Member States of the European Union were showered with criticism after a political agreement (‘general approach’) on the revision of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) was announced on Tuesday 25 October at a meeting of EU energy ministers.
“EU energy ministers have lost sight of the energy security crisis and high energy prices when adopting their position”, said the Coalition for Energy Savings, an organisation representing more than 500 associations, 200 companies and 1,500 cooperatives.
Like the NGOs CAN Europe, ECOS and Friends of the Earth Europe, the organisation believes that the EU Council has weakened the text tabled by the European Commission in December (see EUROPE 12854/13).
This view is also shared by other stakeholders such as the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), the think tank Buildings Performance Institute Europe, the Corporate Leaders Groups, which brings together large companies, as well as Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson.
The agreement reached by the ministers “is less ambitious than the original Commission proposal”, the Commissioner acknowledged after the meeting.
She noted that buildings currently account for 53% of gas consumption in the EU, making it “a key sector for decarbonisation and energy security, as well as for reducing energy bills”.
Weak objectives and lack of clarity
Criticism has particularly been directed at the EU Council’s approach to the renovation of existing residential buildings.
Previously detailed here (see EUROPE 13050/3), the general approach provides for two separate methods: one for residential buildings and one for non-residential buildings.
In the case of residential buildings, the text lays down two targets, for 2033 and 2040.
But these “benchmarks” are not only too distanced from the EU’s climate and energy objectives, but are not clearly defined in the text, explained Adeline Rochet, the E3G think tank’s senior policy advisor on the issue.
“By 2033, Member States would be required to ensure that the average primary energy consumption of their entire housing stock is at least equivalent to the level of energy performance class D, but this level varies from one Member State to another. As for the 2040 target, it is based on vaguely defined national thresholds”, she told EUROPE.
In the case of the Netherlands, the target of achieving level D in 2033 means that “we don't have to do anything in the next ten years because we have already reached that level today”, for example, said Dutch Energy Minister Rob Jetten.
Ms Rochet also deplored the complexity of the general approach: "There are many possible exemptions due to the introduction of vague formulations in the text. I wonder if it has intentionally been made loose in order to allow Member States to do what they want a bit.
The European Parliament in the spotlight
The eyes of all these actors are now firmly on the European Parliament, with the hope that it will adopt an ambitious position regarding the negotiations with the EU Council and the European Commission (‘trilogues’).
In the opinion of Adeline Rochet, the general approach nevertheless complicates the task of the rapporteur on this dossier, Ciarán Cuffe MEP (Greens/EFA, Irish).
“Often, the risk when the EU Council speaks before the European Parliament is that it provides the Parliament with reasons to be less ambitious. The less ambitious the Parliament is, the less ambitious the compromise negotiated in trilogue will be”, she analysed.
While six Member States (France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Ireland) have called for higher minimum energy performance standards during the ‘trilogues’ in a joint statement attached to the meeting minutes – a sign of the great fragility of the compromise reached between the ministers – Ms Rochet believes that they have squandered an opportunity to put pressure on the less ambitious group of countries by approving the agreement proposed by the Czech Presidency of the EU Council.
“Rather than giving the green light to a text they consider too weak, they could have argued to put it aside temporarily, which would have given the European Parliament time to adopt an ambitious position”.
Originally scheduled for 29 November, the vote in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) of the European Parliament was postponed until December. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)