This interview explores the key challenges and solutions related to the implementation of Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for non-residential buildings. Topics include data accessibility, the diversity of building types, and financial barriers to energy-efficient retrofitting. The conversation also highlights the importance of defining “worst-performing buildings” and how financial incentives, upskilling the workforce, and using tools like Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and renovation passports can support renovation efforts. Additionally, examples of good practices from countries with similar policies offer insights into effective approaches, such as Belgium’s gradual transition from residential to non-residential buildings and France’s staged energy reduction targets.

What do you see as the main challenges for countries in implementing MEPS for non-residential buildings?

The implementation of minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for non-residential buildings comes with major challenges, including data accessibility, the diversity of the building stock and the high up-front costs of deep retrofitting.

One of the biggest is the lack of reliable, comprehensive data to identify the worst-performing buildings.

Many countries struggle with fragmented or incomplete data, especially in the non-residential sector, which makes it difficult to set realistic benchmarks or track progress. Accurate modelling of energy performance across different climates and building types also becomes a challenge without quality data.

Another issue is the diversity of non-residential buildings. These structures vary widely in size, age, and use—ranging from hospitals and schools to offices and retail stores. Each type has unique energy needs, so a one-size-fits-all approach is often impractical, requiring tailored solutions for different sectors.

Financial barriers are also significant. Retrofitting can involve high upfront costs, which are especially difficult for small businesses and public institutions to manage. For example, in Greece, the cost of retrofitting non-residential buildings has been estimated at €10.3 billion. Long payback periods make investments less attractive, and this can lead to resistance from stakeholders concerned about costs and potential market disruptions. If MEPS are seen as burdensome, there may be a lack of support from businesses and property owners.

Other challenges may arise from a regulatory perspective, as there may be a lack of institutional capacity to harmonise between national, regional and local levels. This can lead to conflicting regulations, different standards of implementation, compliance and monitoring. 

The report mentions that countries need better data on building stock, especially for non-residential buildings. What steps can countries take to improve data collection and accessibility?

To improve data collection and accessibility for retrofitting non-residential buildings, countries can take several key steps. A critical first step is to establish comprehensive, digitalised, and publicly accessible building datasets. Denmark’s Building and Housing Registry (BBR) and the registries for non-domestic buildings in England and Wales are great examples. These databases provide detailed information on building types, materials, and energy performance, enabling better decision-making for retrofits.

Mandatory reporting by building owners, architects, engineers, and managers during construction, sale, or major renovations is another essential step. This ensures that the most current information about a building’s structure, energy performance, and materials is regularly updated which allows for effective planning and tracking of retrofit needs.

Evaluating energy consumption data from utilities can also address data gaps

While this approach must navigate regulations on unbundling and data protection, it provides a straightforward way to assess the energy performance of a wide range of buildings.

Moreover, leveraging advanced data mapping techniques, such as artificial intelligence (AI), can significantly enhance the precision of building data. Techniques such as high-resolution satellite imagery and AI-based algorithms can map and analyse building stock, detailing characteristics like roof types, materials, and energy systems. These innovations help identify optimal retrofit opportunities and enhance data quality overall.

Defining “worst-performing buildings” is a key challenge for many member states. How should countries approach this, and why is it important?

Approximately 40% of the EU’s total energy consumption and 36% of its CO₂ emissions are attributable to buildings. Identifying the buildings with the poorest energy performance, Member States can target interventions to reduce energy consumption, address energy poverty, and improve public health and wellbeing and stimulate investment in the building sector. It also provides a measurable way to track progress in energy efficiency over time.

The term “worst-performing buildings” typically refers to buildings with excessive energy consumption, high greenhouse gas emissions, or those failing to meet modern standards for comfort, safety, and sustainability.

To address this, Member States should adopt clear, transparent, and quantifiable criteria, such as energy consumption per square meter

Using benchmarks like Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings, buildings in classes F or G could be classified as “worst-performing.” This approach helps policymakers design targeted interventions based on specific energy consumption patterns. 

Additionally, categorising buildings by type is necessary, given the significant variations in energy performance across sectors for instance, non-residential buildings like hospitals, schools, and commercial spaces should be evaluated based on their unique functions and energy demands. Public buildings, which are used intensively and serve communities, should be held to higher standards, acting as role models for the broader building stock.

Prioritising older, inefficient buildings—those with outdated heating systems, poor insulation, or structural inefficiencies—is key to achieving a zero-emission building stock.

By focusing on these structures, Member States can target areas where renovations will yield the most significant energy savings.

How can financial incentives be better structured to encourage private investment in energy-efficient renovations?

Financial incentives can be structured more effectively by offering a mix of tax breaks, low-interest loans, long-term financing, green bonds, and targeted loan programs to create a supportive environment for private investment in energy-efficient renovations of non-residential buildings.

Tax deductions and credits are highly effective tools. Governments can provide tax benefits tied to upgrades in heating, insulation, ventilation, and lighting systems. These reduce upfront costs for businesses, making renovations more financially attractive. Access to green loans and mortgages with favourable interest rates can provide critical financial support. Programs like France’s zero-interest eco-loans, which offer interest-free loans for energy efficiency projects, can be replicated across the EU to lower borrowing costs for businesses undertaking renovations. Long-term financing options, such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, also offer extended repayment periods, making it easier for businesses to finance large-scale improvements. Green bonds, issued by municipalities and companies, offer another source of funding for renovation projects. These bonds attract investors seeking to support sustainable initiatives while earning returns, creating additional capital for energy-efficient renovations. Tailored loan programs, such as Malta’s scheme for double glazing and roof insulation, can address country-specific challenges and encourage widespread participation.

Finally, it’s important for policymakers to consider social equity when designing incentives. Financial programs should ensure a fair distribution of costs and benefits, facilitating a socially just transition to energy-efficient building stock.

The report highlights a lack of qualified workers as a barrier to renovation. What can be done to address this skills gap?

Addressing the skills gap in building renovation requires a multifaceted approach. One key step is expanding vocational training programs focused on energy-efficient and sustainable renovation techniques.

Collaboration between industry, educational institutions, and governments is essential to ensure these programs align with the sector’s evolving needs and equip a new generation of workers with the necessary expertise.

Upskilling and reskilling the current construction workforce are equally as important. Providing ongoing professional development and retraining opportunities allows existing workers to adapt to the growing demand for energy-efficient renovations.

The recruitment of personnel from alternative sectors may assist in alleviating the dearth of skilled labour. By highlighting the potential for career advancement and the sustainability benefits of building renovations, professionals from fields like manufacturing and engineering can be encouraged, to consider alternative career pathways

Finally, international collaboration can play a pivotal role in addressing the skills gap. By establishing exchange programmes and joint training initiatives, we can disseminate optimal practices, knowledge, and expertise across national boundaries. 

Can you share any examples of good practices from countries with policy tools similar to MEPS, which other regions might replicate?

European countries have adopted diverse Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) tailored to local needs, with most focusing on rental dwellings and urban commercial buildings and using Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) as a core metric.

The design of MEPS varies based on requirements, building types, and exemptions. One of the most effective strategies is the use of staged thresholds. This approach allows for a gradual transition to higher energy efficiency standards, thereby affording building owners a sufficient period to plan and implement the necessary renovations. Belgium Flanders adopts a gradual transition from residential to non-residential buildings, while France uses multiple staged thresholds, including a 50% reduction in energy consumption by 2050. By establishing clear and achievable targets, this approach encourages continuous improvement and mitigates the financial burden on building owners. In contrast, the Netherlands implements a single-threshold MEPS for office buildings without setting future targets.

Read the report here!