Building renovations, like those encouraged under the draft Energy Performance of Buildings directive, are key to improving people’s well-being and reducing emissions, but they must be flexible and rolled out with social safeguards, writes Ciarán Cuffe.
Ciarán Cuffe is a Green member of the European Parliament from Ireland. He is the Parliament’s lead negotiator on the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Europe spent €330 billion extra on subsidies to reduce energy bills in 2022. These measures provided much-needed, short-term relief to households across Europe in an energy crisis.
However, this crisis also revealed Europe’s weakest point: our buildings. Over 70% of Europe’s buildings are energy inefficient. Combined, they account for 40% of our energy consumption.
As a result, millions of euros were spent last year on energy that was wasted.
To prevent a repeat of this crisis, and provide long-term protection against the impact of volatile energy prices for European households and businesses, we must make structural changes to reduce the amount of energy we use. That means accelerating Europe’s renovation rates.
Renovations will provide essential protections for our citizens, but they are not cheap nor easy. That’s why this action must be accompanied by the same generosity of spirit and understanding as our response to the energy crisis.
Europe’s plan to accelerate renovation rates lies within the draft Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Negotiations between the EU institutions on this draft law opened last June. As lead negotiator for the Parliament, I am happy to report that negotiations are proceeding at pace and in line with the urgency of the situation at hand.
The European Parliament has demonstrated flexibility and willingness to find solutions in these talks, and I am confident that we will reach a deal before the end of 2023. The next trilogue, on 12 October, will be a significant milestone on this journey.
However, the Parliament will continue to insist that, to deliver the best cost-effectiveness to EU governments and the largest energy savings for households across Europe, the EPBD must include the application of Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) to the worst-performing buildings in Europe.
Focusing MEPS on Europe’s worst performing buildings is the most cost-effective approach that delivers the largest energy savings because these buildings waste the most energy, and thereby their occupants waste the most money on energy bills. More often than not, these buildings are also occupied by people living in energy poverty.
MEPS also act as important social protections for lower-income groups and vulnerable households, as well as tenants and private owners, in a number of ways.
In the first instance, MEPS are in effect social protections: they should not be implemented before the necessary social and financial protections are in place to support higher standards. I am fighting for even more robust protections, which we secured in the Parliament position, in the final negotiations.
MEPS are also social protections for tenants, because the standards require landlords to ensure a decent housing quality, with reduced energy bills and lower heating fuel taxes to be paid by their tenants. The approach of housing cost neutrality after renovation is supported by the International Union of Tenants.
In privately owned buildings, MEPS must also be rolled out with built-in protection for households, especially the most vulnerable ones, through adequate social safeguards including rent caps, technical support such as free advice and finance schemes, including grants.
Adopting MEPS and targeting the worst-performing buildings therefore delivers cost effectiveness, large energy savings, and the highest emission reductions as well as lifting people out of energy poverty,
There are also buildings that are not feasible to renovate, and our negotiation team recognises that. This includes heritage buildings, buildings of temporary use and other particular cases that we have spelled out and created exemptions for.
We also recognise that each member states’ building stock is unique and there are different challenges that should be addressed.
In Germany, I often hear the example of rural single family homes that cannot be renovated in an economically feasible way. In Spain, I know there are multi-family buildings where apartment owners need to be brought together before deciding on renovation options.
To address these and other concerns, we are exploring ways to give member states more flexibility regarding the choice of worst performing buildings to tackle.
However, member states need to know how many buildings need to be upgraded. They also need to know where they need to provide the most amount of support. That is why we need real numbers to set real targets and ensure that real and robust supports and safeguards are in place to make those targets achievable. With MEPS, we can achieve this.
I am following discussions throughout Europe and I understand that many people are concerned they cannot afford renovations or rent increases. However, these concerns underscore the importance of better, not worse, social and financial safeguards in the final law. This is what the European Parliament is pushing for.
We must not run the risk of leaving people living in damp, draughty homes and suffering with high energy bills for decades to come.
Any compromise that sticks with the status quo, or vaguely hopes that we will see the necessary renovation work done without a coherent framework, is simply not good enough.
We must deliver on the huge potential of this law to deliver cost-effective renovations, large energy savings for households, and a significant reduction in our emissions.
The European Parliament is showing flexibility and we are open to finding solutions, but our priority remains targeting the worst-performing buildings and protecting vulnerable households. It is the answer that Europe, and all the people living in it, deserve.