A Council working party met yesterday (7 July) to discuss a new draft of the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). So far, few changes have been made to the European Commission's original proposal, but the list of concerns expressed by delegations is growing longer.
The Swedish Presidency has pledged to reach an agreement on the legislation before a meeting of EU energy ministers in December, with or without a common position in the Council of Ministers (EurActiv 25/06/09). But as a number of government delegations have taken issue with the Parliament's opinion adopted in April, the newly inaugurated presidency is likely to be left hammering out the details with the co-legislator without the backing of all member states.
Speedy progress is not in sight as several member states have indicated that they find many of the Parliament's amendments "overly ambitious and even unrealistic". It will thus be "imperative" to get the Commission's opinion on the changes introduced by MEPs before the Council can examine them, the draft reads.
The EU executive's statement was only circulated to national delegations the day before the meeting, so many of them asked for more time have a closer look.
More leeway
Some member states, although not all, would like to tone down a proposal to delete the threshold of 1000m2 below which new buildings and major renovations are currently excluded from the legislation. They would rather have either a lower threshold or a gradual lowering, the draft states.
Moreover, several countries think that the target date for transposition (by the end of 2010) and the deadline for applying the provisions to public buildings (by the end of January 2012) are "much too soon", the document reveals.
The Council is on a collision course with the Parliament on dates, as the EU's elected body also called for a 2019 deadline for all buildings to produce as much energy from renewable sources as they consume. This is unlikely to find favour with member states that are already concerned with the provisions for renewable energy systems in houses.
Less administrative burden
The Commission's proposal would extend the obligation to consider alternative energy systems for all new buildings, but several member states object to this, according to the draft document. They argue that a compulsory analysis of the listed alternative systems would impose an unnecessary burden where climactic conditions and the nature of the building, for example, would set limitations.
National delegations also pointed to other potential provisions in the directive that could create an excessive administrative burden. They cite compulsory inspections of heating and air-conditioning systems, and obligations to hire accredited experts to carry out all certifications and inspections and to provide owners and tenants with detailed information as examples.
Too much harmonisation?
Member states are not convinced that the proposed method of setting minimum energy performance requirements would provide enough flexibility to apply them to local circumstances. Although the draft directive would contain only a "non-exhaustive list" of guidelines that member states would have to follow when setting minimum energy requirements, national decision-makers fear that this approach would not take into consideration the different situations across member states.
Many governments are also worried that they would surrender their budgetary powers by agreeing to discontinue incentives for new buildings or renovations which do not adhere to minimum energy standards. They also called for further study to be carried out into the concept of "cost-optimal" standard levels. Governments are reluctant to sign up to these before they have been defined, fearing that they could potentially hinder investment in renovation.
_stack2.jpg){kind=small}
