.
• IEC TC 57 covers the Smart grid related connections of a building
156
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/575-smart-grids

e. A selection of the most relevant standards for SRI
i. At European Level (EN) related to EPBD calculation methods
The standards from Mandate M/480 consist in general of two parts, where the first
part is a normative part (for example with the template) and the second part is an
informative part (for example containing proposals for default data). Hereafter is
a short description of the main standards. Also, according to The Detailed
Technical Rules, and in agreement with the mandate M/480 for each EPB-standard
containing calculation procedures an accompanying spreadsheet has been
prepared to test and validate the calculation procedure. The spreadsheet also
includes a tabulated overview of all output quantities (with references to the EPB
module where it is intended to be used as input), all input quantities (with
references to the EPB module or other source from where the data are available)
and a fully worked example of the application (the calculation method between
the set of input and output quantities) for validation and demonstration 157.
EN-ISO 52000-1:2017 Energy performance of buildings — Overarching

EPB assessment – Part 1: General framework and procedures
The main output of this standard is the overall energy performance of a building
or building part (e.g. building unit). In addition: breakdown in partial energy
performance, e.g. per energy service (heating, lighting, etc.), per building unit,
per time interval (hour, month, etc.) and breakdown in energy flows at different
perimeters and e.g. delivered versus exported energy.
Depending on the application, all or some of the other standards related to the
energy performance of buildings that cover other parts of the modular structure
are needed (EPB standards). It introduces a modular structure to cover all aspects
of the building energy balance and its subsystems, see Table 32.
157
https://isolutions.iso.org/ecom/public/nen/Livelink/open/35102456

Table 32 - Summary of the main modular structure of the EPB Standards
In general it is important to note that the standard defines system boundaries (the
concept of concept of perimeters and assessment boundary, zoning,) and amongst
others also defines a Renewable Energy Ratio (RER).
The contribution of building automation and control (BAC) including technical

building management (TBM) to the building energy performance is considered in
the calculation procedure as the impact of all installed building automation and
control functions (BAC functions) on the building energy performance.
It deals with three characteristics:
• Control Accuracy (mainly used in emission and control modules M3-5, M3-
4, M3-5)
• BAC Functions (mainly used in modules M3-5, M3-9, M9-5, M9-9)
• BAC Strategies (mainly used for M10-12)

The contribution of one such BAC function is taken into account by one of the
following five approaches: time approach, set-point approach, direct approach,
operating mode approach and correction coefficient approach. The application of
one of the first two approaches – the time approach or the set-point approach -
leads in general to a modification of the time programs and set-points, both
coming from the module which defines the user profile (M1-6 Building Occupancy
and operating conditions). Which approach is applied and how it is exactly done,
is described in the EPB standard which is devoted to the module which treats the
BAC function (M10). For BAC functions which are treated in one of the EPB
standards for modules M3-5, M3-9, M9-5, M9-9, M10-5, M10-9, all five approaches
are possible, for BAC functions which are treated in M10-12 the first two
approaches are applied.
Directly related to EPB there are about 52 EN and/or ISO standards to define the
calculation method (see Figure D1 for an overview). It can already be concluded
that this update consists of a complex set of interrelated standards for which the
application of the proposed version is still in its infancy and it will need to be judged
in how far the data contained herein can be applied for the SRI indicator.
Figure 85 - Overview of applicable standards in the ongoing review of EPB (Hoogeling,

2016)
EN 15232-1:2017 is the standard ‘Energy performance of buildings -

Impact of Building Automation, Controls and Building Management.’
(Module M10)
This European Standard specifies:
• a structured list of Building Automation and Control System (BACS) and

Technical Building Management (TBM) functions which have an impact on
the energy performance of buildings;

• a method to define minimum requirements regarding BACS and TBM
functions to be implemented in buildings of different complexities;
• a factor based method to get a first estimation of the impact of these
functions on typical buildings;
• detailed methods to assess the impact of these functions on a given
building. These methods enable the impact of these functions in the
calculations of energy performance ratings and indicators calculated by the
relevant standards to be introduced.
The standard defines the following control functions:
For heating control:
• ‘Emission control’, e.g. individual room temperature control with BACS

including schedulers and presence detection can lower the general heat
demand.
• ‘Control of distribution pumps in networks’, e.g. switching off circulation
pumps when not required.
• ‘Heat generator control for combustion and district heating’, e.g. reducing
the return temperature based on load forecasting to increase boiler
efficiency by condensation.
• ‘Heat generator control for heat pump’, e.g. controlling the exit
temperature base on load forecasting.
• ‘Heat pump control system’, e.g. inverter driven variable frequency
compressor depending on the load.
• Other functions are ‘Sequencing of different heat generators’, ‘Thermal
Energy Storage’ or ‘control of Thermo Active Building Systems(TABS)’.
For domestic hot water(DHW) supply:
• Reduce stand by losses in hot water storage tank (if any) with automatic
on/off control based on forecasted demand.
• Control of DHW pump (if any).
For cooling control:
• Many of those functions are similar to heating (see EN 15232-1:2017).

• ‘Interlock between heating and cooling’ to avoid simultaneous heating and
cooling.
For air supply or ventilation (if any):
• Demand driver variable outside air supply;

• Heat recovery unit, icing protection;
• Free air night time cooling mechanical by automatic opening windows
and/or operating the ventilation unit
• Humidity controls (if any)
Lighting controls; they can increase the building cooling demand or decrease the
heating demand.
Blind control; there are two requirements which are prevent overheating and
reduce glare and therefore controls can be combined with HVAC and lighting.
Technical Building Management (TBM) system, the aim is to adapt easily to the
user needs and therefore it shall be checked frequently. TBM functions are (see
also EN 16947 with more details):

• Set point management, e.g. web operated heating/cooling temperature set
points (20°C/26°C) with frequent resetting to default values where
relevant.
• Run time management, e.g. predefined schedule (e.g. a night time set back
temperature) with variable preconditions (e.g. no presence in the room).
• Manage local renewable sources or CHP to optimize own consumption and
use of renewables.
• Control of Thermal Energy Storage of heat recovery (if available).
• Smart Grid integration.
• Detect faults in the Technical Building System (TBS), for example:
o Read out alarms from the heat pump, gas boiler, .. and provide
understandable building owner feedback and alarm logging
o Continuous monitoring of SCOP (Seasonal Coefficient Of
Performance – for heating) or SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency
Ratio – for cooling) of a heat pump to verify maintenance needs
(e.g. clogged heat exchanger, cooling fluid leakage, ..)
o Regular checking sequence to verify the maximum power output of
a heat pump or gas boiler to verify maintenance needs (e.g.
contaminated gas burner, dirt on heat exchanger, valve errors,
damage on pipe insulation, installation errors such as reverse
connection of heat exchangers, correct control logic and set point of
circulation pumps).
o Check the power consumption of the Air Handling Unit (e.g.
increased power consumption due to clogged filter or air
inlet/outlet, leakages in or clogged ventilation duct work, broken air
dampers/fans)
• Reporting regarding energy consumption relative to indoor conditions:
o Show actual values and logged trends
The standard also defines four classes that poses specific requirements on the
previous control functions. It contains a simplified calculation method based on
BAC efficiency factors, for lighting reference is made to EN 15193.
The 4 classes of Building Automation Systems are:
• Class A: High energy performance building automation and control system

(BACS) and technical building management (TBM);
• Class B: Advanced BACS and TBM;
• Class C: Standard BACS;
• Class D: Non energy efficient BACS;
For each class minimum control system requirements are defined.

Table 33 - Table 1 on lighting controls defined in EN 15232
Afterwards the simple method in the standard defines relations between building
energy systems and so-called BAC efficiency factors for different types of energy
use, including lighting, see figure D-3. These factors enable savings to be
estimated. For a detailed calculation on the impact the individual standards should
be considered and therefore references to these related standards are included
(e.g. EN 15193 for lighting).
Also, according to The Detailed Technical Rules, and in agreement with the
mandate M/480 [2], for each EPB-standard containing calculation procedures an
accompanying spreadsheet has been prepared to test and validate the calculation
procedure. The spreadsheet also includes a tabulated overview of all output
quantities (with references to the EPB module where it is intended to be used as
input), all input quantities (with references to the EPB module or other source from
where the data are available) and a fully worked example of the application (the
calculation method between the set of input and output quantities) for validation
and demonstration158.
EN 16947-1:2017 Building Management System - Module M10-12
This is a European Standard which addresses the TBM/BMS functions. This

standard covers several functions of the application of the Building management
system. Each function is represented by at least one calculation method. The
functions are as follow:
• Function 1 – set points is meant for set point definition and set back.
• Function 2 – run time is intended for estimating run times.
• Function 3 – sequencing of generators is intended for estimating the
sequential arrangement of different functions to be performed
• Function 4 – local energy production and renewable energies is intended
for managing local renewable energy sources and other local energy
productions as CHP.
• Function 5 – heat recovery and heat shifting is intended for shifting thermal
energy inside the building.
158
https://isolutions.iso.org/ecom/public/nen/Livelink/open/35102456

• Function 6 – smart grid is meant for interactions between building and any
smart grid.
EN ISO 52016-1:2017 Energy performance of buildings -- Energy needs

for heating and cooling, internal temperatures and sensible and latent
heat loads -- Part 1: Calculation procedures.
This standard defines the building latent heat load using an hourly calculation
interval. It describes an important parameter for modelling the impact of for
example the BACS night time set back temperature function (EN or thermal
storage in smart grids is the building time constant (τ)[hours]. It also contains a
parameter to model the impact of the temperature control system (Δθctr), which
is 0 for a perfect control system.
EN 15193-1: 2017 Energy performance of buildings - Energy requirements

for lighting - Part 1: Specifications, Module M9
This standard deals with energy requirements for lighting and defines different
lighting control systems (e.g. occupancy control type, type of daylight control,
type of blinds control) and their impact on energy savings (e.g. occupancy factor
(Fo), daylight factor (Fd)). It calculates the Lighting Energy Numeric Indicator for
a building (LENI) in kWh/m²/y based on assumption for occupants’ schedules (EN
ISO 17772-1:2017). Background information to this standard is documented in
CEN/TR 15193-2: Energy performance of buildings — Energy requirements for
lighting; Part 2: Explanation and justification of EN 15193-1, Module M9.
prCEN/TS 17165 “Lighting System Design Process”
This document is developed in the frame of ENER Lot 37 and describes the key
design considerations in the process for good quality, energy efficient and effective
lighting systems in the tertiary sector.
ISO 17772-1:2017 Energy performance of buildings -- Indoor

environmental quality -- Part 1: Indoor environmental input parameters
for the design and assessment of energy performance of buildings.
The standard contains indoor environmental input parameters for the design and
assessment of energy performance of buildings. It deals also with occupants’
schedules for energy calculations which can have important impact on energy
calculations. Of course, apart from the assumptions, the real occupant behaviour
will have similar impact. Advanced Building Automation and Control Systems
(BACS) (EN 15232-1:2017) can include set point management which means that
set points (e.g. illumination levels, comfort temperature, air quality, ..) can be
redefined over the life time of the building when the task area, zone requirements
or real user needs change. Usually however EPBD calculations [kWh/y/m²] are
based on predefined occupants’ schedules and comfort requirements and therefore
they do not model properly the impact from set point management that adapt to
changes in the user needs over its life time.

ii. Examples of implementation of EPBD calculation methods at Member State
level
The implementation of EPBD calculation methods can vary by Member State; more
information can be found in the Book (EPBD, 2016) on ‘Implementing the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) – Featuring Country Reports’. It
reported that the German transposition of the EPBD resulted in an exemplary all-
in-one calculation method based on a local standard series DIN V 18599, see figure
D-4. DIN V 18599 has been an important source of information for the
development of European Standards.
It should also be noted that not all Member States used a local standard to
implement the calculation methods. For example in France (RT2012, 2012), the
EPBD is regulated within local decrees and limits the maximum primary energy
per year and m² together with a combination of other minimum performance
requirements to be calculated. Calculation software to prove compliance needs to
be purchased. This software needs to be validated before it is commercialised.
Belgium, e.g. follows the same approach but the software is harmonized and
openly available (PEB, 2011). These EPBD calculation methods already validate in
some extend smart building controls; for example in Flanders automatic solar
shading, presence detection for lighting, demand controlled ventilation,
temperature control per room, etc.
Figure 86 - Structure of German EPBD calculation standard DIN V 18599 Important EN

product and/or smart building system standards

iii. Standards related to electrical installation
IEC 60364-8-1 ED2 Low-voltage electrical installations - Part 8-1: Energy

efficiency
This standard introduces requirements and advices for the design or refurbishing
of an electrical installation with regards to electrical energy efficiency. It proposes
a number of various electrical energy efficiency measures in all low voltage
electrical installations as given in the scope of IEC 60364 from the origin of the
installation including power supply, up to and including current-using-equipment.
Amongst others it describes methods to decrease losses in electrical cables and
transformers.
IEC 60364-8-2 ED2 Low-voltage electrical installations - Part 8-2:

Prosumer Low-Voltage Electrical Installations
This standard is still under development. The standard provides additional

requirements, measures and recommendations for design, erection and
verification of low voltage installations that include local production and storage.
The standard defines therefore how electrical installation requirements should be
conceived to be future proof, without infrastructure lock-in effects, could be useful
for an SRI to check preconditions for local production and storage (however to be
confirmed when the standard becomes available).
IEC PT 60364-8-3 Low-voltage electrical installation - Part 8-3: Evolutions

of Electrical Installations
This standard is still under development. This standard provides requirements and
recommendations to users and facility managers or similar of low-voltage electrical
installations to operate their electrical installations as Prosumer’s Electrical
Installation. These requirements and recommendations cover safety and proper
functioning.
IEC TS 62950 ED1 “Household and similar electrical appliances -

Specifying smart capabilities of appliances and devices - General aspects”
This standard is intended to develop the common architecture which applies widely
to different use cases and appliance types, and the principles of measuring smart
performance within the context of the common architecture. The standard is in
the Draft Technical Specification (DTS) stage and is expected to be published in
September 2017. The focus of the standard is in smart capabilities for
interoperability with Smart Grids.
IEC TS 62898-1:2017 on “Microgrids - Part 1: Guidelines for microgrid

projects planning and specification”
provides guidelines for microgrid projects planning and specification. Microgrids

considered in this document are alternating current (AC) electrical systems. This

document covers the following areas:
- microgrid application, resource analysis, generation forecast, and load forecast;
- DER planning and microgrid power system planning;
- high level technical requirements for DER in microgrids, for microgrid
connection to the distribution system, and for control, protection and
communication systems;
- evaluation of microgrid projects.
IEC 61727 Photovoltaic (PV) systems – Characteristics of the utility

interface
This standard applies to utility-interconnected photovoltaic (PV) power systems

operating in parallel with the utility and utilizing static (solid-state) non-islanding
inverters for the conversion of DC to AC. This document describes specific
recommendations for systems rated at 10 kVA or less, such as may be utilized on
individual residences single or three phases. This standard applies to
interconnection with the low-voltage utility distribution system.
IEC 60364-7-712 Low-voltage electrical installations - Part 7-712:

Requirements for special installations or locations - Solar photovoltaic
(PV) power supply systems.
This part of IEC 60364 applies to the electrical installation of PV systems intended
to supply all or part of an installation.
IEC 61851-1:2017 on “Electric vehicle conductive charging system - Part

1: General requirements”
The aspects covered in this standard include:
- the characteristics and operating conditions of the EV supply equipment;
- the specification of the connection between the EV supply equipment and the
EV;
- the requirements for electrical safety for the EV supply equipment.
IEC 60364-7-722:2015 on “Requirements for special installations or

locations - Supplies for electric vehicles”
The standard applies to circuits intended to supply energy to electric vehicles,
Amongst others it put additional requirements that has an impact in the electrical
distribution board, protection devices and cabling within buildings to supply
electrical vehicles. For example which and how Residual Current Devices that are
needed.

IEC 62933-1 Electrical Energy Storage (EES) systems - Part 3-1: Planning
and installation- General specifications
This standard is still under development. This part of IEC 62933 is applicable to
EES systems designed for grid connected indoor or outdoor installation and
operation at a.c. or d.c. irrespective of voltage.
iv. Standards related to SRI equipment
EN ISO 16484 is a series of 5 standards related to Building automation

and control systems (BACS)
The standard is regarding Building automation and control systems (BACS). It

consists of 5 parts. ISO 16484-1:2010 specifies guiding principles for project
design and implementation and for the integration of other systems into the
building automation and control systems (BACS). ISO 16484-2:2004 specifies the
requirements for the hardware to perform the tasks within a building automation
and control system (BACS). It provides the terms, definitions and abbreviations
for the understanding of ISO 16484-2 and ISO 16484-3. ISO 16484-2:2004
relates only to physical items/devices, i.e. devices for management functions,
operator stations and other human system interface devices; controllers,
automation stations and application specific controllers; field devices and their
interfaces; cabling and interconnection of devices; engineering and commissioning
tools. ISO 16484-3:2005 specifies the requirements for the overall functionality
and engineering services to achieve building automation and control systems. It
defines terms, which shall be used for specifications and it gives guidelines for the
functional documentation of project/application specific systems. It provides a
sample template for documentation of plant/application specific functions, called
BACS points list. ISO 16484-5:2007 defines data communication services and
protocols for computer equipment used for monitoring and control of heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVAC&R) and other building
systems. It defines, in addition, an abstract, object-oriented representation of
information communicated between such equipment, thereby facilitating the
application and use of digital control technology in buildings. ISO 16484-6:2009
defines a standard method for verifying that an implementation of the BACnet
protocol provides each capability claimed in its Protocol Implementation
Conformance Statement (PICS) in conformance with the BACnet standard.
EN 12098 (parts 1, 3, 5) prepared under CEN/TC247/WG6 committee describe

ability of devices and integrated functions to control heating systems. Associated
draft Technical Reports CEN/TR 12098 (parts 6, 7, 8) summarise some
recommendations for how to design, how to use these functions for energy
efficiency of heating systems. Energy impact of these control functions are detailed
in EN 15232-1.
CEN 294, ‘Communication systems for meters’ provides a series of standards with
respect to communication interfaces for systems with meters and remote reading
of meters for all kind of fluids and energies distributed by network. This can
especially be relevant for the services in the ‘monitoring and control’ domain of
the SRI catalogue.

CEN/TS 15810 (Technical Specification) specifies graphical symbols for use on
integrated building automation equipment.
v. Standards at European Level (EN) related to construction works and products

that bear the CE Marking.
EN 1990 - EN 1999 are the so-called ‘EN Eurocodes’ which are a series of 10
European Standards, providing a common approach for the design of buildings and
other civil engineering works and construction products. This standards might be
relevant to check that the construction stability and fire safety preconditions to
install photovoltaics, thermal or electrical storage to increase self- consumption of
renewables. For example to install photovoltaics in a flat roof it needs to be able
to withstand the additional loading, batteries might need fire safe building
compartments, etc. .. and those standards could provide approaches to assess
those capabilities. Of course, here again also local national standards can apply.

ANNEX C. BUILDING STOCK DESCRIPTION AND
SELECTION OF REFERENCE BUILDINGS
A starting point for both the building-level and EU-level impact analysis calculations is the
description and disaggregation of the building stock. The following sections provide an
overview of the data sources used to gather the necessary input on the EU building stock
(ANNEX C.a.i) and its disaggregation across building types, climate regions, etc. (ANNEX
C.a.ii). Section ANNEX C.b then presents the reference buildings that have been defined
as representative buildings when modelling the impact of SRTs on energy use. In setting
up this building stock model, and the consecutive SRT uptake and impact models, this
study builds further upon the work carried out in the first technical study on the SRI.
a. Building stock description
i. Building stock data sources
The primary data source for the building stock description is the EU Building Stock
Observatory, which monitors the building stock and energy performance characteristics of
residential and non-residential buildings across Europe and contains databases, data
mappers and factsheets describing Europe’s building stock. In addition to information on
the share (numbers and total surface areas) of different building types in the EU building
stock, it contains information about average U-values of building components, distribution
of heating systems, etc. Moreover, it contains information about some of the trigger events
used in the SRI deployment model such as the number of EPCs, renovation rates, etc. A
comparative analysis of data presented in other EU building stock models and reports, such
as the BPIE study “Europe’s Buildings Under the Microscope”159 and the report “Average
EU Building Heat Load for HVAC Equipment” by VHK (2014)160, showed that although there
are differences among the assumed building total floor surface areas and average energy
performance characteristics, these differences are small compared to the intrinsic
uncertainty of some of the data-sources reported in these studies. Hence, it was deemed
valid to extensively build further on the data reported in the EU Building Stock Observatory
data.
Nonetheless, for a significant number of input parameters, no or only partial data are
available in the EU Building Stock Observatory. A good complementary data source for this
task is the TABULA webtool,161 which provides detailed reference building data for up to 20
European countries, differentiated by residential building type and age class. The national
cost-optimality reports from EU Member States also provide useful information for different
residential and non-residential buildings162. More general examples for European reference
buildings are provided in the FP7 project iNSPiRe, especially in its report D2.1a163.
159
http://bpie.eu/publication/europes-buildings-under-the-microscope/
160
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_final_report_eu_building_heat_demand.pdf
161
http://episcope.eu/building-typology/webtool/
162 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings
163
http://inspirefp7.eu/about-inspire/

OF A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS 335
ii. Disaggregation of building stock
In the context of this impact analysis the building stock is differentiated across four
parameters:
• five climate regions (Northern, Western, Southern, North-Eastern, South-Eastern)

• six building types: single-family houses, small multi-family buildings, large multi-family
buildings, offices, wholesale and retail buildings, and educational buildings
• five construction periods (pre-1960, 1960–1990, 1990–2010, post-2010)
• two renovation levels (original construction, renovated).
Climate regions
To appropriately address the effect of different climate conditions on the energy demand
calculations, the EU building stock is disaggregated into five climate regions, as defined in
Table 34 and shown in Figure 87. For the energy demand calculation, climate data for the
Member States highlighted in bold in Table 34 have been used to represent the climate for
each of the five regions.
Table 34 – Definition of climate regions
Northern Europe Finland, Sweden, Denmark
Western Europe UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, Luxembourg,

The Netherlands
Southern Europe Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Italy, Greece
North-Eastern Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic

Europe
South-Eastern Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania

Europe
Figure 88 shows the monthly averaged outdoor temperature profiles for the climate regions
as main driving factor for the heating demand calculation. The distribution of the building
stock (in terms of total floor surface area) among the different climate regions is shown in
Figure 90.

Figure 87 – Geographical regions of Europe
Figure 88 – Monthly outdoor temperatures for the selected climate regions

Building types
Six building types have been selected, covering both residential and non-residential
sectors. For residential buildings, the building stock of single-family houses, small multi-
family buildings and large multi-family buildings are modelled. While there is no split
between small and large multi-family houses within the EU Building Stock Observatory,
this split is included for the impact analysis as implementation pathways might differ for
both types of multi-family buildings. For the non-residential sector, the model explicitly
targets office buildings, wholesale and retail buildings, and educational buildings. These
types have been selected as they cover the highest share in the non-residential building
stock. The total floor area covered by these building types across the different climate
regions is shown in Figure 90.
Buildings in EU
Non-
Residential
25%
Residential
75%
Other
14%
Wholesale
Hospitals & retail
Multi 7% 28%
Family
Houses Hotels &
restaurants
36% 11%
Single
Family
Houses Education Offices
64% 17% 23%
Non-residential buildings in EU
Residential buildings in EU
Figure 89 – Distribution of EU building stock among building types [source: EU Building

Stock Observatory]

Figure 90 – Disaggregation of building stock across building type and climate region
Construction periods
Four construction periods are defined, corresponding to the breakdown used in the EU
Building Stock Observatory:
• pre-1960
• 1960–1990
• 1990–2010
• post-2010.
Renovation levels
The stock is further disaggregated into two sub-groups:
• renovated
• unrenovated.
This disaggregation enables the establishment of two levels of thermal characteristics for
each segment being considered. In the scenario calculation for both residential and non-
residential buildings and for each climate zones, one retrofit level (major renovation) is
used. The fact that not every renovation is a major renovation will be considered in the full
thermal retrofit rates assumed for each specific scenario. The thermal qualities assumed
for both residential and non-residential buildings in the renovated and unrenovated cases
are defined in section ii.
Figure 91 shows the share of retrofitted residential buildings per reference zone. Figure 92
shows the share of retrofitted non-residential buildings per reference zone.

Figure 91 – Share of retrofitted residential buildings. Source: First technical study on the SRI based
on [ECOFYS, 2012], based on [Euroconstruct, 2005] with further updates and assumptions for
2005–13.
Figure 92 – Share of retrofitted non-residential buildings. Source: First technical study on the SRI
for 2014 based on [Euroconstruct, 2005].

b. Selection of reference buildings
Considering both the relative share of the buildings stock and an ex ante identification of
buildings that are likely to be targeted by different implementation pathways, a set of
reference buildings is selected and identified as:
• single-family house (SFH)

• small multi-family house (SMFH)
• large multi-family house (LMFH)
• office buildings (OFB)
• wholesale and retail buildings (RTB)
• educational buildings (EDB).
i. Geometry
The geometry parameters for the chosen reference buildings are shown in Table 35. As for
the first technical study on the SRI, the residential building geometries are obtained from
the iNSPiRe study (2014)164. The reference buildings for non-residential buildings are
defined along the Annex I.5 of the EPBD 165. The geometries are based on data from the
European Copper Institute (ECI) for the study “Panorama of the European Non-Residential
Construction Sector”166.
164
http://inspirefp7.eu/about-inspire/
165
Hospitals are listed under health buildings and hotels and restaurants under touristic buildings. Sport facilities
are addressed with other non-res buildings.
166
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/resources/506

Table 35 – Geometry parameters for the selected reference buildings. Source: iNSPiRe, 2014.
Parameter SFH SMFH LMFH OFB RTB EDB
Total floor area (m²) 96 500 2340 1801 1448 2552
A/V ratio (1/m) 0.90 0.50 0.30 0.25 0.36 0.45
Average room height (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.6
Exterior building volume 281 1672 7484 4683 5214 6556

(m³)
Exterior walls (m²) 128 513 699 277 302 318
Windows (m²) 26 128 699 150 130 106
Cellar ceiling (m²) 52 124 462 360 724 1216
Roof/upper ceiling (m²) 52 124 462 360 724 1216
ii. Building physical and HVAC system characteristics
Building physical and HVAC system characteristics of the EU28 building stock will be
analysed in a simplified manner starting with the five climate zones, each represented by
one country if data availability allows it. If not, EU-28 averages are used. Wherever
possible, building type and/or age-band-specific values are used for the parameters serving
as an input to calculate serial steady-state (monthly) energy balances. This calculation is
executed for the building stock in its original state and for the renovated building stock.
Thermal transmittance coefficients (U-values)
Average thermal transmittance values for existing (“original”) buildings are taken from the
EU Building Stock Observatory database for residential and non-residential buildings per
type of envelope construction part (walls, floors, roofs, windows) and for different age-
band categories.
For renovated buildings, U-values for walls, roofs and floors of residential and non-
residential buildings are taken equal to these cost-optimal levels. Annex 2 of the Ecofys
study executed for Eurima in 2007167 contains results for optimal U-values for cost-
efficiency purposes. These U-values have been compared with the World Energy Outlook
2006 reference price scenario of cost-optimal U-values.
167
U-values for better energy performance of buildings - Thomas Boermans and Carsten Petersdorff, Report
established by ECOFYS for EURIMA, 2007: https://www.eurima.org/uploads/F_EURIMA-ECOFYS_VII_report_p1-65.pdf

U-values for walls, roofs and floors are presented in Table 36 for the capital cities of
Germany, Sweden, Italy, Poland and Romania. These are considered to be representative
for the Western, Northern, Southern, North-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe regions of
the EU-28 countries.
Table 36 – U-values (W/m²K) for reference buildings after retrofit
Region Uwall Uroof Ufloor Uwin*
Northern Europe 0.20 0.16 0.26 1.1
Western Europe 0.20 0.16 0.24 1.1
Southern Europe 0.32 0.25 0.84 1.2
North-Eastern Europe 0.21 0.19 0.26 1.1
South-Eastern Europe 0.23 0.20 0.33 1.1
*derived from retrofit packages (as a function of wall U-values)
No cost-optimal U-values are reported for windows in the Eurima study. Therefore, the U-
values for renovated building windows used in the current study are derived from the
retrofit packages implemented in the Eurima study and are modelled as a function of the
U-value of the wall of the corresponding retrofit packages. It can be expected that similar
wall to window insulation ratios are implemented. The resulting U-values of the windows
are included in Table 7.
Window heat-transfer properties: solar transmittance
A simplified model is constructed to calculate the g-value of a window based on its U-value.
It is based on glazing characteristics168 and a simplified model to calculate the U-value of
the window based on U-values of glazing and frame. Typical combinations of glazing and
frames are considered to estimate input for frame characteristics.
Table 37 gives an overview of the assumptions and description of the model. For cooling-
load calculations, a shading factor of 0.5 is assumed independent of the building type.
Table 37 – Solar transmittance data as a function of window U-value
Simplified model Assumptions

glazing frame window
Uw [W/(m².K)] g-value [-] description Ug [W/(m².K)] g-value [-] description Uf [W/(m².K)] fg [-] Psi [W/m.K] Uw [W/(m².K)]
Uw≤1,5 0,50 triple glazing with coating 0,7 0,5 wood thickness ≥150mm 1,3 0,7 0,11 1,21
1,5<Uw≤2,0 0,65 double glazing HR ≥2000 1,4 0,65 wood thickness ≥100mm 1,7 0,7 0,11 1,82
2,0<Uw≤2,5 0,70 double glazing HR <2000 2 0,69 wood thickness ≥100mm 1,7 0,8 0,06 2,12
2,5<Uw≤4,0 0,77 double glazing 2,9 0,77 wood 2,2 0,8 0,06 2,94
Uw>4,0 0,85 single glazing 5,8 0,85 wood 2,2 0,8 0 5,08
168
http://www.vgi-fiv.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Een-glasheldere-kijk-op-de-Belgische-beglazingen-Juni-2015-LowRes.pdf (dutch)

Heating system efficiency (space heating and domestic hot water)
Heating system efficiency is the factor used to translate net energy demand to end energy
consumption; it is the ratio of the net energy demand to the total energy required at the
building location to meet the net energy demand in magnitude, temperature level and at
the time it is needed. It comprises the combined efficiencies of the production, storage (if
any), distribution, emission (only in case of space heating) and control systems.
Kemna et al. reported values for system efficiency for residential and service sector 169. The
average value (weighted by the heat output for each heating technology type) is low
compared to, for example, the default efficiencies for space heating that are used in EPCs
in Flanders (for residential and small, non-residential buildings)170. The latter values for
system efficiency are supposed to be conservative in the sense that most systems in
practice will reach higher efficiencies. These are not representative for large non-residential
buildings. Also, when comparing the Kemna efficiency values with the values reported in
the frame of the Stratego project as function of energy source 171, the Kemna values are
relatively low. On the one hand this is illogical given the fact that the Kemna values are for
space heating alone while the Stratego values are for combined space heating and domestic
hot water, as it is expected that efficiency would be lower for domestic hot water (usually
at a higher temperature on average, intermittent production and or storage, possible
circulation loop for distribution). On the other hand, the Stratego values only represent
production efficiencies, implying that these need to be decreased by taking the storage,
distribution, emission and control losses into account.
The average system efficiency value of 0.55 derived from the Kemna et al. report is
retained for the current analysis for space heating and domestic hot water for residential
and non-residential buildings in the original state of the building stock. For renovated
buildings, an average system efficiency of 0.82 is retained.
Ventilation
VHK reports average effective ventilation rates for residential and non-residential buildings
of 0.68 and 1.15 ACH, respectively [Kemna et al.; 2019]. The value reported effective
ventilation rate (ACH) also includes infiltration. These values also take heat recovery into
account assuming on average 7% of residential and non-residential buildings are equipped
with heat recovery systems. Calculated at an average efficiency of the heat recovery of
60%, the average recovery efficiency on building stock level becomes 5%. The ventilation
rates become 0.72 ACH and 1.21 ACH for residential and non-residential buildings on
average.
169
Kemna, R.; 2014; Average EU building heat load for HVAC equipment - Final report contract No.
ENER/C3/412-2010/15/FV2014-558/SI2,680138; VHK; Delft; August, 2014;
170
VEA; 2019; EPB-Cijferrapport 2019 - Procedures, resultaten en energetische karakteristieken van het Vlaamse
gebouwenbestand - periode 2006 – 2018. [in Dutch]; Vlaams Energieagentschap (VEA); Brussel, België;
april 2019
171
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/stratego

Table 38 – Effective ventilation rates and heat recovery factors for the different reference buildings
and renovation levels
Renovation Parameter SFH SMFH LMFH OFB TRB EDB

level
Original 𝜂𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 (%) 5 5 5 5 5 5
𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡&𝑖𝑛𝑓 (ACH) 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.21 1.21 1.21
Renovated 𝜂𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 (%) 25 25 25 25 25 25
𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡&𝑖𝑛𝑓 (ACH) 0.68 0.60 0.56 1.04 1.56 1.04
Energy use by ventilation systems is assumed to be 0 W/(m³/h) for the original residential
buildings built pre-1990 as ventilation in these building types is assumed to result primarily
from infiltration and natural ventilation. From 1990 onwards and for renovated buildings,
a mix of exhaust ventilation (Type C) and balanced supply and exhaust systems (Type D)
is assumed, with 33% of buildings implementing type D and 67% type C. Type D is used
for non-residential buildings. The specific energy use of both ventilation types is given in
Table 39.
Table 39 – Specific energy use by ventilation systems
System D System C
Ventilation electricity 0.28 0.07

use [W/(m3/h)]

ANNEX D. SRI AND SRT UPTAKE MODEL
As a first building block for the impact analysis tool, the “SRI and SRT uptake model”
quantifies the number of SRI assessments carried out for the different building types and
climate regions. This assessment rate is evidently a function of the implementation
pathways. In a second step, the effect of the SRI implementation pathway on SRT uptake
is modelled based on volume of SRI assessments, as well as market push and pull effects.
This section explains in detail the methodology behind the modelling, allowing readers to
also assess the impact of certain implementation options and the sensitivity to the
underlying assumptions.
In the modelling, differentiation is made between building types and climate zones. This
also allows the evaluation of different implementation pathways for different types of
buildings as well as for different Member States. The methodology is, however, uniform for
all building types and climate zones.
a. Modelling the evolution of SRI assessments
i. Methodology
The starting point for the impact analysis is the quantification of the number of SRI
assessments being conducted in relation to a specific implementation pathway. This
number of assessments in the next step will feed into the SRT uptake model, which in turn
is the starting point for calculating, amongst others, the energy savings corresponding the
potential SRI implementation pathways.
Evidently, the number of SRI assessments carried out depends primarily on the
implementation pathways adopted by the Member States. To make the calculation flexible
and transparent regarding the assumptions and impacts proposed for the different
implementation pathways, it was decided to build the calculation around the foreseeable
trigger events that could lead to SRI assessments. The calculation includes the following
trigger events for which annual occurrence rates have been assessed:
• EPC assessments
• replacement of technical building systems (e.g. boiler replacement)
• major renovation
• new constructions
• installation of local RES (e.g. PV)
• purchase of an EV
• smart meter installation
• inspection of HVAC (according to Art. 14 and 15 of the EPBD)
• other (e.g. link to other voluntary schemes, such as BREEAM).
For each of these trigger events a rate is defined by which each trigger results in an SRI
assessment. There rates are modelled depending on the implementation pathways and
policy options. For example, if the implementation pathway would adopt a mandatory SRI
assessment linked to each EPC assessment, the rate of SRI assessments would be 100%
for the trigger event EPC assessment, see Table 40.

Table 40 – Example of triggers and rate of action for single-family houses in Northern Europe for
implementation pathway A1
Triggers for SRI assessment Annual rate of rate of SRI's

trigger events granted during
trigger event
- EPC assessment 0.95% 100.00%
- Replacement of technical building systems 4.91% 0.08%
- Major renovations 0.79% 0.00%
- new construction 0.98% 0.00%
- Installation of local RES (e.g. PV) 0.05% 0.08%
- Buying an EV 1.42% 0.16%
- Smart meter deployment 0.93% 0.08%
- HVAC inspections 0.00% 0.08%
- Other 0.00% 0.00%
When a certain implementation pathway would foresee a voluntary assessment of the SRI,
e.g. when a smart meter is installed, then it could be expected that the rate at which the
trigger “Smart meter deployment” results in an SRI assessment would increase as the SRI
scheme grows more mature. Such an increase may result from a market pull effect, i.e.
the end-user interest in the SRI increases as the SRI deployment rate increases, or a
market push effect, i.e. as the SRI deployment rate increase manufacturers and installers
may start promoting or advising SRI assessments. To reflect these growth effects, it is
possible to include the foreseeable increase in the rate of SRI assessments that follow from
each trigger event due to market push and pull effects. For example, for an implementation
pathway that foresees a voluntary SRI assessment for major renovations, more building
owners can be expected to carry out an assessment as the market penetration of the SRI
increases. These push and pull effects are modelled using a typical S-shape growth model
as a function of the deployment rate of the SRI. The deployment rate is defined as the
percentage of buildings of that specific type and climate region that have already
undergone an SRI assessment. Figure 93 shows a theoretical example of the push and pull
effect size. This effect size is a percentage point increase in the rate of SRIs granted during
the trigger event.

Figure 93 – Example of market push and pull effect on SRI assessment
In summary, for a certain implementation pathway (ipw), the annual number of SRI
assessments obtained as the sum over all triggers (tr) is given by:
𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑝𝑤 = ∑ 𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑡𝑟
𝑡𝑟
𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 = 𝑛𝑡𝑟 (𝛼𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 + 𝛽𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 + 𝛾𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 )
𝛽𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 ~ 𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑙 , 𝛽𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛾𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 ~ 𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑙 , 𝛾𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥
where:
• 𝑛𝑡𝑟 = the number of trigger events (e.g. number of EPC assessments for that building
type in that climate region)
• 𝛼𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 = the base rate of SRI assessments linked to the trigger
• 𝛽𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 = the market push effect as a function of the SRI deployment rate (𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑙 ) and
the maximum effect size 𝛽𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , and
• 𝛾𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤 = the market pull effect as a function of the SRI deployment rate (𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑙 ) and
the maximum effect size 𝛾𝑡𝑟,𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 .

ii. Definition of trigger events
In order to estimate the deployment rate of SRI assessments, the methodology has
identified different moments during a building’s construction and use phase as potential
trigger events for an SRI assessment. As such, the estimation of the total number of SRI
assessments for a given implementation pathway is broken down into a quantification of
the occurrences of these trigger events and the rate of SRI assessments that follow from
a trigger event. The rate of trigger event that lead to an SRI assessment can be directly
linked to the actual implementation pathway, as discussed in section iii. On the contrary,
the frequency of trigger events can be estimated based on the analysis of available building
stock data. The following paragraphs describe this process for the selected trigger events.
EPC assessments
As one of the implementation pathways suggests a possible linkage of the SRI to EPC
assessments, the first trigger event is the number of EPCs carried out annually for a given
building type and climate region.
Data on the annual and total number of EPCs granted at Member State level are available
in the EU Building Stock Observatory 172. As these data are only partially available at
Member State level and not with the detailed granularity of building types used in this
impact analysis, the data have been extrapolated to obtain input values for each building
type and climate region. More specifically, the number of residential and non-residential
EPCs per climate region has been estimated by calculating the average assessment rate
(number of EPCs issued per total number of buildings in that category) based on the
Member States within a climate region for which data are available. This average rate is
then applied to all Member States within that climate region. At the climate region level,
the number of residential EPCs issued is then distributed over the sub-types (single-family
houses, small multi-family buildings, large multi-family buildings) according to the relative
number of buildings within each subtype. This same approach is followed for non-
residential buildings.
In addition to the extrapolation of the number of EPC assessments reported in the EU

Building Stock Observatory, it was assumed that by 2030 all member states would have
implemented a mandatory EPC assessment for new-built and major renovation for all
building types. As such, the number of EPC assessments is from 2030 onwards at minimum
equal to that of new buildings and major renovations. Also, the number of EPC assessments
per building type and climate region is limited to at most 15% per year, reflecting that as
most member states adopt a validity of 10 years, buildings would at most have an EPC
assessment every 7 years173.
Replacement or upgrade of TBSs
The replacement of TBSs can also be expected to be an opportunity to initiate an SRI

assessment. The trigger for an SRI assessment is thereby expected to link to replacement
of larger components of the HVAC system, such as boiler replacement or upgrading the
ventilation system, rather than maintenance-related replacement of small components,
e.g. valves. Taking into account a practical average life expectancy of those components
of 20 years, the number of TBS replacement trigger events is calculated by assuming that
all buildings shall undergo a replacement at least once every 20 years and distributing
172
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-database
173
Note, annual EPC issuance rates of up to 48% of the building stock as a function of the building type and
Member State have been reported in the building stock observatory so this limit of a maximum rate of 15%
(and much less on average) is a significant conservatism

these occurrences uniformly over time. Again, this assumption is conservative as the major
TBSs of heating, hot water, lighting, ventilation and air conditioning will each be replaced
(on average) once every 20 years or less, and theoretically each is an opportunity to
conduct an SRI assessment; however, it is assumed that in practice for the pathways E1,
E2 and E3 that Member States will only task the major TBS replacements with also
conducting an SRI and that only one or possibly two types of TBS would be taken into
account.
Major building renovations and new constructions
To calculate the number of major renovations and new constructions, fixed renovation and
construction rates are based on the first technical study. For residential buildings, the major
renovation and new construction rates are 0.8% and 1%, respectively; for non-residential
buildings rates of 1% and 0.9%, respectively, are assumed. Again, these values are in line
with the historical levels and more conservative projections.
Installation of local RESs
Given that renewable energy generation is one of the services evaluated in the SRI, the
installation of RESs can be expected to be a potential trigger for SRI assessment. To
estimate the number of trigger events, data on the annual capacity installed and connected
to the grid obtained from the EurObserv’ER database 174 are combined with the EU28
installed PV capacity from Eurostat175.
The Eurostat data show that within the EU28, 21% of PV capacity stems from small
installations of less than 20 kWp, 44% stems from medium-size installations with a peak
capacity of 20 kWp to 1MWp, and 35% results from large installations of more than 1 MWp.
In the next step, the average distribution in plant size is used to calculate the annually
installed capacity of plants with a peak power <20 kW and those with a peak power of 20
kW to 1 MW for each country. The total capacity per country is thereby given by the
EurObserv’ER data.
In the final step, the installed capacity of small- and medium-size PV systems for each
country is distributed over the different building types. It is assumed that all installations
smaller than 20 kWp are installed at residential building premises, with an average plant
size of 10 kWp. The majority (75%) of the medium-size systems are assumed to be located
in non-residential building premises, with an average plant size of 250 kWp. The resulting
number of residential and non-residential systems are then distributed among the building
types according to their share of the total number of residential and non-residential
buildings, respectively.
Purchase of EVs
Charging facilities for EVs is one of the domains evaluated by the SRI. Hence, the purchase
of an EV is also a likely trigger event. In the current iteration, vehicle purchase volumes
have been implemented per Member State according to data obtained from ACEA 176.
Further data sources such as the European alternative fuel observatory will be incorporated
in future iterations of the model. The number of EVs has been estimated following the 15%
ambition level of ZLEV for 2025. For the impact analysis it is assumed that the purchase
174
https://www.eurobserv-er.org/online-database/
175
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
176
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-11-08-driving-clean-mobility_en

of an EV would only be a trigger event for residential buildings. The total number of EV
purchases is hence distributed over the residential building types according to the relative
share of the building type in the total number of residential buildings.
Smart meter installations
In the report drafted by DG ENER and JRC titled "Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the
EU-27 with a focus on electricity"177, the progress in the deployment of smart metering in the EU
Member based on information on received Member States’ deployment plan.
To date, Member States have committed to rolling out close to 200 million smart meters
for electricity and 45 million for gas by 2020 at a total potential investment of €45 billion.
By 2020, it is expected that almost 72% of European consumers will have a smart meter
for electricity while 40% will have one for gas.
As prescribed in the EU directive 2019/944 “common rules for the internal market for
electricity”, issued in June 2019 and amending Directive 2012/27/EU, all consumers should
be able to benefit from directly participating in the market, in particular by adjusting their
consumption according to market signals. They should therefore have the possibility of
benefiting from the full deployment of smart metering systems and, where such
deployment has been negatively assessed, of choosing to have a smart metering system
and a dynamic electricity price contract. Article 19 of that directive includes that Member
States shall ensure the deployment in their territories of smart metering systems. Such
deployment may be subject to a cost-benefit assessment which shall be undertaken in
accordance with the principles laid down in Annex II of the directive. Where the deployment
of smart metering systems is assessed positively, at least 80 % of final customers shall be
equipped with smart meters either within seven years of the date of the positive
assessment or by 2024 for those Member States that have initiated the systematic
deployment of smart metering systems before 4 July 2019. In the case of a negative cost-
benefit assessment Member States shall ensure that this assessment is revised at least
every four years. Also, in the case of a negative assessments, consumers are still entitled
to a smart meter upon request.
Finally, Article 19(6) states that “Smart metering systems that have already been installed,
or for which the ‘start of works’ began, before 4 July 2019, may remain in operation over
their lifetime but, in the case of smart metering systems that do not meet the requirements
of Article 20 and Annex II, shall not remain in operation after 5 July 2031.”
Acknowledging that smart grids will become increasingly profitable in future energy
systems that rely heavily on renewable energy sources, it can be expected that following
the directive EU 2019/944 more than 95% of buildings will be connected by smart metering
systems by 2050. Based on the data presented in the DG ENER and JRC report and taking
into account a lifetime of 25 years for the smart meter, annually 1% of buildings are
estimated to install a smart meter. Given the current state of deployment across the EU,
the smart meter implementation rates that may lead to a trigger event for an SRI
assessment varies significantly among Member States. This spread is not considered in the
current implementation of the model. Also, in view of the lack of data for the non-
residential sector, the same implementation rate is assumed as a working hypothesis.
Mandatory building inspections
Articles 14 and 15 of the EPBD require mandatory regular inspections for heating and
ventilation/cooling systems in buildings if the installed capacity is greater than 70 kW. The
177
https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart-metering-deployment-european-union

analysis of building types and thermal building systems show that 80% of the large multi-
family houses (LMFHs) have systems >70 kW in place. Since 31% of all residential floor
area is covered by LMFHs, systems >70 kW are installed for a total of 25% of residential
buildings floor area. Furthermore, 30% of the non-residential buildings have systems with
a capacity greater than 70 kW in place, which translates to 55% of the total non-residential
floor area. It is assumed that this corresponds to 40% of all offices, 40% of all wholesale
and retail buildings, and 70% of all schools.
iii. SRI assessments for the trigger events as a function of the implementation pathways
As outlined in section i, the actual number of SRI assessments for each of the trigger
events is determined by the base rate at which SRI assessments are actually conducted
when a trigger event occurs, as well as by the market push and pull effects that represent
the increase in interest in SRI assessments as the deployment of the SRI increases. All
three effects are closely linked to the supposed implementation pathway as outlined in
section 4.2.
To model the impact of implementation pathways, three different options are implemented
regarding the rate at which SRI assessments are conducted for each trigger event. When
a certain pathway prescribes a mandatory SRI assessment for a certain trigger, the rate is
evidently set to 100%. This would be the case when, for example, there is a mandatory
link to EPC assessments. In that case, the rate for the trigger “EPC assessment” is set at
100%.
Alternatively, if an SRI assessment is linked to a trigger event on a voluntary basis, without

any subsidised incentive mechanism, the default rate is set to 0.1%. An intermediate
option is implemented when links to trigger events are on a voluntary basis but supporting
incentive mechanisms are installed. In those cases, the default rate is set to 40%. For both
voluntary scenarios, there may be exceptions implemented for these default values based
on expert judgement and in order to increase the differentiation among the different
implementation pathways.
Table 41 gives an overview of the rates at which SRI assessments follow each of the trigger
events for the different implementation pathways (as outlined in section 4.2) as proposed
for the impact analysis. The structure of the calculation tool allows users to rapidly adapt
these scenario parameters based on specific contexts. These default values will be further
subjected to a sensitivity analysis in Task 4 Activity 4. Note, these values are provisional
estimates derived by the study team from assessment of relevant information in publicly
available literature; however, there is uncertainty with regard to many of these values.

Table 41 – Default rates (%) of SRI assessments following trigger events
Triggers for SRI A1 A2 A3 B C D E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3

assessment
EPC assessment 100 5.0 40.0 0.5 0.5 20.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Replacement of TBSs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.0 100 0.5 19.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
Major renovations 0 0 0 100 1.5 20.0 100 1.5 41.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
New construction 0 0 0 100 1.5 20.0 100 1.5 41.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Installation of local 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
RES (e.g. PV)
Buying an EV 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Smart meter 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 0.5 40.0
deployment
HVAC inspections 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 0.5 19.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
In addition to the base rates, the market push and pull effects are important model
parameters. As for the base rates, the maximum effect sizes are function of the
implementation pathway. When an implementation pathway prescribes a mandatory
linkage to a certain trigger event, market push and pull effects are set to 0% for that
trigger, as the base rate is already 100%. In cases of voluntary linkage to the trigger
events, the parameters are set to 1% and 2% for the non-subsidised and subsidised
scenarios, respectively. As for the base rates, these values will be subjected further to a
sensitivity analysis. Note, these values are derived by the study team based on expert
judgement; however, they may subsequently be amended based on Member State and
stakeholder review.
Table 42 – Default maximum effect sizes for the market push and pull effects on the SRI
assessment rate
Maximum pull Maximum push

effect effect
Subsidised voluntary assessment 2% 2%
Non-subsidised voluntary assessment 1% 1%

Mandatory assessment 0% 0%
b. Modelling the uptake of SRT
After modelling the number of SRI assessments carried out, this section discusses at what
rate an SRI assessment will lead to upgrades of the smart readiness level of a building. To
limit the model complexity, the model distinguishes two types of SRT upgrades: a gradual
upgrade for which the smartness level increases by one class at a time; and a major
upgrade for which the smartness level is increased to level A in one upgrade.
To set the parameter values for the SRT uptake rates, the model distinguishes three driving
forces for an SRT upgrade. First, there is the business-as-usual SRT uptake, estimated by
the current uptake of SRT in the market. Based on projections in the “Digital
Transformation Monitor – Smart Building: energy efficiency application”178, the smart
building market is expected to grow 15% between 2015 and 2025. Assuming this growth
is independent of the SRI deployment, an annual upgrade rate of 1.2% is implemented for
buildings upgrading by one class and 0.02% for buildings upgrading to the highest level of
smartness. A second driving factor evidently reflects the impact of the SRI. It is defined as
the rate of the buildings that undergo an SRI assessment and will carry out SRT
improvements as a result of that SRI assessment. The percentage of buildings undergoing
an SRT upgrade due to the SRI evidently depends on the potential supporting mechanisms
that are tied to the implementation pathway; default rates have been used as shown in
Table 43. Note, these default rates constitute approximately a 1/3 rd of the market
transformation impact levels observed from the introduction of energy labelling for
domestic appliances. This is intentionally conservative but also reflects that procurement
decisions for SRTs are more complex than for appliances and hence the impact of the
provision of information via the SRI on any specific SRT procurement decision are likely to
be diluted compared to the impact of the energy label on an appliance procurement
decision.
Finally, the impact of market push and pull effects on the SRT upgrade are modelled. An
S-shaped growth function is used for which the maximum effect size is the main input
parameter. As a driving force for the push and pull effect (horizontal axis in Figure 94), the
total percentage of buildings in classes A and B have been used as the driving factor for
market push and pull effects. In other words, the uptake of smart technologies will increase
with the number of buildings with a high SRI score.
178
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/monitor/content/smart-building-%0Benergy-efficiency-
application

Figure 94 – Example market push and pull effect on SRT uptake
In summary, for a certain implementation pathway (ipw), the SRT growth rate, i.e. the
percentage of buildings moving up one level (subscript +1) or to level A SRT configurations
(subscript 𝑋 → 𝐴), is given by:
𝑆𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑝𝑤,+1 = 𝛿+1 + 𝜔+1 𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑝𝑤 + 𝛽+1 + 𝛾+1

𝑆𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑋→𝐴 = 𝛿𝑋→𝐴 + 𝜔𝑋→𝐴 𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑝𝑤 + 𝛽𝑋→𝐴 + 𝛾𝑋→𝐴
𝛽 ~ 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝐴 + 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝐵 , 𝛽𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛾 ~ 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝐴 + 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝐵 , 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥
where:
• 𝛿 = the business-as-usual SRT uptake rate

• 𝜔 = the share of buildings undergoing an SRI assessment (𝑆𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑝𝑤 ) and an SRT upgrade
due to the SRI, and
• 𝛽 and 𝛾 = the market push and pull effects, respectively.
Table 43 – Default parameters for SRT uptake linked to SRI assessments
Parameter SRT uptake prognosis

Increase by 1 class
Increase to level A
BAU SRT growth 1.2% 0.02%
SRT upgrade after SRI assessment 15.0% 3.0%
Maximum SRT upgrade push effect 0.5% 0.1%

Maximum SRT upgrade market push 0.5% 0.1%
effect
The SRT uptake rates linked to an SRI assessment tabulated in Table 43 reflect the uptake
rates linked to an SRI assessment following the detailed, expert-assessment methodology.
As an alternative to the detailed assessment a simplified methodology has also been
proposed as part of the technical study, moreover an optional self-assessment
implementation has been proposed as an alternative to a 3 rd party expert assessment. In
general, it is expected that self-assessment will be less reliable than 3 rd party expert
assessment and hence the impacts triggered by an SRI assessment will be somewhat
diluted. Similarly, as the simplified method assesses less SRT domains and functionality
than the detailed method it is also expected that some prospective improvement options
will not be acted upon as a result of the information it provides. Therefore, correction
factors are introduced take this into account, see

Table 44. These are derived from the expert judgement of the study team informed by the
experience from the testing phase of the SRI combined with a review of the loss of
informational content from application of the simplified method.

Table 44– Default factors to express the influence of the assessment method and assessment
methodology on the push and pull effects
Information: Implementation Pathways Assessment factor Method factor
A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory

way) so an assessment would be offered each time an EPC is
conducted
Option A1 Linkage to EPC is mandatory 1 1
Option A2 Linkage to EPC is voluntary 0.82 0.88
Option A3 Linkage to EPC is voluntary but is subsidized 0.925 0.95
B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major 1 1

renovations so that each time a new build/or renovation is
undertaken it would be a requirement
C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self- 0.715 0.81

assessment is supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified
assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it
D. As option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, 0.925 0.95

or subsidised, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out
flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation
measures
E. Linkage to the BACS deployment trigger points in

Articles 8, 14 & 15, 19 in the EPBD
Option E1 Linkage is mandatory 1 1
Option E2 Linkage is voluntary 0.82 0.88
Option E3 Linkage is voluntary but subsidized 0.925 0.95
Option F1 Linkage is mandatory 1 1
Option F2 Linkage is voluntary 0.82 0.88
Option F3 Linkage is voluntary but subsidized 0.925 0.95
Based on the SRT uptake scenario, parameterised by a percentage of buildings undergoing

a gradual (+1) or major (𝑋 → 𝐴) SRT upgrade, the evolution of SRT configurations in the
building stock is modelled. The starting point for this calculation is the initial distribution of
classes of SRT configurations for each type of building.
Data for the distribution of SRTs by region and building type are derived from the following
studies, amongst others:
• Building Automation: The Scope for Energy and CO 2 Savings in the EU:
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/resources/249/building-automation-the-scope-
forenergy-and-co2-savings-in--57f7a23e8b452

• Optimising the Energy Use of Technical Building Systems – Unleashing the power of
the EPBD’s Article 8:
https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2017-optimising-theenergy-use-of-tbs-
final-report.pdf
• Ecodesign Preparatory Study for Building Automation and Control Systems (BACS)
Implementing the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016–2019 Ecodesign Scoping Study for
BACS (http://www.ecodesignbacs.eu/)
• Short Study Energy Savings Digital Heating [in German]:
https://www.bdhkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/energieeinsparungen_
digitale_heizung_ 2017_01_12.pdf
Table 45 shows the initial values for the SRT configurations as a function of building type
and climate region.
Table 45 – Initial distribution of SRT configurations (%)
SRI Western Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe

range
(%)
SFH/ LMF OF RT SFH/ LMF OF RT SFH/ LMF OF RT

SMF H B B SMF H B B SMF H B B
H H H
I: 0–25 20 25 30 20 25 30 35 25 15 20 25 15
II: 25–50 70 60 55 40 70 60 55 45 80 70 65 55
III: 51– 8 11 11 20 4 8 8 15 5 9 9 20
75
IV: 76– 2 4 4 20 1 2 2 15 0 1 1 10
100
The annual change in buildings in each category moving up one class or moving all the way to
class A is then explicitly modelled until 2050 given 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑝𝑤,+1 and 𝑆𝑅𝑇𝑖𝑝𝑤,𝑋→𝐴
c. Data sources for costs and benefits
This section gives an overview of the data sources that have been investigated so far for
SRT costs and benefits. This list is still being worked on by the study team and all
studies/data sources that were mentioned in the proposal are scanned and are available
to the consortium. In addition, BACS Standard EN15232 is an important starting point for
the energy savings related to the eight BACS dimensions.
Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Smart Appliances (Lot 33) MEErP Tasks 1–6,
2017

The final report of Ecodesign Preparatory Study on Smart Appliances (Lot 33) provides an
analysis of the current situation and potential development of the smart appliances market
from technical, economic and societal perspectives. The focus of this study is on smart
appliances and the potential demand side flexibility they provide to the end user. The study
uses a generic optimisation model to calculate the economic and environmental impact of
smart appliances over three benchmark years –2014, 2020 and 2030 – for two scenarios:
the business-as-usual (BAU) and 100% scenarios.
The data are available for theoretical monetary benefits of providing flexibility per smart
appliance per year per scenario per year as well as on an aggregated level for the EU-28.
The study considers and presents cost elements from the end-user perspective, such as
the initial investment costs for the appliance and the recurrent operational costs, as well
as the expected increase in the retail price of devices by adding a demand-response
interface.
Preparatory Study on Lighting Systems (Lot 37), 2016
The Preparatory Study on Smart Appliances (Lot 37) final report provides information on
the markets, users and technologies of lighting systems and an analysis of their
development, including technical, economic and environmental aspects. The focus of this
study is on indoor and road lighting systems. It presents and develops further the results
of the Model for European Light Sources Analysis (MELISA) for calculating the economic
and environmental impact of electricity consumption for lighting and lighting system
improvements over two benchmark years – 2030 and 2050.
Data are available on specific capital expenditure for acquisition and installation of LED
luminaires, optimising the design and addition of controls as well as a summary of EU-28
savings resulting from lighting system improvements, in terms of annual electricity
savings, GHG emission reductions, annual energy cost savings and annual user expense
savings per scenario.
Added value of smart energy management in low-energy homes of the future,

2016
The core aim of the SMART HOME project was to understand the potential role of smart
energy management technologies in nZEB homes and to quantify related energy and
energy cost savings. The study is based on modelling a sample home. The report estimates
total energy consumption and annual energy costs under three scenarios reflecting
different levels of use of energy management systems (EMSs): (i) no EMS; (ii) an EMS
that integrates all energy management functions; and (iii) an EMS that also controls energy
demand based on a variable electricity price.
Scope for energy and CO2 savings in the EU through the use of building
automation technology, 2014
This report presents an analysis that examined the potential of building energy controls to
accelerate energy savings. Data relate to estimated building automation technology
(BAT)/building energy management systems (BEMS) sales by residential building and
service sector building types in Europe, as well as the costs to procure, install and
commission BAT and BEMS per building type and estimated average savings per building
type and projected BAT penetration.
Scope for energy savings from energy management, 2016

This report outlines the potentials of EMSs with respect to energy savings and assesses
the status of EMS technology in Europe. The data in this report include the theoretical
potentials and typical actual energy, cost and emissions savings achievable via energy
management. The analyses are then applied to derive holistic pan-EU savings potentials
through the application of scenarios for the main energy end uses in the EU (service sector
buildings and industry).
Chancen der Energetischen Inspektion für Gesetzgeber, Anlagenbetreiber

und die Branche
This report provides data on energy cost savings resulting from the optimisation of systems
and the installation of more efficient components for ventilation and cooling equipment.
Technische Optimierung und Energieeinsparung
This report presents data on final energy savings based on measured data before and after
optimisation of heating systems per residential building type.
Based on the reports listed above, and following the assumptions made during the first
technical study on the SRI, the investment costs for SRTs are implemented as shown in
Table 46.
Table 46 – Investment costs (€/m²) for SRTs per building type and region
Northern Europe Western, South- Southern Europe

Eastern & North-
Eastern Europe
Residentia Non- Residentia Non- Residentia Non-

l residential l residential l residential
D -> C 4.8 3.6 4.0 3.0 3.2 2.4
C -> B 6.6 18.0 5.5 15.0 4.4 12.0
D -> A 16.8 36.0 14.0 30.0 11.2 24.0
C -> A 14.4 30.0 12.0 25.0 9.6 20.0
B -> A 9.6 24.0 8.0 20.0 6.4 16.0

d. Results for implementation pathway A1 and C
This section presents detailed results obtained for pathway A1 (“Mandatory linkage of the
SRI to an EPC assessment”) and pathway C (“Market-based voluntary scheme where self-
assessment is supported by online tools and third-party certified assessments for those
willing to pay for it”). These pathways cover the extreme ends of the spectrum in terms of
rates at which SRI assessments will be carried out, as shown in Table 41. While the
modelling allows the further diversification of the implementation pathways across building
types and climate regions, a uniform implementation across the EU and all building types
is assumed for the example results shown here.

i. SRI deployment rate
Figure 95 – SRI deployment rate for single-family houses, under implementation pathway A1
Figure 96 – SRI deployment rate for single-family houses, under implementation pathway C

Figure 97 – SRI deployment rate for office buildings, under implementation pathway A1
Figure 98 – SRI deployment rate for office building, under implementation pathway C

ii. SRT uptake
Europe, under implementation pathway A1
Europe, under implementation pathway C

Europe, under implementation pathway A1
Europe, under implementation pathway C

implementation pathway C


iii. Relative energy savings
houses, under implementation pathway A1
houses, under implementation pathway C


iv. Employment impacts
pathway A1
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 23131 26692 27957 24630

jobs
Installation 21628 24958 26140 23029

jobs
Wholesale jobs 1160 1338 1402 1235
Retail jobs 6977 8051 8432 7429
Maintenance 2442 2818 2951 2600

jobs
Assessment 9709 10294 11528 12529

jobs (external)
Energy supply -3455 -11375 -19340 -27035

jobs
Net jobs 61591 62775 59071 44416
pathway A2
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 4558 6223 9336 11831

jobs
Installation 4262 5818 8729 11062

jobs
Wholesale jobs 229 312 468 593
Retail jobs 1375 1877 2816 3568
Maintenance 481 657 986 1249

jobs
Assessment 879 931 1422 2057

jobs (external)
Energy supply -1033 -3598 -5453 -9587

jobs
Net jobs 10750 12219 18303 20774

pathway A3
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 12984 16269 19618 19571

jobs
Installation 12140 15212 18343 18299

jobs
Retail jobs 3916 4907 5917 5903
Maintenance 1371 1717 2071 2066

jobs
Assessment 6860 7265 10623 11768

jobs (external)
Energy supply -2132 -7237 -12355 -18607

jobs
Net jobs 35790 38949 45200 39982
pathway B
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 23131 26692 27957 24630

jobs
Installation 21628 24958 26140 23029

jobs
Wholesale jobs 1160 1338 1402 1235
Retail jobs 6977 8051 8432 7429
Maintenance 2442 2818 2951 2600

jobs
Assessment 9709 10294 11528 12529

jobs (external)
Energy supply -3455 -11375 -19340 -27035

jobs
Net jobs 61591 62775 59071 44416

Table 51- Incremental employment impacts of the SRI compared to the BAU for implementation
pathway C
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 8732 10953 15015 16594

jobs
Installation 8165 10241 14040 15515

jobs
Retail jobs 2634 3304 4529 5005
Maintenance 922 1156 1585 1752

jobs
Assessment 2553 2707 4337 6115

jobs (external)
Energy supply -1665 -5635 -9387 -14952

jobs
Net jobs 21778 23275 30872 30861
pathway D
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 3578 5120 8064 10576

jobs
Installation 3346 4788 7540 9888

jobs
Retail jobs 1079 1544 2432 3190
Maintenance 378 541 851 1116

jobs
Assessment 21 22 29 38
jobs (external)
Energy supply -906 -3186 -4668 -8501

jobs
Net jobs 7676 9086 14653 16837

pathway E1
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 12651 16486 20540 20439

jobs
Installation 11829 15415 19205 19111

jobs
Retail jobs 3816 4972 6195 6165
Maintenance 1336 1740 2168 2158

jobs
Assessment 6684 7085 9835 11487

jobs (external)
Energy supply -2180 -7490 -13119 -19763

jobs
Net jobs 34769 39035 45854 40621
pathway E2
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 3441 4893 7659 10000

jobs
Installation 185 262 411 536

jobs
Wholesale jobs 1110 1578 2471 3226
Retail jobs 389 552 865 1129
Maintenance 279 295 425 579

jobs
Assessment -920 -3230 -4750 -8614

jobs (external)
Energy supply 8163 9585 15270 17550

jobs
Net jobs 3680 5233 8191 10695

pathway E3
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 11201 14168 18386 19012

jobs
Installation 10474 13247 17192 17776

jobs
Retail jobs 3379 4273 5546 5734
Maintenance 1183 1496 1941 2007

jobs
Assessment 5000 5290 8469 11195

jobs (external)
Energy supply -1965 -6643 -11373 -17546

jobs
Net jobs 29833 32541 41083 39131
pathway F1
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 6225 8074 11562 14031

jobs
Installation 5820 7550 10810 13119

jobs
Retail jobs 1877 2435 3487 4232
Maintenance 657 852 1221 1481

jobs
Assessment 1371 1455 2264 3342

jobs (external)
Energy supply -1298 -4448 -7079 -11860

jobs
Net jobs 14965 16323 22845 25048

pathway F2
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 3592 5135 8080 10591

jobs
Installation 3358 4801 7555 9903

jobs
Retail jobs 1083 1549 2437 3194
Maintenance 379 542 853 1118

jobs
Assessment 229 242 343 461

jobs (external)
Energy supply -908 -3192 -4679 -8517

jobs
Net jobs 7913 9335 14994 17282
pathway F3
2023 2030 2040 2050
Manufacturing 4906 6596 9774 12241

jobs
Installation 4587 6167 9139 11446

jobs
Retail jobs 1480 1989 2948 3692
Maintenance 518 696 1032 1292

jobs
Assessment 1074 1138 1641 2295

jobs (external)
Energy supply -1102 -3818 -5869 -10161

jobs
Net jobs 11708 13100 19155 21419

v. Material circularity
compared to BAU for implementation pathway A1
Impact Units 2023 2030 2040 2050

parameter
Other
resources &
Waste
Total Energy PJ 20.1 23.2 24.3 21.4

(GER)
of which, PJ 5.9 6.8 7.1 6.3

electricity (in
primary MJ)

(process)

(cooling)
Waste, non- kt 172.3 198.9 208.3 183.5

haz./ landfill
Waste, kt 32.4 37.4 39.2 34.5

hazardous/
incinerated
Emissions
Air
Greenhouse Mt CO2 eq. 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2

Gases in
GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

emissions
Volatile kt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Organic
Compounds
(VOC)

Organic
Pollutants
(POP)

PAHs t Ni eq. 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.8
Particulate t 9.2 10.6 11.1 9.8

Matter (PM,
dust)
Emissions
water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Impact Units 2023 2030 2040 2050

parameter
Other
resources &
Waste
Total Energy PJ 4.0 5.4 8.1 10.3

(GER)
of which, PJ 1.2 1.6 2.4 3.0

electricity (in
primary MJ)

(process)

(cooling)
Waste, non- kt 34.0 46.4 69.6 88.1

haz./ landfill
Waste, kt 6.4 8.7 13.1 16.6

hazardous/
incinerated
Emissions
Air

Gases in
GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

emissions
Volatile kt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Organic
Compounds
(VOC)

Organic
Pollutants
(POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8

Matter (PM,
dust)
Emissions
water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Impact Units 2023 2030 2040 2050

parameter
Other
resources &
Waste
Total Energy PJ 11.3 14.1 17.1 17.0

(GER)
of which, PJ 3.3 4.1 5.0 5.0

electricity (in
primary MJ)

(process)

(cooling)
Waste, non- kt 96.7 121.2 146.2 145.8

haz./ landfill
Waste, kt 18.2 22.8 27.5 27.4

hazardous/
incinerated
Emissions
Air

Gases in
GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

emissions
Volatile kt 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Organic
Compounds
(VOC)

Organic
Pollutants
(POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.4

Matter (PM,
dust)
Emissions
water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway B
Impact parameter Units 2023 2030 2040 2050
Other resources & Waste
Total Energy (GER) PJ 7.6 9.5 13.1 14.4
of which, electricity (in PJ 2.2 2.8 3.8 4.2

primary MJ)
Water (process) billion ltr 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.1
Water (cooling) billion ltr 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.5
Waste, non-haz./ landfill kt 65.1 81.6 111.9 123.6
Waste, hazardous/ incinerated kt 12.2 15.4 21.0 23.3
Emissions Air
Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 Mt CO2 eq. 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Acidification, emissions kt SO2 eq. 2.3 2.9 4.0 4.4
Volatile Organic Compounds kt 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

(VOC)
Persistent Organic Pollutants ng i-Teq 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8

(POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.2
Particulate Matter (PM, dust) t 3.5 4.3 6.0 6.6
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway C
Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)
Waste, hazardous/ kt 5.0 7.2 11.3 14.8

incinerated
Emissions Air
Greenhouse Gases in Mt CO2 eq. 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volatile Organic kt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)
Persistent Organic ng i-Teq 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8
Particulate Matter (PM, t 1.4 2.0 3.2 4.2

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway D
Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.5

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway E1
Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.8

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)
Waste, non-haz./ kt 83.5 105.6 137.0 141.6

landfill

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.4

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 68 - Estimated material related environmental impacts (from manufacture, distribution,
EOL) compared to BAU for implementation pathway F1
Other resources & Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volatile Organic Compounds kt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

(VOC)
Persistent Organic Pollutants ng i-Teq 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7

(POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Particulate Matter (PM, dust) t 2.5 3.2 4.6 5.6
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway F2
Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

compared to BAU for implementation pathway F3
Other resources &

Waste

primary MJ)

incinerated
Emissions Air

GWP100
ODP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compounds (VOC)

Pollutants (POP)
PAHs t Ni eq. 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9

dust)
Emissions water
POP ng-i-tec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ANNEX E. SRI METHOD A: SIMPLIFIED SERVICE
CATALOGUE
Table 71 provides a summarising overview of the smart ready services and their
functionality levels contained in this catalogue.
Table 71 – Summary of services and functionality levels of simplified service catalogue for method
A
Domain Smart ready Functionality Functionality Functionality Functionality Functionality

service level 0 (as level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4
non-smart
default)
Heating Heat emission No automatic Central Individual Individual Individual

control control automatic room control room control room control
control (e.g. (e.g. with with
central thermostatic communicatio communicatio
thermostat) valves, or n between n and
electronic controllers presence
controller) and to BACS control
Heating Heat Constant Variable Variable

generator temperature temperature temperature
control (all control control control
except heat depending on depending on
pumps) outdoor the load (e.g.
temperature depending on
supply water
temperature
set point)
Heating Heat On/Off- Multi-stage Variable Variable

generator control of control of control of control of
control (heat heat heat heat heat
pumps) generator generator generator generator
capacity capacity capacity
depending on depending on depending on
the load or the load or the load AND
demand (e.g. demand (e.g. external
on/off of hot gas signals from
several bypass, grid
compressors) inverter
frequency
control)
Heating Storage and None HW storage HW storage

shifting of vessels vessels
thermal available controlled
energy based on
external

non-smart
default)
signals (from
BACS or grid)
Heating Report None Central or Central or Central or Central or

information remote remote remote remote
regarding reporting of reporting of reporting of reporting of
heating current current performance performance
system performance performance evaluation evaluation
performance KPIs (e.g. KPIs and including including
temperatures, historical data forecasting forecasting
submetering and/or and/or
energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking
; also
including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Domestic Control of Automatic Automatic Automatic

hot water DHW storage control on / control on / on/off control,
charging off off and scheduled
(with direct scheduled charging
electric charging enable and
heating or enable demand-
integrated based supply
electric heat temperature
pump) control or
multi-sensor
storage
management
Domestic Control of None HW storage Automatic

hot water DHW storage vessels charging
charging available control based
on local
availability of
renewables or
information
from
electricity grid
(DR, DSM)
Domestic Report None Indication of Actual values Performance Performance

hot water information actual values and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding (e.g. data including including
domestic hot temperatures, forecasting forecasting
water submetering and/or and/or
performance energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking
; also
including
predictive
management

non-smart
default)
and fault
detection
Cooling Cooling No automatic Central Individual Individual Individual

emission control automatic room control room control room control
control control (e.g. (e.g. with with
central thermostatic communicatio communicatio
thermostat) valves, or n between n and
electronic controllers occupancy
controller) and to BACS detection
Cooling Generator On/Off- Multi-stage Variable Variable

control for control of control of control of control of
cooling cooling cooling cooling cooling
production production production production
demand (e.g. demand (e.g. external
on/off of hot gas signals from
several bypass, grid
compressors) inverter
frequency
control)
Cooling Flexibility and No automatic Scheduled Self-learning Cooling Optimized

grid control operation of optimal system control of
interaction cooling control of capable of cooling
system cooling flexible system based
system control on local
through grid predictions
signals (e.g. and grid
DSM) signals (e.g.
through
model
predictive
control)
Cooling Report None Central or Central or Central or Central or

cooling current current performance performance
energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking
; also
including
predictive

non-smart
default)
management
and fault
detection
Controlled Supply air No ventilation Clock control Occupancy Central Local Demand
ventilation flow control at system or detection Demand Control based
the room manual control Control based on air quality
level control on air quality sensors (CO2,
sensors (CO2, VOC,...) with
VOC,...) local flow
from/to the
zone
regulated by
dampers
Controlled Reporting None Air quality Real time Real time

ventilation information sensors (e.g. monitoring & monitoring &
regarding IAQ CO2) and real historical historical
time information of information of
autonomous IAQ available IAQ available
monitoring to occupants to occupants
+ warning on
maintenance
needs or
occupant
actions (e.g.
window
opening)
Lighting Occupancy Manual on/off Manual on/off Automatic Automatic

control for switch switch + detection detection
indoor additional (auto on / (manual on /
lighting sweeping dimmed or dimmed or
extinction auto off) auto off)
signal

non-smart
default)
Dynamic Window solar No sun Motorized Motorized Combined Predictive

building shading shading or operation with operation with light/blind/HV blind control
envelope control only manual manual automatic AC control (e.g. based
operation control control based on weather
on sensor forecast)
data
Dynamic Reporting No reporting Position of Position of Position of Position of

building information each product each product, each product, each product,
envelope regarding & fault fault detection fault fault
performance detection & predictive detection, detection,
maintenance predictive predictive
maintenance, maintenance,
real-time real-time &
sensor data historical
(wind, lux, sensor data
temperature… (wind, lux,
) temperature…
)
Electricity Storage of None On site On site On site On site

(locally storage of storage of storage of storage of
generated) electricity energy (e.g. energy (e.g. energy (e.g.
electricity (e.g. electric electric electric electric
battery) battery or battery or battery or
thermal thermal thermal
storage) with storage) with storage) with
controller controller controller
based on grid optimising the optimising the
signals use of locally use of locally
generated generated
electricity electricity and
possibility to
feed back into
the grid
Electricity Reporting None reporting on real-time real-time real-time

information current feedback or feedback or feedback or
regarding electricity benchmarking benchmarking benchmarking
electricity consumption on building on appliance on appliance
consumption on building level level level with
level automated
personalized
recommendati
ons
Electricity Reporting None Current Actual values Performance Performance

information generation and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding data available data including including
local electrcity forecasting forecasting
generation and/or and/or
benchmarking benchmarking
; also
including
predictive
management

non-smart
default)
and fault
detection
Electricity Reporting None Current state Actual values Performance Performance

information of charge and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding (SOC) data data including including
energy available forecasting forecasting
storage and/or and/or
benchmarking benchmarking
; also
including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Electric Charging not present ducting (or 0-9% of 10-50% or >50% of

vehicle capacity simple power parking parking parking
charging plug) spaces has spaces has spaces has
available recharging recharging recharging
points point point
Electric EV Charging Not present 1-way 2-way

vehicle Grid balancing (uncontrolled controlled controlled
charging charging) charging (e.g. charging (e.g.
including including
desired desired
departure departure
time and grid time and grid
signals for signals for
optimization) optimization)
Electric EV charging No Reporting Reporting

vehicle information information information information
charging and available on EV on EV
connectivity charging charging
status to status to
occupant occupant AND
automatic
identification
and
authorization
of the driver
to the
charging
station (ISO
15118
compliant)

non-smart
default)
Monitoring Single None Single Single Single

and platform that platform that platform that platform that
control allows allows manual allows allows
automated control of automated automated
control & multiple TBS control & control &
coordination coordination coordination
between TBS between TBS between TBS
+ +
optimization optimization
of energy flow of energy flow
based on based on
occupancy , occupancy,
weather and weather and
grid signals grid signals
Monitoring Smart Grid None - No Demand side Coordinated

and Integration harmonization management demand side
control between grid possible for management
and TBS; (some) of multiple
building is individual TBS
operated TBS, but not
independently coordinated
from the grid over various
load domains
Monitoring Central None Central o Central o Central o

and reporting of rremote rremote rremote
control TBS reporting of reporting of reporting of
performance realtime realtime realtime
and energy energy use energy use energy use
use per energy per energy per energy
carrier carrier, carrier,
combining combining
TBS of at TBS of all
least 2 domains in
domains in one interface
one interface

ANNEX F. SRI METHOD B: DETAILED SERVICE
CATALOGUE
Table 72 provides a summarising overview of the smart ready services and their
functionality levels contained in this catalogue.
Table 72 – Summary of services and functionality levels of detailed service catalogue for method B

service level 0 (as non- level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4
smart default)
Heating Heat emission No automatic Central Individual room Individual room Individual room
control control automatic control (e.g. control with control with
control (e.g. thermostatic communication communication
central valves, or between and occupancy
thermostat) electronic controllers and detection
controller) to BACS
Heating Emission No automatic Central Advanced Advanced

control for control automatic central central
TABS (heating control automatic automatic
mode) control control with
intermittent
operation
and/or room
temperature
feedback
control
Heating Control of No automatic Outside Demand based

distribution control temperature control
fluid compensated
temperature control
(supply or
return air flow
or water flow) -
Similar function
can be applied
to the control of
direct electric
heating
networks
Heating Control of No automatic On off control Multi-Stage Variable speed Variable speed
distribution control control pump control pump control
pumps in (pump unit (external
networks (internal) demand signal)
estimations)
Heating Thermal Energy Continuous Time-scheduled Load prediction Heat storage

Storage (TES) storage storage based storage capable of
for building operation operation operation flexible control
heating through grid
(excluding signals (e.g.
TABS) DSM)

smart default)
Heating Heat generator Constant Variable Variable

control (all temperature temperature temperature
except heat control control control
pumps) depending on depending on
outdoor the load (e.g.
temperature depending on
supply water
temperature set
point)
Heating Heat generator On/Off-control Multi-stage Variable control Variable control

control (for of heat control of heat of heat of heat
heat pumps) generator generator generator generator
demand (e.g. demand (e.g. external signals
on/off of hot gas bypass, from grid
several inverter
compressors) frequency
control)
Heating Sequencing in Priorities only Control Control Control Control

case of different based on according to according to according to according to
heat generators running time fixed priority dynamic dynamic dynamic
list: e.g. based priority list priority list priority list
on rated energy (based on (based on (based on
efficiency current energy current AND current AND
efficiency, predicted load, predicted load,
carbon energy energy
emissions and efficiency, efficiency,
capacity of carbon carbon
generators, e.g. emissions and emissions,
solar, capacity of capacity of
geothermal generators) generators AND
heat, external signals
cogeneration from grid)
plant, fossil
fuels)
Heating Report None Central or Central or Central or Central or

HEATING current current performance performance
energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking;
also including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Heating Flexibility and No automatic Scheduled Self-learning Heating system Optimized

grid interaction control operation of optimal control capable of control of
heating system of heating flexible control heating system
system through grid based on local
signals (e.g. predictions and
DSM) grid signals
(e.g. through

smart default)
model
predictive
control)
Domestic Control of DHW Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic

hot water storage control on / off control on / off control on / off charging control
charging (with and scheduled and scheduled based on local
direct electric charging enable charging enable availability of
heating or and multi- renewables or
integrated sensor storage information
electric heat management from electricity
pump) grid (DR, DSM)
Domestic Control of DHW Automatic Automatic Automatic DHW

hot water storage control on / off control on / off on/off control, production
charging (using and scheduled scheduled system capable
hot water charging enable charging enable of automatic
generation) and demand- charging control
based supply based on
temperature external signals
control or (e.g. from
multi-sensor district heating
storage grid)
management
Domestic Control of DHW Manual selected Automatic Automatic Automatic

hot water storage control of solar control of solar control of solar control of solar
charging (with energy or heat storage charge storage charge storage charge
solar collector generation (Prio. 1) and (Prio. 1) and (Prio. 1) and
and supplementary supplementary supplementary
supplymentary storage charge storage charge storage charge,
heat and demand- demand-
generation) oriented supply oriented supply
or multi-sensor and return
storage temperature
management control and
multi-sensor
storage
management
Domestic Sequencing in Priorities only Control Control Control Control

hot water case of different based on according to according to according to according to
DHW running time fixed priority dynamic dynamic dynamic
generators list: e.g. based priority list priority list priority list
on rated energy (based on (based on (based on
efficiency current energy current AND current AND
efficiency, predicted load, predicted load,
carbon energy energy
emissions and efficiency, efficiency,
capacity of carbon carbon
generators, e.g. emissions and emissions,
solar, capacity of capacity of
geothermal generators) generators AND
heat, external signals
cogeneration from grid)
plant, fossil
fuels)

smart default)
Domestic Report None Indication of Actual values Performance Performance

hot water information actual values and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding (e.g. data including including
domestic hot temperatures, forecasting forecasting
water submetering and/or and/or
performance energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking;
also including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Cooling Cooling No automatic Central Individual room Individual room Individual room
emission control automatic control control with control with
control control communication communication
between and occupancy
controllers and detection
to BACS
Cooling Emission No automatic Central Advanced Advanced

control for control automatic central central
TABS (cooling control automatic automatic
mode) control control with
intermittent
operation
and/or room
temperature
feedback
control
Cooling Control of Constant Outside Demand based

distribution temperature temperature control
network chilled control compensated
water control
temperature
(supply or
return)
Cooling Control of No automatic On off control Multi-Stage Variable speed Variable speed
distribution control control pump control pump control
pumps in (pump unit (external
networks (internal) demand signal)
estimations)
Cooling Interlock: No interlock Partial interlock Total interlock

avoiding (minimising risk (control system
simultaneous of simultanieus ensures no
heating and heating and simultaneous
cooling in the cooling e.g. by heating and
same room sliding cooling can
setpoints) take place)
Cooling Control of Continuous Time-scheduled Load prediction Cold storage

Thermal Energy storage storage based storage capable of
Storage (TES) operation operation operation flexible control
operation through grid
signals (e.g.
DSM)

smart default)
Cooling Generator On/Off-control Multi-stage Variable control Variable control

control for of cooling control of of cooling of cooling
cooling production cooling production production
production capacity capacity
capacity depending on depending on
depending on the load or the load AND
the load or demand (e.g. external signals
demand (e.g. hot gas bypass, from grid
on/off of inverter
several frequency
compressors) control)
Cooling Sequencing of Priorities only Fixed Dynamic Load prediction Sequencing

different cooling based on sequencing priorities based based based on
generators running times based on loads on generator sequencing: the dynamic
only: e.g. efficiency and sequence is priority list,
depending on characteristics based on e.g. including
the generators (e.g. availability COP and external signals
characteristics of free cooling) available power from grid
such as of a device and
absorption the predicted
chiller vs. required power
centrifugal
chiller
Cooling Report None Central or Central or Central or Central or

cooling system current current performance performance
performance performance performance evaluation evaluation
KPIs (e.g. KPIs and including including
energy usage) benchmarking benchmarking;
also including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Cooling Flexibility and No automatic Scheduled Self-learning Cooling system Optimized

grid interaction control operation of optimal control capable of control of
cooling system of cooling flexible control cooling system
system through grid based on local
signals (e.g. predictions and
DSM) grid signals
(e.g. through
model
predictive
control)
Controlled Supply air flow No ventilation Clock control Occupancy Central Local Demand
ventilation control at the system or detection Demand Control based
room level manual control control Control based on air quality
on air quality sensors (CO2,
sensors (CO2, VOC,...) with
VOC, humidity, local flow
...) from/to the
zone regulated
by dampers

smart default)
Controlled Air flow or No automatic On off time Multi-stage Automatic flow Automatic flow
ventilation pressure control: control: control: To or pressure or pressure
control at the Continuously Continuously reduce the control without control with
air handler level supplies of air supplies of air auxiliary energy pressure reset: pressure reset:
flow for a flow for a demand of the Load Load dependent
maximum load maximum load fan dependent supp supplies of air
of all rooms of all rooms lies of air flow flow for the
during nominal for the demand demand of all
occupancy time of all connected connected
rooms. rooms (for
variable
air volume
systems with
VFD).
Controlled Heat recovery Without Modulate or Modulate or

ventilation control: overheating bypass heat bypass heat
prevention of control recovery based recovery based
overheating on sensors in on multiple
air exhaust room
temperature
sensors or
predictive
control
Controlled Supply air No automatic Constant Variable set Variable set

ventilation temperature control setpoint: A point with point with load
control at the control loop outdoor dependant
air handling enables to temperature compensation.
unit level control the compensation A control loop
supply air enables to
control the
temperature, supply air
the setpoint is temperature.
constant and The setpoint is
can only be defined as a
modified by a function of the
manual loads in the
room
action
Controlled Free cooling No automatic Night cooling Free cooling: H,x- directed
ventilation with mechanical control air control: The
ventilation flows modulate amount of
system d during all outside air and
periods of time recirculation air
to minimize the are modulated
amount of during all
mechanical periods of time
to minimize the
cooling amount of
mechanical
cooling.
Calculation is
performed on
the basis of
temperatures
and humidity
(enthalpy).

smart default)
Controlled Reporting None Air quality Real time Real time

ventilation information sensors (e.g. monitoring & monitoring &
regarding IAQ CO2) and real historical historical
time information of information of
autonomous IAQ available to IAQ available to
monitoring occupants occupants +
warning on
maintenance
needs or
occupant
actions (e.g.
window
opening)
Lighting Occupancy Manual on/off Manual on/off Automatic Automatic

control for switch switch + detection (auto detection
indoor lighting additional on / dimmed or (manual on /
sweeping auto off) dimmed or auto
extinction off)
signal
Lighting Control artificial Manual Manual (per Automatic Automatic Automatic

lighting power (central) room / zone) switching dimming dimming
based on including
daylight levels scene-based
light control
(during time
intervals,
dynamic and
adapted lighting
scenes are set,
for example, in
terms of
illuminance
level, different
correlated
colour
temperature
(CCT)
and the
possibility to
change the light
distribution
within the
space
according to e.
g. design,
human needs,
visual tasks)
Dynamic Window solar No sun shading Motorized Motorized Combined Predictive blind
building shading control or only manual operation with operation with light/blind/HVA control (e.g.
envelope operation manual control automatic C control based on
control based weather
on sensor data forecast)
Dynamic Window Manual Open/closed Level 1 + Level 2 +

building open/closed operation or detection to Automised Centralized
envelope control, shut down mechanical coordination of
window opening operable

smart default)
combined with only fixed heating or based on room windows, e.g.

HVAC system windows cooling systems sensor data to control free
natural night
cooling
Dynamic Reporting No reporting Position of each Position of each Position of each Position of each
building information product & fault product, fault product, fault product, fault
envelope regarding detection detection & detection, detection,
performance of predictive predictive predictive
dynamic maintenance maintenance, maintenance,
building real-time real-time &
envelope sensor data historical
systems (wind, lux, sensor data
temperature…) (wind, lux,
temperature…)
Electricity Reporting None Current Actual values Performance Performance

information generation data and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding local available data including including
electricity forecasting forecasting
generation and/or and/or
benchmarking benchmarking;
also including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Storage of None On site storage On site storage On site storage On site storage
(locally of electricity of energy (e.g. of energy (e.g. of energy (e.g.
generated) (e.g. electric electric battery electric battery electric battery
electricity battery) or thermal or thermal or thermal
storage) with storage) with storage) with
controller based controller controller
on grid signals optimising the optimising the
use of locally use of locally
generated generated
electricity electricity and
possibility to
feed back into
the grid
Electricity Optimizing self- None Scheduling Automated Automated

consumption of electricity management of management of
locally consumption local electricity local electricity
generated (plug loads, consumption consumption
electricity white goods, based on based on
etc.) current current and
renewable predicted
energy energy needs
availability and renewable
energy
availability
Electricity Control of CHP control CHP runtime CHP runtime

combined heat based on control control
and power plant scheduled runti influenced by influenced by
(CHP) me managemen the fluctuating the fluctuating
t and/or current availability of availability of
heat energy RES; RES and grid
demand overproduction signals;
will be fed into dynamic
the grid charging and
runtime control

smart default)
to optimise
self-
consumption of
renewables
Electricity Support of None Automated Automated Automated

(micro)grid management of management of management of
operation (building-level) (building-level) (building-level)
modes electricity electricity electricity
consumption consumption consumption
based on grid and electricity and supply,
signals supply to with potential
neighbouring to continue
buildings limited off-grid
(microgrid) or operation
grid (island mode)
Electricity Reporting None Current state of Actual values Performance Performance

information charge (SOC) and historical evaluation evaluation
regarding data available data including including
energy storage forecasting forecasting
and/or and/or
benchmarking benchmarking;
also including
predictive
management
and fault
detection
Electricity Reporting None reporting on real-time real-time real-time

information current feedback or feedback or feedback or
regarding electricity benchmarking benchmarking benchmarking
electricity consumption on on building on appliance on appliance
consumption building level level level level with
automated
personalized
recommendatio
ns
Electric EV Charging not present ducting (or 0-9% of 10-50% or >50% of

vehicle Capacity simple power parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces
charging plug) available has recharging has recharging has recharging
points point point
Electric EV Charging Not present 1-way 2-way

vehicle Grid balancing (uncontrolled controlled controlled
charging charging) charging (e.g. charging (e.g.
including including
desired desired
departure time departure time
and grid signals and grid signals
for for
optimization) optimization)

smart default)
Electric EV charging No information Reporting Reporting

vehicle information and available information on information on
charging connectivity EV charging EV charging
status to status to
occupant occupant AND
automatic
identification
and
authorizition of
the driver to
the charging
station (ISO
15118
compliant)
Monitoring Run time Manual setting Runtime setting Heating and Heating and
and control management of of heating and cooling plant cooling plant
HVAC systems cooling plants on/off on/off control
following a control based based on
predefined time on building predictive
schedule loads control or grid
signals
Monitoring Detecting faults No central With central With central With central
and control of technical indication of indication of indication of indication of
building detected faults detected faults detected faults detected faults
systems and and alarms and alarms for and alarms for and alarms for
providing at least 2 all relevant TBS all relevant
support to the relevant TBS TBS,
diagnosis of including diagn
these faults osing functions
Monitoring Occupancy None Occupancy Centralised

and control detection: detection for occupant detect
connected individual ion which feeds
services functions, e.g. in to several
lighting TBS such as
lighting and
heating
Monitoring Central None Central or Central or Central or

and control reporting of remote remote remote
TBS reporting of reporting of reporting of
performance realtime energy realtime energy realtime energy
and energy use use per energy use per energy use per energy
carrier carrier, carrier,
combining TBS combining TBS
of at least 2 of all main
domains in one domains in one
interface interface
Monitoring Smart Grid None - No Demand side Coordinated

and control Integration harmonization management demand side
between grid possible for management of
and TBS; (some) multiple TBS
building is individual TBS,
operated but not
independently coordinated
from the grid over various
load domains

smart default)
Monitoring Reporting None Reporting Reporting

and control information information on information on
regarding current DSM currenthistorical
demand side status, and
management including mana predicted DSM
performance ged energy status,
and operation flows including
managed
energy flows
Monitoring Override of No DSM control DSM control Manual override Scheduled Scheduled
and control DSM control without the and reactivation override of DSM override of DSM
possibility to of DSM control control (and control and
override this by the building reactivation) by reactivation
control by the user the building with optimised
building user user control
(occupant or
facility
manager)
Monitoring Single platform None Single platform Single platform Single platform
and control that allows that allows that allows that allows
automated manual control automated automated
control & of multiple TBS control & control &
coordination coordination coordination
between TBS + between TBS between TBS +
optimization of optimization of
energy flow energy flow
based on based on
occupancy, occupancy,
weather and weather and
grid signals grid signals

ANNEX G. SRI ASSESSMENT PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
Note: this annex contains extracts from the guidance document which was
delivered to stakeholders participating in the SRI testing phase. This document
can serve as a starting point for deriving more detailed assessment guidelines
and protocols.
a. Before you begin…
Select a building of your choice to perform an assessment. This can be a residential- or

non-residential building, both newly constructed and existing.
To perform an assessment, start by selecting one of the two calculation sheets:
• Method A: simplified method

• Method B: detailed method (default)
Performing the SRI assessment will require the assessor to have a walk-through of the
building with appropriate access to the technical building systems. Access to
documentation or contact with the facility manager will likely also be of relevance.
b. The “Building information” tab
Start by filling out general building information.
i. Assessor information
Provide information on the assessor. The study team may use this information to contact
you after the field trial to discuss your findings.
ii. General building information
Please fill out the fields as indicated.
Field: Building type
Choose from the following options:
• Residential
• Non-residential
Field: Building usage
In case of a residential building, please choose from the following options:
• Single family house

• Small multi-family house: 10 residential units or less
• Large multi-family house: more than 10 residential units
• Other: student housing, carehomes,…
In case of a non-residential building: please choose from the following options:
• Offices
• Educational buildings
• Healthcare
• Other
The selected building type and usage will be used to select the appropriate weighting
factors. Note that in the current version, no differentiation has been made in the weighting
factors within a building type. In other words, all non-residential buildings currently use
the same weighting factors, regardless of their building usage.
Field: Building state
Please indicate the current state of the building:
• Renovated: applies to buildings that have undergone important energetic upgrades

such as thermal insulation and/or upgrades to the technical building systems since the
year of construction.
• Original: applies to building that have not undergone important energetic upgrades.
Field: Location
Please indicate the location (country) the building is located in. The appropriate climate
zone will be determined automatically. 5 climate zones have been defined:
• Northern Europe: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland

• Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Liechtenstein, Switserland
• Southern Europe: Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus
• North-Eastern Europe: Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia
• South-Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia
iii. Triage Process
The SRI calculation implements a triage process to identify which services should be taken
into account for the final score. It is very likely that due to local and site-specific context
some domains and services are not relevant, not applicable or not desirable.
In summary, the following approach has been implemented:
• for some services, an evaluation is only relevant in cases where the technical building
systems it relates to are present (hence “smart ready”); this approach is appropriate
when assessors cannot unambiguously determine the relevance of a domain. The
service is excluded from the assessment

• some services may be mutually exclusive; if such services are not present, they can be
excluded from the assessment
• some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy perspective
(hence “smart possible”); this approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing
buildings with additional (smart) services. These services are included in the
assessment. As a guiding principle, it could be considered that all services that are
mandatory in a Member State’s building code are mandatory in the SRI.
A number of inputs are required to perform the triage process as described above.
Triage process:
Please indicate for each of the technical building systems (TBS) whether they are present
in the building or not. In some cases, if the TBS is not present, the user will be asked to
indicate whether the TBS is mandatory in their country or region. This is the case for certain
domains that may be desirable from a policy perspective, as described above (Controlled
ventilation, Renewables and EV charging).
Please note that in the final version of the SRI the choice between mandatory and non-
mandatory should not be made by the individual assessor, but by the implementing body.
iv. Heating
Field: Emission type
Please select from the options below:
• TABS (Thermally Activated Building System): this typically applies to embedded

water-based surface heating and/or cooling systems, where pipes are embedded in the
concrete core of a building’s construction (floor slabs, walls). This does not include
underfloor heating.
• Other hydronic system (e.g. radiators): this applies to systems that use a liquid
heat transfer medium, typically water, glycol or mineral oil.
• Non-hydronic system: this applies to systems that do not use a liquid heat transfer
medium, for instance, an all-air heating system.
Field: Thermal energy storage
• Storage present: this applies to heating systems that include storage capabilities, e.g.
under the form of a vessel or thermally activate building systems. This does not include
underfloor heating.
• No storage present: this applies to heating systems without storage capabilities.
Field: Production type
• District heating: this applies to buildings connected to a district heating system;

• Heat pump: this applies to heating systems that make use of a heat pump;

• Central heating – combustion: this applies to central heating systems using a
combustion heat generator, such as oil or gas fired boilers;
• Central heating – other: this applies to other central heating systems;
• Decentral heating (e.g. stoves): this applies to systems with individual heaters,
such as stoves, electrical heaters or split-unit room air conditioning equipment.
Field: Multiple heat generators
• Single generator: this applies to systems with a single generator;

• Multiple generators: this applies to systems with multiple generators. This applies
both to multiple generators using the same energy source (e.g. two gas fired boiler) or
to hybrid systems (e.g. heat pump and gas fired boiler). In this context, district heating
is also considered as a heat generator.
v. Domestic Hot Water
Field: Production type
• Non-electric: this applies to non-electric production of hot water, such as oil or gas
fired boilers;
• Electric: this applies to electric hot water heaters.
Field: Storage present
• Storage present: this applies to DHW systems that include a storage vessel;
• No storage present: this applies to DHW systems without storage capabilities.
Field: Solar collectors
• Solar collector present: this applies to DHW systems that include a solar collector;
• No solar collector present: this applies to DHW systems without a solar collector.
vi. Cooling
Field: Emission type
• TABS (Thermally Activated Building System): this typically applies to embedded

water-based surface heating and/or cooling systems, where pipes are embedded in the
concrete core of a building’s construction (floor slabs, walls). This does not include
underfloor heating.

• Other hydronic system (e.g. radiators): this applies to systems that use a liquid
heat transfer medium, typically water, glycol or mineral oil.
• Non-hydronic system: this applies to systems that do not use a liquid heat transfer
medium, for instance, an all-air heating system.
Field: Thermal energy storage present
• Storage present: this applies to cooling systems that include storage capabilities, e.g.
under the form of a vessel.
• No storage present: this applies to cooling systems without storage capabilities.
Field: Multiple heat generators
• Single generator: this applies to systems with a single generator;

• Multiple generators: this applies to systems with multiple generators, mostly
restricted to large buildings.
vii. Controlled ventilation
Field: System type
• Mechanical ventilation: this applies to all mechanically driven ventilation systems,

including balanced ventilation (mechanical exhaust and supply), mechanical exhaust,
mechanical supply and hybrid ventilation.
• Controlled natural ventilation: this applies to controlled natural ventilation systems,
e.g. automated opening of windows or other dedicated ventilation openings. Manual
control of openings is not considered to be controlled natural ventilation. If manual
control is needed, please indicate in the triage process that the TBS controlled
ventilation is not present.
Field: Heat recovery
This field is only applicable in case of mechanical ventilation.
• Heat recovery
• No heat recovery
Field: Space heating
This field is only applicable in case of mechanical ventilation.

• Used for space heating
• Not used for space heating
Field: System sub-type
This field is only applicable in case of mechanical ventilation used for space heating.
• All-air: this applies to ventilation systems which use air as a medium to transport
energy from the ventilation unit to the conditioned space;
• Combined Air-water: this applies to systems where both air and water are used for
providing the required conditions in the conditioned space. The air and water are cooled
or heated in a central plant.
viii. Dynamic Envelope
Field: Movable shades, screens or blinds
• Present: this applies both to devices providing solar protection (to avoid overheating)
and devices avoiding glare;
• Not present: this is applicable when no devices are present providing solar protection
(to avoid overheating) and devices avoiding glare.
ix. Electricity: renewables & storage
Field: On-site renewable electricity generation
• On-site renewable electricity generation: this includes, but is not limited to

photovoltaic cells, electricity from wind and CHP. Note that this field focuses on
electricity, solar-thermal panels is covered under DHW;
• No on-site renewable electricity generation: this applies when no renewable
electricity generation is present on-site.
Field: Storage of on-site generated renewable electricity
This field is only applicable in case on-site renewable electricity generation is present.
• Storage present: this includes batteries and thermal energy storage (TES);
• No storage present: this is applicable when no battery and/or TES is present.
Field: CHP (Combined Heat and Power)
This field is only applicable in case on-site renewable electricity generation is present.

• CHP: this is applicable when a combined heat and power plant is present on-site.
• No CHP: this is applicable when no combined heat and power plant is present on-site.
x. Electric Vehicle Charging
Field: On-site parking spots
• On-site parking: this is applicable if parking is available on-site.

 For residential buildings, this may typically include a driveway, garage(s) or
dedicated parking spot(s) in a (underground) car park.
 For non-residential buildings, this may typically include a garage(s), parking
lots or dedicated parking spot(s) in a (underground) car park.
• No on-site parking: this applies when no parking is available, or in case of public
parking.
Field: Electric vehicle charging spots
• EV charging: this applies when at least one of the aforementioned on-site parking
spots provides a recharge point;
• No EV charging: this applies when none of the aforementioned on-site parking spots
provides a recharge point.

c. The “Calculation sheet” tab
The calculation sheet is where the actual assessment takes place. Every line in the sheet
represents a service of the smart service catalogue.
Based on the triage process, the services that are not applicable to this particular building
will be greyed out. No assessment is required for these services. The calculation sheet
explicitly mentions whether a service is to be assessed (1 = to be assessed; 0 = not to be
assessed).
For each service to be assessed, three fields may be completed:
• Main functionality level: please enter the functionality level of the service. A
description of the different functionality levels is provided in columns G through K.
Please note:
o If the field is left blank, or the functionality level is not valid (e.g. higher
than the maximum possible functionality level), a warning will be displayed
in column F, and no SRI score will be calculated.
o If the functionality level is valid, the chosen functionality level (column G-K)
will turn orange, to facilitate visual validation.
• Share of the functionality level: this field enables to test partial compliance of a
building to the main functionality level. If you do not wish to test partial compliance,
please keep the default value of 100%. Else, indicate the percentage of net surface
area of the building that complies with the main functionality level. For further
instructions on partial compliance, refer to section e.
• Optional: additional functionality level: if the share of the functionality level
(column F) is set to less than 100%, please provide the functionality level that applies
to the remaining surface area.
• Optional: assessor comments
d. The “Results” tab
Three types of results are displayed in the “results” tab:
• Total SRI score: the total SRI score, taking into account domain weightings and
impact weightings.
• Impact scores: the impact scores for each impact criterion, taking into account
domain weightings.
• Domain scores: the domain scores for each domain, taking into account impact
weightings.
e. Partial implementation of services
In some cases, a building will not comply fully with a given functionality level. For instance,
control of artificial lighting power based on daylight levels may be installed in the open
office space, but not in corridors. There are two ways to implement this in the SRI
calculation:
• By default, it is assumed that the selected functionality level applies to the entire
building. Therefore, the highest functionality level that applies to the entire surface
area of the building should be selected. Alternatively, one might also indicate the
functionality level that applies to the most relevant share of the building (e.g. a services
present throughout a dwelling apart from the attic and corridors).

• Optionally, a split-up can be made, where up to two different functionality levels may
be defined to include such partial compliance in the calculation.
The share of each functionality level is determined using the net surface floor area.
Note that at this moment the calculation only accommodates the definition of two
functionality levels per service.
To illustrate the process of entering partial compliance, the example of daylight correction
will be used. It is assumed that 60% of the building is equipped with automatic dimming
(functionality level 3) and the remaining 40% is equipped with manual (central) controls
(functionality level 0).
Please follow these steps in the tab “calculation sheet”:
• In the field “Main functionality level” (column E), set the functionality level of the
first zone of your building, in this case “3”.
• In the field “Share of the functionality level” (column F), set the percentage of net
surface floor area of the building that complies with the main functionality level, in this
case 60%.
• In the field “additional functionality level” (column G), set the functionality level of
the remaining surface area, in this case “0”. The share of this functionality level will be
calculated automatically, and is displayed in column H.

ANNEX H. SUMMARY OF DG ENERGY TARGETED
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
a. Context
A targeted consultation was opened on the website of the Commission’s DG Energy from
9 August 2019 to 11 October 2019. As stated on the survey’s webpage 179, this consultation
offered stakeholders the opportunity to contribute to the SRI development process and to
provide relevant information in a structured way.
The consultation was open to all and sought in particular feedback from stakeholders from
the fields of interest to the development of the SRI (e.g. product manufacturers, installers,
building designers, building developers, contractors, etc.). The survey included 27
questions, articulated in five different sections:
• General information on the respondent,

• Questions about the audience and scope of the SRI,
• Questions on communication of the SRI180,
• Questions on the implementation of the SRI,
• Additional, free comments.
The consultation allowed to collect detailed feedback from 93 respondents located in 21

Countries181. The main outcomes, articulated along the different topics addressed, are
outlined in the following sections.
b. Respondents data
A total of 93 respondents from 21 different countries responded in the open public

consultation. Belgium (30%), France (9%), Finland, Germany and Italy (8%) were the
most represented countries. One out of two worked for a company or a business
organisation and almost 20% for public authorities and non-governmental organisations.
The most frequent expertise were manufacturers (36%) and suppliers (26%) of technical
building systems and energy services and aggregators developers (24%). Not all
respondents responded to all questions. Furthermore, the number of respondents in the
open comment sections are often considerably lower than those answering to the related
multiple-choice question.
179
The online survey was available at the following address:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-establishment-smart-readiness-indicator-
buildings
180
Here, communication refers to the way the information on smart readiness is communicated to end users.
181
With a large representation of Belgium, as usual for such consultations, since many stakeholder associations
are based on Brussels.

c. SRI target audience and scope
When asked about the target audience of the SRI, most of the respondents suggest to
target first building owners and second building occupants, followed by facility managers,
professional property developers and architectural and engineering offices. Informing
building visitors or authorities was perceived least crucial. The majority of the respondents
is in favour of targeting both residential and non-residential buildings in the SRI scope
(60%).
Some respondents have commented that they suggest giving priority to large buildings
and/or buildings with a high energy demand (whether commercial or residential), which
are perceived to have a greater potential to benefit from smart technologies.
The majority of the respondents are in favour of addressing both new and old buildings
(76%); whereas 24% of the answers suggest to focus solely on new constructions. In the
comment section of the survey, 19 out of 93 respondents have made explicit reference to
their perceived need to also include the existing building stock, given their large share on
the market and the high expected gains from improved smartness. Some stakeholders
suggest to only issue an SRI assessment for existing buildings in case of extensive building
retrofits.
d. Adapting the SRI to context and future evolutions
A large majority of respondents (84%) are in favour of adapting the calculation

methodology of the SRI to specific conditions and contexts. In their comments, the focus
is primarily on climatic boundary conditions and the type of building. For the latter, some
respondents argue that what it is intelligent in one building (e.g. a residential building)
might not be it in another (e.g. a shopping mall or an office). One respondent suggests to
also differentiate the methodology between new and existing buildings. Some stakeholders
comment that the main audience can also differ between building types, thus suggesting
a more simplified approach for residential buildings. Some of the stakeholders who voted
in favor of adapting the SRI to local contexts nevertheless commented that “the variability
of the methodology should be constrained” (…) “so as to guarantee consistency to the
greatest possible extent across the EU during the implementation phase”.
It is envisioned that the SRI methodology might need to be updated, in particular in relation
to technological progress. The suggestions on the optimal update period are quite diverse:
1-3 years (17%), 3 years (28%), 5 years (31%), more than 5 years (11%) and ‘other’
(12%). In the comment section, some stakeholders relate the update of the methodological
framework to the need for re-issuing and SRI assessment for a particular building.
e. SRI relations to other topics and schemes
Respondents were asked whether they think that other aspects of buildings (e.g. energy
performance or broader life cycle aspects) should be expressed conjointly with the SRI.
73% answered in favour of this. 48 additional comments were received. 36 of these refer
to linking the SRI to information on energy performance of the building (19 of these
answers explicitly mention linking to Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs)). A broad
range of other suggestions is received, including Life Cycle (impact) Assessment (6x),
information on holistic sustainability (2x), information on indoor Environmental quality
(2x), information on safety and security (2x), age of equipment, etc.

One stakeholder claims that only expressing the smartness of a building, without also
communicating on the building's energy performance, can give a misleading picture, in
light of the importance of thermal insulation for the flexibility of a building's overall
electricity demand. One stakeholder warns that it is unclear what “expressed conjointly”
implies. In some aspects, there might be a lack of consistent common assessment
methodologies in the EU (e.g. smart ready accessibility services), thereby risking to
jeopardise the consistency and congruence of the SRI itself.
When questioned on the need to also include smart ready accessibility services, 64% of
the respondents answered in favour of this. Suggestions range from smart services for
deaf or blind people, lighting controls for people with mobility problems and the shear
accessibility of the building itself. In the comments, further nuances are sometimes added,
e.g. suggesting to restrict this information to particular building types (e.g. hospitals), or
to restrict this to future versions of the SRI. Some of the respondents who voted against
the statement claim that this is out of scope of the Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive or that accessibility should be mandatory in the building and thus not specifically
evaluated.
f. SRI formatting
Respondents were also questioned on their preferences regarding the presentation of the
SRI score(s): either as an overall smartness score, or sub-scores for each of the three key
SRI functionalities highlighted in the EPBD [user needs, energy performance and demand
side flexibility], or sub-scores by specific technical domains, or sub-scores by specific
impacts. The largest group (32%) opted for communicating the sub-scores for each of the
3 key SRI functionalities separately, others preferred to report only one score (18%) or
scores related to the technical domains (18%) or on the level of the more detailed impact
criteria (16%). 17% of respondents filled out ‘other’, detailing various configurations of
combining both aggregated scores and more detailed scores at the level of the three key
functionalities, impacts or services.
A large majority of respondents suggest to include recommendations along with the SRI
(89%). In the comments there is less agreement on how this should be implemented:
some suggest generic recommendations while other favour case-specific information, some
suggest to also include estimated costs for upgrades while a few other responses explicitly
demand to not include cost estimates.
Questioned on the presentational format, 41% preferred a mnemonic scale (such as A to

G, or 1 to 10 stars, etc.); and 17% preferred percentages (from 0% [no smart readiness]
to 100% [maximum currently achievable smart readiness]). 30% opted for a combination
of both. Those opting for the option ‘other’ suggest various alternatives, including physical
benchmarks or quantitative data of relevance for utilities and flexibility aggregators.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents thought that SRI should prioritise an electronic
presentation but they also suggest that it needs to be printable when addressed to persons
with disabilities and older persons (94% considered this relevant).

g. SRI implementation and assessment
Respondents were asked whether they suggest that the SRI would operate independently,
or whether it rather should be combined with existing schemes (e.g. energy performance
certificates) or future schemes (e.g. life cycle performance of buildings, with the Level(s)
tool)? 69% of respondents suggested to combine the SRI with other schemes.
In the comment section for this question, eight respondents refer to the multitude of
existing information, schemes and data, and plead for a structured way to store and
process all information, sometimes referring to building logbooks or building passports.
This demand – e.g. “All information related to building performance must be put together
in a structured framework, easily accessible and usable, and as well easy to be updated”-
does, however, not necessarily imply a joint assessment process of the multiple schemes.
Four respondents ask for a joint assessment with other schemes including Level(s) and
other sustainability schemes. 23 respondents suggest a combined assessment with energy
performance certificates (EPC). Arguments for this include the perceived need to tie the
SRI introduction to a mandatory assessment to support market uptake and the reduced
assessment costs and administrative burden by assessing both schemes jointly.
Furthermore, some respondents add that they see a need to tie EPCs and the SRI together
to avoid confusion and to be able to provide sound insights and investment suggestions.
Some barriers to combining schemes are also voiced, e.g. the person assessing the energy
performance is not necessarily capable of calculating the SRI. Three respondents comment
that combinations could be pursued in the long term, but suggest that implementation
would start independently from other schemes.
With regard to the implementation, 36% of the respondents considered that the
responsibility for implementing the SRI should reside at the member state level, while 31%
considered that it should be organised at both national and European level. 10% of the
respondents are in favour of having a large role for the private sector in the
implementation, although more than half of these express this should be in combination
with either Member State or European Commission involvement.
While 42% state that the assessment of the SRI should be restricted to an independent
inspection process, 11% are in favour of solely a self-assessment and 36% of a
combination of both self-assessment and an independent inspection process. In the
comments section, further nuances are added by some stakeholders, e.g. making this
dependent on the type of assessment method (referring to method A and B described in
the interim report of the SRI study), the business case of implementing the SRI or
individual Member State preferences.
The technical study introduces the concept of potentially evolving to a remote SRI
assessment process through remote measurement of the technical building systems. If this
would become possible in the future, a large majority (91%) think this should be permitted.
Some people pointed out that such an approach will also enable better commissioning of
buildings, potentially in a continuous process. Some respondents doubt the feasibility or
point out cyber-security concerns.
A question was raised on who should pay for the costs of the SRI assessment (noting that
these costs are not yet known; however, the Impact Assessment accompanying the
proposal for amending the Energy Performance of Buildings estimated these at a fraction
of the costs of an energy performance certificate). 42% expressed that building owners
and occupants should be the sole party to cover the costs of the SRI assessment, while an
additional 29% foresees payments of owners and occupants in combination with other
actors (Utilities, Smart services and technology industry, Member States).

Various other combinations of actors were suggested; 30% of them contained contributions
from either utilities or the smart services and technology industry. 26% of the suggested
combinations contained Member States amongst the contributing parties. Some also
suggested that utility providers could help financing the process through Energy Efficiency
Obligation Schemes when rolling out EPCs.
62% consider that supporting measures are needed for the implementation of the SRI. In
order of preference, it is suggested that the implementation of the SRI be supported by
“Awareness raising and promotional campaigns” (40%); “Integration with existing
schemes (e.g. EPC)” (38%); “incentives” (38%); “Supporting policies targeting the uptake
of specific smart technologies” (31%) and “Mandatory regulation at Member State level”
(27%). Additional suggestions were raised including tax benefits and using the SRI scheme
as an additional criterion for granting public funds and support schemes in housing and
building renovation policies.
Finally, there was the opportunity to provide further comments at the end of the survey.
47 answers were received. Most of these provided further clarification to statements related
to earlier questions, or referenced other statements or documents provided by the
stakeholder in previous consultations of the technical support study. Comments on the
technical specifications of the calculation methodology have been processed by the
technical study team.

ANNEX I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
As a precursor to the development of an SRI methodology it is important to consider the

set of factors, or guiding principles, that were set out to guide SRI’s methodological
development. These were considered in the first technical study and the text reported then
is reprised verbatim below.
a. The audience for the SRI
Prior to designing the SRI, it is essential to consider who it is to be aimed at and hence
designed for. It is imperative that this is thought through if the content, organisation and
presentation of the SRI is to be salient and motivating and hence to affect positive change.
In principle, the SRI will present smart readiness information with regard to both existing
or new buildings and if it is to be an effective stimulus to action it will need to influence
decisions regarding the smartness of these buildings. In principle, both building owners
and occupiers can make smart building investment decisions and both can be affected by
the degree of smartness attained; however, in general the owner will make the smart
services investments and the occupier will be affected by them (the owner can be too but
only indirectly so if they are not also the occupier and responsible for utility bills). Facility
managers too will be an important audience for the SRI as they may operate the smart
systems and may influence the investment decisions. In addition to the users and
investors, the other important audience for the SRI will be the smart service providers. If
an SRI resonates with them it can help organise and position their service offering by
providing neutral and common framework wherein the capability of their smart services
can be directly compared with those of their competitors including the incumbent non-
smart services. This is likely to be critical to the schemes success because experience
shows that service providers not only adjust their business models to position their services
within the context of such schemes but can also strongly promote and amplify the schemes
impact providing it is seen to be a viable and influential instrument. The potential service
providers are very broad. They include: DSOs and TSOs, aggregators, micro-grid
operators, heat network operators, gas and oil suppliers and service companies, RES and
storage suppliers, TBS manufacturers and OEMs (Original equipment manufacturers),
building service engineers and electro-mechanical contractors, facility managers, e-
mobility service providers and equipment manufacturers, IT service providers and
equipment suppliers, metering companies, building designers, building renovators, ESCOs
and multi-utility service company providers, maintenance servicing companies, water
utilities and service companies, third party assessors, health service providers, certification
and accreditation agencies.
Ideally the SRI needs to resonate with all the key actors and needs to provide a framework
that enables each party to find what they need regarding the articulation of smart services
and capabilities within it. However, each of these parties is likely to have quite different
needs and expectations and this implies that to the extent possible the SRI should be
structured so that it can reflect and convey relevant information at the level each needs.
Ultimately though it is the building occupiers, bill payers and owners who are the most
important audience and thus their needs should take precedence.

b. The SRI value proposition
Establishing the value proposition of the SRI and considering how this affects its impact as
a change vector is important for the SRI’s success but also design. The key value
propositions articulated in the Commissions call for tender are:
1) Readiness to adapt in response to the needs of the occupant (e.g. the heating system
can be switched on or shifted to lower temperatures when there is nobody at home) and
to empower building occupants by taking direct control of their energy consumption and/or
generation (i.e. prosumer);
2) Readiness to facilitate maintenance and efficient operation of the building in a more

automated and controlled manner (e.g. anticipate problems with clogged filters; use of CO 2
sensors to control the flow rate of ventilation systems); and
3) Readiness to adapt in response to the needs/situation of the grid (e.g. reduce

consumption when there is not enough electricity in the grid system or switch on home
appliances which could modulate peak electricity production - generally stemming from
renewables).
The methodology also needs to be mindful of the desires of users of the SRI and that it is
possible that building occupiers, service bill payers and owners might express their
priorities differently. In the absence of doing market research to establish what the value
proposition among these key audiences is, it is speculative to imagine what these may be.
A priori it is likely to reflect a blend of desires regarding smart capabilities to minimise total
expenditure on utilities and services, increasing comfort and convenience, providing health
alerts and improving the health of indoor environments, provision of smart aesthetic
experiences, and identification of faults and facilitation of maintenance. It may also address
safety (e.g. fire) and security services but these are outside the scope of the current study
as they are outside the scope of the EPBD. While facilitating e-mobility and helping reduce
energy bills is likely to feature highly on people’s priorities enhancing grid-flexibility is not
except to the extent that it is a trigger to bill reduction (i.e. at best it is likely to be perceived
as a means to an end and not an objective in its own right). This is likely to be a very
important factor in how the SRI could be rolled out because if its value proposition to end
customers is presented primarily in terms of grid flexibility engagement then engagement
with the scheme and impact are likely to be low. More likely it would require careful
packaging and presentation of the value propositions of which flexibility is one among
many.
In addition, to be successful it will be necessary to structure the SRI so its value proposition
is of greater value than its cost of implementation. Otherwise engagement with the SRI
will not occur.
c. Policy objectives
The broad policy objectives for the SRI have been articulated in the Commission’s tender
document for the study and behind these is the intention that the SRI should support the
EU’s broad energy policy agenda by facilitating energy savings in buildings, improving grid
balancing capability and thereby facilitating deeper penetration of intermittent RES, and
facilitating the move towards low carbon transport via stimulating adoption of e-mobility
solutions. In a higher-level sense these objectives equate to a desire to support the
decarbonisation of the energy system, increase energy security and provide value for
money to end-users and bill payers. Due to its wide scope and multifaceted nature the SRI
will interface with many other policy domains and objectives, however. These concern
health, economic efficiency and employment, consumer rights and data protection, and

digital technologies (e.g. cyber security) among others. In principle, the SRI should comply
with consumer rights, data protection and cyber security concerns and requirements.
It is important though to have clarity regarding the policy-related objectives stated in the
EPBD to ensure the scheme is designed in a manner that best satisfies them:
“The smart readiness indicator should be used to measure the capacity of buildings to use
information and communication technologies and electronic systems to adapt the operation
of buildings to the needs of the occupants and the grid and to improve the energy efficiency
and overall performance of buildings. The smart readiness indicator should raise awareness
amongst building owners and occupants of the value behind building automation and
electronic monitoring of technical building systems and should give confidence to occupants
about the actual savings of those new enhanced-functionalities. Use of the scheme for
rating the smart readiness of buildings should be optional for Member States”
This text clearly outlines the purpose of the SRI and this needs to be reflected in the
methodology used to derive it.
d. The information to be conveyed
The preceding discussion of the audience, value proposition and policy objectives should
inform the decisions about the information the SRI should convey. The art is to convey the
information which will best stimulate change that supports the policy objectives without
provoking unintended consequences. As the stimulation of this positive chance relies on
the target audience being receptive to and motivated by the information they receive this
requires the information to embrace the elements which can achieve this while retaining
the required policy-related content. In the case of the SRI the target audience is very
complex because the diverse set of smart service providers are also key actors and vectors
of positive change. The great complexity of information which defines and describes the
smart service capability cannot be ignored either.
The information needs of the end-user of the building (building occupier, owner, bill payer)
are likely to be contradictory. On the one hand consumer research and behavioural science
studies find that end-users decision-making is most influenced when information that
informs the process is simple and limited (i.e. there is only a small amount of it). On the
other hand, the same types of research will find that un-transparent information that does
not relate to something tangible to the end-user is not accessible and is not utilised in their
decision-making. The former observation would tend to drive the SRI in the direction of an
aggregate indicator that pulls together scores across all the impacts of concern to (and
hence motivating) to end-users. The latter observation would tend to mitigate against such
simplified compound scores/rankings because the information they contain becomes
muddled together and hence loses transparency and meaning. This is a particular problem
for a smartness indicator because there is no common understanding of what smartness
means and hence of what is being indicated when a compound indicator is used.
If one considers the issue from the perspective of service providers they are likely to want
the information conveyed in the indicator to be able to clearly position the value
propositions of their services against the rest of the market and incumbent (non-smart)
services. As these services are inherently diverse this implies conveyance of information
with a high degree of granularity. For some stakeholders such as DSO’s, aggregators etc.,
additional quantified information such as energy consumption and flexibility metrics might
be useful, alongside a compound score from the indicator. Furthermore, some audiences
might want to receive additional information besides the scoring of the building in its
present condition. To reach the policy objectives of spurring the uptake of smart services

in the building stock, a valuable addition could be to provide tangible suggestions on the
next steps to increase the smartness of a specific building.
e. Communication of the information
The form taken to communicate the information to the target audience will also affect its
impact as positive change agent. In general research has proven that heuristic scales which
convert underlying scores into more accessible rankings (such as A to G scales, 0 to 5 stars
etc.) are more easily accessible by a non-technical audience than quantified numerical
scores. Firstly, the heuristic scales clearly indicate all the end points and where the service
offering lies upon it. Secondly, using a limited set of quantised levels makes it easier to
process the information and act upon it. The decisionmaking process can be much more
tractable with such scales because a service procurer could follow a simple horizontal rule
e.g. nothing worse than a class B, rather than having to get lost in the technical details
behind these rankings. Such information presentation can partly overcome the problems
highlighted in the previous section. This can however only be successful if end-users feel
that the scale reflects something they understand and care about. For other audiences,
such as utility providers or contractors, quantified numeric scores could be preferred over
heuristic scales.
The choice of media used to communicate the information is another aspect any SRI
scheme would need to consider. For some intended audiences, secured (online) datasets
might for example be preferred over a printed output. As far as the methodology is
concerned though, this is a secondary issue, and can be settled upon at a later stage closer
to implementation.
f. The integrity of the SRI
The integrity of the SRI will be crucial for its success. If the target audience does not
believe the information it contains it will not make any positive impact in their procurement
and utilisation decisions. The strength of belief in the schemes integrity will be clearly be
affected by the integrity of the rating and assessment process and the perception of this.
g. The credibility of the SRI
The credibility of the SRI will also be crucial for its success. If the target audience does not
believe the technical basis for the scoring is sound then it will undermine its impact. For
some audiences a quantification in physical metrics (kWh,…) could increase the perceived
credibility. This might however also entail additional risks towards credibility, in case the
predicted values differ significantly from measured data in its actual operation.
h. Adaptability to context
The SRI methodology needs to avoid unintended perverse outcomes by being adaptable to
relevant contextual factors. These can include variations by building type, by climate, by
culture and the impact it has on the desire to have certain services. These in turn can lead
to some smart services or even whole domains being inappropriate in some contexts. The
scoring methodology deployed needs to be capable of adaptation to reflect this context
and to avoid penalisation for the absence of irrelevant or impossible/impracticable services.
It also needs to be adaptable to reflect divergence in priorities and implementation
capabilities by jurisdiction. The implication of these concerns is that the methodology
should be modular and flexible.

i. Smart ready and smart now
The distinction between the two concepts is potentially important in the design of an
indicator. The term smart ready implies that the building itself is smart but its potential to
realise the benefits from smart services may be constrained by limiting factors in the
capability of the services it connects to at its boundary. This recognises the distinction
between smart readiness as opposed to operational smart capability.
This is the spirit in which the methodology presented in the rest of the report aims to
represent smart readiness.
j. Future proofing – allowing and encouraging innovation
The SRI and its methodology should not be inhibitors to innovation but rather should
encourage it, thus, it is important that the methodology is such that positive innovations
can be reflected and rewarded as early as possible. This means that the methodology
should allow relevant new capabilities to be reflected as soon as possible and address
future proofing needs by: allowing new solutions, recognising building smart readiness and
avoiding negative lock-in effects, and recognising the distinction between smart readiness
as opposed to operational smart capability. Furthermore, the impact of a rapidly changing
landscape of policies and commercially available services can be incorporated by some
extent by recognising a distinction between smart readiness as opposed to operational
smart capability.
k. Fairness and a level playing field for market actors
The SRI methodology and scoring system needs to create a level playing field for market
actors and aim for technology neutrality through the definition of functional capability
rather than the prescription of certain technological solutions. The manner in which the
smart readiness services were defined in the Task 1 catalogue reflects this principle.
l. The potential usage of qualifying preconditions
As the definition of what constitutes a smart building is open to interpretation some

stakeholders have proposed that some preconditions should be imposed before a building
is considered eligible to receive an SRI. For example, this was proposed in the first
stakeholder meeting for the building energy performance. Others have suggested that
certain services should satisfy minimum qualification thresholds for health or air quality
before they become eligible. The methodology presented in this report is agnostic on this
topic and is structured such that it could be used with or without such qualifying
preconditions.
m. Interaction with other policy instruments
At present it is unclear how the SRI would interact, or operate in conjunction with, other
policy relevant instruments - most notably EPCs. It is therefore important that the
methodology set out permits any form of interaction deemed appropriate.

n. Treatment of fixed (static) versus transportable (mobile) smartness features
In principle there is a distinction between smart services that are embedded in the building
and those that can be readily taken somewhere else. Capability for remote operation of
smart building services by the occupant or their designated operative would need to stay
with any future occupant/designated operative of that building for the SRI score to remain
unchanged subsequent to a change in occupancy.
o. Time and cost requirements
Assessing the smartness of a building will require to inspect the building and its systems
on site. The time and efforts needed for this will depend on multiple variables such as the
number of services to be inspected, the detail of the assessment of each of the services,
the size and accessibility of the building and the experience of the assessor. The costs for
deriving an SRI will also be affected by the requested qualifications of the assessor and the
additional efforts needed for operating any accompanying calculation software, in
administrative tasks, travel time to the inspection site, etc. An important consideration in
deriving the SRI methodology will thus be to balance the desire of a sufficiently detailed
assessment with the desire to keep the time and cost requirements limited.
p. Building-specific features
Buildings and building usage display a great variety across the building stock. Ideally, an
SRI reflects this complexity by encompassing some differentiation with regard to building
usage typologies (e.g. residential, offices, educational buildings) and potentially also the
age of a building (e.g. newly constructed versus existing building stock). Even within a
single building differentiation can occur if it mixes different functions or if smart features
are only present in specific parts of the building. The SRI methodology should be flexible
to accommodate this large variation and for example allow for the roll-out of specific
versions tailored towards a specific building type.
q. The SRI assessment process and aides to assessment
In theory an SRI assessment could be conducted by a variety of different actors including:

specialised third-party assessors, the building occupants, facility managers, building
owners, hired contractors, DSO/TSO operatives, IT service providers, building service
engineers, ESCOs, smart service providers, etc. For the assessment to be reliable it is likely
to necessitate that a competent and independent party should make the assessment (much
as is the case for most EPCs). For the time being it is also expected that an assessor would
need to have access to the building to be able to make an inspection on site. It is likely
though, that as an SRI scheme matures that the assessment process would evolve to
reflect on-going developments. Thus, as more and more of smart readiness features and
associated service offerings become classified and standardised in accordance with the
scope and definitions used in the scheme the means of making the assessment could
evolve. Initially many service offerings and capabilities would require on-site visual
assessment supported by access to relevant service documentation (either as hard copies
or electronically). This process would be facilitated by the provision of clear markings on
the products and documentation descriptions to indicate at a glance the service offerings
the equipment provides with a one-to-one correspondence to the service and functionality
level taxonomy used in the scheme. As the scheme matures it is conceivable that this
information could be made available for packaged smart-ready products via some form of
standardised signalling and reading/scanning process e.g. via QR codes or similar on the
smart readiness equipment, documentation or associated web-sites. Equally, in principle

smart- ready services installed as equipment systems by contractors (and not just supplied
as packaged products that non-professional users can install and use) could also be subject
to a smart readiness capability assessment by the contractor who then leaves on site smart
readiness capability status information in a form that facilitates the assessment process.
Again, this could be via QR codes or similar.
The process could be further facilitated were one central point to be established where this
smart readiness status information would be deposited each time a new SRI service is
added or an old one removed. Nor does this status information necessarily need to be
stored and recorded on site. It could be loaded into a cloud-based server such that a SRI
assessor would be granted access to this information to be able to make the assessment
(either remotely or in conjunction with a site visit). Equally the systems could be provided
with live remote status assessment capability to facilitate their remote and automated
assessment.
Under such scenarios the assessor could be charged with making an aggregate assessment
of the smart readiness service status information provided by packaged equipment
suppliers, system installers and related service providers; each of whom could be held
legally liable for the accuracy of the information they communicate into the system. Some
kind of occasional sampling and verification process could then be established to support
the integrity of this system. A self-assessment process wherein owners, occupiers or
facility managers make the assessment and communicate it to the managing authority is
also conceivable but may suffer from low engagement and lack of credibility.
Then a working assumption is made that a competent third-party assessor will make a site
visit to the premises to conduct the SRI assessment and compute its score. This may evolve
over time into more sophisticated and less intrusive and costly assessment processes as
the scheme becomes established. It is important to appreciate that owners, facility
managers and occupiers may affect access to a building to make an SRI assessment or
equally may need to grant permission to access related data. This implies that they have
to see the SRI as something they value in order for them to engage in and support the
assessment process.
r. Data protection
With the advent of the General Data Protection Directive (GDPR) data protection will be a
key requirement for the smart readiness indicator. This will not only affect smart services
in buildings, but also the SRI certification itself. In particular, the building owner and
occupant will need to consent to their data being used for any purpose and the data will
need to be anonymised if it is to be used for statistical and research purposes. In addition,
data owners will need to be granted access on request to any data that they own.

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You
can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:

https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be
obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets

from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and
noncommercial purposes.
MJ-03-20-335-EN-N
doi: 10.2833/41100
ISBN 978-92-76-19197-1

MJ0320335ENN en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MJ0320335ENN en

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

MJ0320335ENN en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT ON THE

TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO THE

Stijn Verbeke (VITO)

Directorate-General for Energy

FINAL REPORT ON THE

Directorate-General for Energy

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-19197-1 doi: 10.2833/41100 MJ-03-20-335-EN-N

© European Union, 2020

Smart technologies in buildings can be a cost-effective means to assist in creating

The European Commission services (DG ENERGY) commissioned and supervised

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 1

1 CONTENTS OF THE SUMMARY

2 WHY A SMART READINESS INDICATOR FOR BUILDINGS

A greater uptake of smart technologies is expected to lead to significant, cost-effective

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 2

Figure 1 – Expected advantages of smart technologies in buildings

In this work, the following definition of smartness of a building is used:

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 3

Figure 2 – Three key functionalities of smart readiness in buildings

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 4

3.1 OUTCOMES FROM THE FIRST TECHNICAL STUDY

Principles which have guided the development of the SRI methodology

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 5

• topical group A focused on the SRI value proposition and implementation

Furthermore, 55 position papers were sent in by stakeholders and analysed and

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 6

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 7

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS

4.1.1 RELEVANT SCHEMES FOR THE SRI TO BUILD ON

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 8

4.1.3 DEFINITION OF A SET OF ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS

A. linkage of the SRI to the EPC (energy performance certificate) (potentially in a

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 9

• Article 8 provisions regarding the installation, upgrade, and replacement of technical

• a “market pull” impact of SRI assessments on property investment decisions that

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 10

4.2.1 APPROPRIATE FORMAT

▪ Should the SRI be presented in the form of a physical certificate, as a virtual

To help answer these questions an extensive stakeholder consultation process was

4.2.2 SRI LOGO AND DESIGN

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 11

Example 10A Example 10D

Example 20A Example 20E

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 12

4.2.3 DATA MANAGEMENT AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 13

• Whatever media and graphic design format is chosen it will be important to

• There seems to be no obstacle in terms of user comprehension or perception

• There seems to be no obstacle to using a common EU graphical design format

• Information on cybersecurity and interoperability can be communicated

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 14

Figure 6 - Three potential assessment methods

• Method A could be a simplified quick scan, focusing mainly on residential buildings

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 15

SUMMARY TO THE FULL REPORT Summary p 16

• There is strong stakeholder support for distinguishing between a simplified

• While in principle Method B is mainly oriented to more complex buildings, there