EIE 329 E-TOOL FINAL REPORT

Distributed to EIE-agency and E-TOOL partners

Legal disclaimer: The project Energy-toolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings (E-TOOL) is supported by the European Commission through the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (Grant agreement number EIE/04/239/S07.38676). The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

LIST OF CONTENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Summary ............................................................................................................................................3 Objectives...........................................................................................................................................6 The scope of the project report...........................................................................................................6 The project partners............................................................................................................................7 Project flow chart ...............................................................................................................................9 Tool configuration............................................................................................................................11 Description of the E-TOOL software...............................................................................................11 Bench marking of the energy consumption......................................................................................15 Accessibility of the input data ..........................................................................................................16 Energy saving measures ...............................................................................................................20 Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries...................................................................27 Investment costs of energy saving measures................................................................................28 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting ........................................................34 Quality of the E-TOOL rating ......................................................................................................41 Accuracy of results - questionnaire ..............................................................................................44 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art........................................46 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL...............................................................................................46 17.1 Feed-back from workshops, training seminars ........................................................................47 17.2 Feed-back from the market actors ............................................................................................48 17.3 Training/instruction for using E-TOOL ...................................................................................48 17.4 Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification .........................................49 17.5 Reproducibility.........................................................................................................................50 17.6 Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating .........50 18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating...........51 18.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation ....................................................................51 18.2 Acceptance of results by clients ...............................................................................................52 18.3 Accuracy of the results.............................................................................................................54 19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating.........................................................................55 20 E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations .........................................................58 21 Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation .......................................................59 22 Resume of achieved results ..........................................................................................................59 23 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................................61 24 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................61

1 Summary
Operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildings The overall objectives of the proposed action is to promote the implementation of the EU building performance directive (2002/91/EF, 16th December 2002) by developing a simple and practical energy-toolset, which on a European level can support the implementation of the directive in relation to existing domestic, commercial and public buildings. The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical "E-TOOL", which can increase the efficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The criteria for developing E-TOOL are: Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours; The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house owners in an easy understandable way. The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performance certificates. The E-TOOL The input data for E-TOOL are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. - energy consumption data general characteristics of the building, including: Heating, cooling, domestic hot water system, lightning and thermal envelope. For out put data, see below:

E-TOOL can be down loaded from: www.e.tool.org, including the E-TOOL handbook. Testing the E-TOOL The evaluation criteria for the regional testing of E-TOOL were: User friendliness (functional aspects) of the tool - time required completing the rating and clients report - acceptance of the results by client - accessibility of the data needed for the tests - improvements to the tool (with respect to local building practice and climate). The tests were carried out for: Slovenia, 500 residential buildings and 50 public buildings - Bulgaria, 600 residential buildings - Greece,100 public buildings - Austria, 50 commercial buildings - Spain,100 public buildings - Denmark, 1.000 residential buildings.
Evaluation criteria Bench marking of energy consumption Accessibility of input data Guidelines for energy saving measures Energy performance after implementing energy savings Accuracy - compare with energy audit Need of education Time required Acceptance by clients Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy performance after implementing energy saving measures Small need of education Around 2/3 < 3 hours Around 90% good/acceptable Good Good Good Acceptable Results Specific benchmark data are in general not available, therefore benchmarking is not implemented in the E-TOOL rating. Positive feed-back Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed, output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable for standard buildings Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits Acceptable Good for typical buildings Acceptable "Mark" To be improved

Accuracy of results

80% good/acceptable.

Acceptable

The operational energy rating, e.g. E-TOOL rating, could be the optimum rating, providing the objective is cost efficiently to identify potential energy saving measures. The best results with E-TOOL rating are achieved on buildings with regular structure and where the data are transparent and representative.
Impact of operational rating of the energy performance of existing buildings

With a limited input of resources it has been possible to develop the E-TOOL to a level, where it has got positive evaluation results, e.g. on users acceptance of the results. The experience has shown that 90% of the on-site ratings can be performed within 1-2 hours with acceptance of the results from 60% of the clients. With the combination of measured energy consumption and a simple rating tool, the rating can be performed by experienced persons after short training in the use of E-TOOL. The results from the workshops carried show that the among market actors, there is a interest for the ETOOL being seen as an efficient tool to support the implementation of energy saving measures in the existing building stock. The E-TOOL project has experienced a large difference in access to transparent and reliable building data in the European countries, from regions with almost zero data to regions with high valuable data.

Recommendation for European energy performance rating Is it recommended to introduce both an operational tool and and calculated rating tool in the national certification scheme and then leave it to the experts to decide or set up some rules for which rating tool to use under particular conditions.

The partners
Naturgas Midt-Nord DK), energy supply company, (Coordinator). CENER, Centro Nacional de Energas Renovables (ES), scientific institution. Upper Austria Energiesparverband (AU), regional energy agency. Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency, Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A.(GR), regional public authority. SIGMA Consultants Ltd (GR), private consultant company. Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (SI), research institute. Sofia Energy Centre (BU), private consultant company. Deuca Energia S.L. (ES), private consultant company.

For more information: www.e.tool.org

2 Objectives
Overall objectives on European level The overall objectives are to promote the implementation of the EU building energy performance directive (2002/91/EF, 16th December 2002) - with focus on developing an operational and simple tool well suited for practicable application - with the energy consultants as the main target group. These objectives have within the project been translated into: Energy certification shall be carried out within 2-3 man hours The results of the energy certification shall be communicated at the survey to the house owners in an easy understandable way. The E-TOOL shall efficiently support the energy consultants in making the energy performance certificates.

Specific objective of the E-TOOL project The energy-toolset was developed with a special focus on buildings in the southern/south-eastern part of the Europe Union. The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical toolset, with the purpose of increase the efficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The saving measures were calculated on the basis of the actual energy consumption operational rating and on basis of benchmarks for energy consumption for different categories of buildings.

3 The scope of the project report

This report is supported by the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE-2004/239)-project, E-TOOL (Energytoolset for improving the energy performance of existing buildings) is to be considered as a stand-alone and result-oriented report. The main project results are described as well as the lessons learnt and the main results that have been achieved. The scope of the final report therefore is therefore to describe, how the E-TOOL supports the improvement of the energy performance of existing buildings, referring to the results of the project. The general guideline of the methodology that has been applied, for the E-TOOL-rating of energy performance is based on the methodology of measured (operational) energy rating. In contrast, other related projects are based on the methodology of calculated (asset) energy rating.

The energy performance certification is being implemented all over the EU. In this context, the results and findings of this report are important and to be considered in the perspective that this project and results are based on measured energy rating. The results are recommended to be taken into account in implementing at the EU-level, the energy performance building directive. The background for carrying through the project under the coordination of the Danish Naturgas MidtNord is in particular the experience from the Danish energy performance certification system, based on the methodology of calculated energy rating, and the energy supply companies experience with energy rating of existing buildings using the measured energy methodology. Based on these experiences, it was determined that the calculated energy rating is costly and has not proved to have the expected effect in terms of documented implementation of rational use of energy in existing buildings. In contrast, the measured energy rating methodology has shown to be cost efficient and to support rational use of energy in existing residential buildings.

4 The project partners

The proposed action is covering main parts of Europe: The north (Denmark), the south-west with a relatively wealthy region (Spain), the middle-central (Austria) and the south-east (Greece, Slovenia and Bulgaria) and by that has a European dimension. The proposed action can give a substantial support to the implementation of the EU Building Directive on a European scale. The partners cover these different regions of Europe and different types of relevant experience and know how:

Partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Name Naturgas Midt- Nord Fundacin Cener-Ciemat Ober-sterreich Energiesparverband Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency Sigma Consultants Ltd Sofia Energy Centre Building and Civil Engineering Institute Deuca Energia

Acronym NGMN CENER ESV TMDA SIGMA SEC ZRMK DEUCA

Activity Energy supply company Scientific institutions Regional/local authority Regional/local authority Consultants - Energy experts Scientific institutions Scientific institutions Consultants - Energy experts

Country Denmark Spain Austria Greece Greece Bulgaria Slowenia Spain

Figure 1: Project partners The partners can be described briefly as follows: Partner 1: Naturgas Midt/Nord (Denmark) Naturgas Midt-Nord (NGMN) is a public owned gas utility, owned by 74 municipalities in the Northern part of Denmark.

Partner 2: Cener (Spain) CENER is the Renewable Energy National Centre of Spain. It is a technological centre oriented and specialized in renewable energies. CENER is integrated in the CENER-CIEMAT Foundation.

Partner 3: Upper Austria Energiesparverband (Austria) O.. Energiesparverband (ESV) is the regional energy agency of Obersterreich/Upper Austria, an industrial region in the Northern part of Austria.

Partner 4: Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency (Greece) Thessaloniki Metropolitan Development Agency Natural Gas of Macedonia S.A. (TMDA NGM) is an Intermunicipal Public Commercial Organisation whose shareholders are the Municipality of Thessaloniki and the Municipalities of the widest region of Thessaloniki

Partner 5: SIGMA (Greece) SIGMA Consultants Ltd (SIGMA) is an engineering and consultancy firm with a long standing activity in the Greek and European market.

Partner 6: Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK (Slovenia) 8

Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK, l.t.d., Ljubljana, Slovenia, (short name BCEI ZRMK) is a daughter company of ZRMK Holding, j.s.c., founded in 2003 for R&D and consultancy in building and civil engineering.

Partner 7: Sofia Energy Centre (Bulgaria) Sofia Energy Centre (SEC) has been established as a successor of EC (DG XVII) Energy Centre Sofia and it has gained a lot of experience in the field of promotion, dissemination and market penetration of novel EU energy technologies in Bulgaria.

Partner 8: Deuca Energia S.L. (Spain) The Spanish Company is constituted in Girona in 1996 as Engineering and Consultancy Company. Main activities are in the planning, promotion and realization of energy projects.

5 Project flow chart

The following flow-chart represents the different tasks that have been completed within the E-TOOL project.

Data collection: Necessary to obtain all input data for energy consumptions, prices and building characteristics Tool Development: Based on the requirements of the data collection, the tool was developed with the result of the energy consumptions before and after the implementation of the energy saving measures, pay-back times, investments, CO2 savings and a certificate. Test preparation: Important step for the application of the tool, including training of energy auditors. 9

Regional testing and evaluation: Testing of different kind of buildings (public, private, hotels, ..) in the different partner countries and evaluation of the tests Handbook: Guide for users and energy experts with indication of the practical aspects of the tool. Dissemination: Inform about the project results on workshops, training seminars, conferences, Homepage www.e-tool.org.

Data collection

Tool development

Preparation of testing

Regional testing and evaluation

Handbook

Dissemination

Figure 1: Project structure

10

6 Tool configuration
Through the description of the E-TOOL configuration is it the intention to give an introduction and overview of how the E-TOOL works, the main components of the tool - and to evaluate, based on the findings of the project, if E-TOOL elements work accordingly to, what is the intention.

The E-TOOL consists of 3 main components, which will be described and evaluated:

Bench marking of the energy (heating/cooling) consumption of different main building categories. Guidelines for typical energy saving measures, including cost estimations and pay-back-time. Output in terms of energy consumption after carrying out the proposed energy saving measures

E-TOOL provides data about the impact produced by the implementation of some energy saving measures in existing buildings, quantifying, not only the energy and CO2 emission savings, but also the expected payback time. Three fundamental premises have been taken into account when choosing the most representative saving measures:

The effective energy savings produced by these measures should be measurable and calculable independently of the orientation and shadowing of the studied building. The cost of the saving measures should be easy to calculate by experts in each country. The measure should be applicable in most buildings.

7 Description of the E-TOOL software

The E-TOOL is described in: "e-tool - handbook, manual for energy rating of existing buildings, December 2006, and it can be down loaded from: www.e-tol.org. Here will be made a short introduction, also to give background information for the section of the Final Report concerning the feasibility of the E-TOOL.

11

The E-TOOL was developed by Cener, Navarra, Spain, in close cooperation with especially Naturgas Midt-Nord of Denmark. Cener prescribes its right to the E-TOOL, in the sense that parties, who want to use the tool, shall contact Cener to ask about permission.

The E-TOOL confirm with CEN standards TC89/prEN wi 1+3+4, when possible.

The E-TOOLSET methodology has three main parts: E-TOOL User Data Sheets E-TOOL Process E-TOOL Report

E-TOOL User - Data Sheets

Data Collection
Location Category Shape and physical data Fuel type Annual consum Consumption included

Saving Measures Selection

-Heating -Cooling -Domestic Hot Water -Lighting -Envelope

1.-General Data Building

2.-Data Consumption

DATA BASE
-Energy saving coefficients for saving measures. -Correlations to calculate energy savings depending on measures characteristics.

INPUTS FOR EACH COUNTRY

-Prices of saving measures. -Average consumption value depending on the type of building and the climatic zone. -Energy prices and annual rate of increase. -CO2 emissions.

E-TOOL PROCESS

E-TOOL Report
Potential savings, initial investments, pay-back times, CO2 savings for all saving measure initially selected. Best five energy saving measures selection Total potential savings Total investment cost of energy saving measures Payback time of the energy saving measures Total CO2 savings Initial E-Tool Benchmark Final E-Tool Benchmark

Figure 2: Flow Diagram of the E-TOOL software Input data 12

The types of input data are: General data of the building, owner, type etc. Energy consumption data - screen picture, if relevant General characteristics of the building, including: o Heating o Cooling o Domestic hot water system o Lightning o Thermal envelope

E-TOOLSET

Goes to:

GENERAL DATA OF THE BUILDING CONSUMPTION DATA GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING
1- CLIMATIZATION SYSTEMS
1.1- HEATING 1.2- COOLING 1.1-SAVING MEASURES 1.2- SAVING MEASURES

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

Page 3 Page 4

2- DOMESTIC HOT WATER

2.1- EQUIPMENT/ RENEWABLE ENERGY 2.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 5

3- LIGHTING
3.1- LIGHTS / REGULATION 3.1- SAVING MEASURES Page 6

4- USAGE
4.1- OCCUPANCY, HEATING-COOLING SCHEDULES 4.1 SAVING MEASURES Page 7

5- THERMAL ENVELOPE
5.1- INSULATION 5.2- OPENINGS 5.1- SAVING MEASURES 5.2- SAVING MEASURES Page 8 Page 8

SUMMARY- Benchmarking

Page 9

Figure 3: Front pages of E-TOOL version 1 and E-TOOL version 5

Output data Summary for each potential energy saving measure: Potential savings, (kWh/year) Initial investment (EURO) Payback in years CO2 savings (kg) Cost-effective analysis summary: Total potential, kwh/year Total investment costs 13

Payback time CO2 savings Initial E-TOOL bench mark (measured), kWh/m2 Final E-TOOL bench mark (with energy savings), kWh/m2

14

Figure 4: Certificate format

8 Bench marking of the energy consumption

Why bench marking? One of the ideas behind the E-TOOL methodology is to identify groups of similar buildings with a similar energy (in climates with over-heating problems heating also includes cooling) consumption. If it is possible to identify these groups, it can be derived what energy consumption could be expected in a given building and then compare this with the actual energy consumption - and thereby get a good indication of the energy standard of the building. This information can be used for looking for typical potential energy savings measures, which could lead you to an energy performance of the building to be expected, when having a rational use of heat. To identify such groups of building you need statistic data on energy consumption of the existing building stock.

Sources for data for bench marking of the energy consumption of existing buildings The benchmark data have been obtained during the data collection process in the partner countries that had these data available, such as Denmark, as well as during the realization and evaluation of the tests for the same type of buildings that have been tested with E-TOOL.

15

In Denmark there exist statistic data from the heating and electricity consumption of 46,000 single dwellings, which have been rated for energy certificates using the calculated methodology. Of other sources for statistic data on energy consumption can be mentioned the IEE-projects: EP-Label, enper-exist and e-impact. EUROSTAT is another source of information. The data of these projects have been taken into consideration to get an orientation and a general impression of energy consumptions of buildings as reference data in the general evaluation of the E-TOOL project within the frame of the EPBD Building Platform.

Bench marking of energy consumption Bench marking of the energy consumption of the existing building stock in typical building categories is intended to be a support for energy experts making building energy performance rating. But in most countries there is a lack of reliable data. This means that the use of bench marking of the energy consumption has not had the extend as expected in the project proposal. Not using bench mark data as an integrated part of the E-TOOL methodology did not mean that the energy expert carrying out the energy performance rating did not compare an actual measured heating consumption with what could be expected of heating consumption for a typical building of the type certified. Experience from the tests has shown that many experts have their own experience to draw on. An alternative is also to use the numbers of the actual building code for when the building was erected, if the building code included maximum heating/energy consumption.

Recommendations It would be recommended to support the establishment a European data-base for energy consumption for existing EU-building stock, also to be able to follow the development of the energy standard of the existing building stock.

9 Accessibility of the input data

Introduction As the overall E-TOOL methodology is based on measured energy rating, is the accessibility of the data of the actual energy consumption of the building of importance. Besides these consumption data, further input data are needed for carrying out an E-TOOL certification, such as: General data of the building, age, type etc. Energy consumption data General characteristics of the building, including: o Heating system 16

o o o o

Cooling Domestic hot water system Lightning Thermal envelope

The energy experts carrying out the regional testing of the E-TOOL have been questioned about the accessibility of the data needed.

Accessibility of input data for E-TOOL certification Denmark For the operational rating is the access to transparent and reliable data for the energy consumption important. In less than 10% of the tests have improvements of the access to data been proposed. These are mainly the tests where it has been difficult to calculate how much of the energy consumption for heating have been covered with firewood or biomass,

Austria Although it is in some cases challenging to obtain the building data for completing the e-tool, it is a useful instrument to assess building qualities and to show the building owner the potential of energy efficiency measures. For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that only qualified advisers use it. Greece The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Greece can be taken from following column diagram:

17

Figure 5: Accessibility of data Slovenia The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Slovenia can be taken from following column diagram:
Accessibility of the data needed for the tests
35 30 25

response

20 15 10 5 0 VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT

Figure 6: Accessibility of data Spain The main draw-back is the dependency of the E-TOOL on the energy consumption data and information on building characteristics (constructive plans, boiler data, etc.). The evaluation of the accessibility of data in Spain can be taken from following column diagram:

18

Accessibility of data for the tests- Spain Percentage [%] 80 60 40 20 0 Very good Good Medium Difficult Very difficult

Figure 7: Accessibility of data

Bulgaria Good accessibility of data was registered in 80% of the tests; fair availability of data was registered in 18% of the tests and in 2% of the tests significant data was missing. Missing data is in most cases connected to the energy consumption: missing bills for electricity or heat energy.

Accessibility of the data needed for the tests 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Good Fair Improve 6 97 424

Figure 8: Accessibility of data

Building can be assessed as a whole with regard to the heat energy consumption, as there is available data from the district heating companies. But it is not possible to have such data for consumption of electricity as each flat has its own electrical meter.

19

Conclusion and recommendations on accessibility of input data No general conclusions at a European level can be made on the accessibility of data for the E-TOOL rating using the measured data. In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the accessibility of accounted consumption is good. In other countries are such data not present for different reasons. To use the E-TOOL measured rating methodology it will in many cases be necessary to compromise on the quality of the input data on measured energy consumption using estimates, e.g. based on what the building owner remembers about the size/level of energy bills or simply estimates based on the energy experts' experience. Even if the energy expert does not know the exact energy consumption of an existing building, it is still possible on the site to identify the potential energy saving measures and make a calculation of the potential energy savings that can be obtained by implementing these measures. This is the most important part of the E-TOOL rating, which can be carried through, even with estimates on actual energy consumption of the building being energy rated. If energy savings shall be implemented into the existing building stock of EU, then the problem of lack of information about the actual energy consumption of the buildings shall be solved, e.g. by demanding the energy supply companies to register the energy consumption. This will in the future provide the energy authorities with information about the development of the energy consumption.

10 Energy saving measures

Introduction For the E-TOOL based on the methodology of measured rating, are the guidelines for energy saving measures, including costs estimated and information about potential energy savings, key elements. This element of the tool is where the tool actually carries out calculations - on investment costs, energy savings and thereby cost savings. The overall idea is to be able to identify a relatively limited number of cost efficient energy saving measures, which can be described sufficiently precise to be able to estimate the potential energy saving measures for a specific building. The investment costs, energy and money savings are transformed into standard figures per m2 for each specific energy saving measure for each country/region. The data on energy saving measures are specific for each country and are put into a price matrix of the E-TOOL, from which the tool draws information for calculations. The E-TOOL differs from energy rating tools based on calculated rating basically by using default for U-values of walls and other basis structure. Taking into account the inaccuracy related to real effect in terms of obtained energy savings due to in-complete data of the existing building, e.g. the thickness of the insulation, then this element of the E-TOOL is not considered to have major influence on the overall rating accuracy.

20

Energy saving measures have been identified For the 6 involved countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia and Spain have been identified the "top 10 energy saving measures" and as result, it has shown up to be to a very high degree the same energy saving measures. The criteria for selecting the measures have been to select the most common measures within the country. Results from each country. Austria: Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1430 m. The average indicator is about 175 kWh/ma and could be reduced to 117 kWh/ma after renovation. On average 76,877 kWh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures, which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in the average. The figure below shows the percentage of different energy saving measures for all types of buildings (offices, hotels and shops). The most attractive measures were the insulation of external walls, walls to unconditioned space, followed by the exchange of windows. The installation of a new boiler together with a change of the fuel to biomass, the installation of a solar collector system, the insulation of pipes and the substitution of conventional lights by low consumption lights are other measures named quite often. Other measures named for the prospected buildings were the installation of a modern boiler, the installation of presence detectors, a change to a gas boiler, the cleaning of the boiler, sealing of window air leaks, the reduction of the heating set point and the installation of a water saving system.
Percentage of different energy saving measures
18 16 14 12 10 % 8 6 4 2 0
er na lw al ls (e to xt un er co na nd lly iti ) on ed sp ac C ha e C ng ha e ng w e in to do bi In w om st al as ls C s ha ol bo ar ng ile co e r lig llc to ht rs s to ys lo te w m co ns um In pt su io In n la st te al th lt e he pi rm pe os s ta t( he In st at al in lm g) In st od al er lp n re bo sc ile en r ce de C te ha ct ng or e s to ga s bo C ile le an r Se th al e in bu g rn w in er do R ed w ai uc rl e ea he ks at in g se In tp st oi al nt lw at er sa vi ng w al ls

In su la te

In su la te

ex t

21

Figure 9: Distribution of energy saving measures When the energy saving measures at the different types of examined buildings are evaluated, it can be found that there are some measures that are important for all types of buildings, such as insulation of external walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the change of windows but there are also some differences.

Energy saving measures in hotels In hotels, the most frequently suggested measures were the insulation of external walls, walls to unheated space and the roof, followed by the exchange of windows. Another very important measure is the installation of a solar collector system, because of the high hot water consumption in hotels. Further suggestions were the change of lights to low efficient ones, the insulation of pipes, the change to a biomass boiler and the installation of thermostats.

Percentage of different energy saving measures in hotels

25,00%

20,00%

15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
av in g co llc to rs s ys to te lo m w In co st ns al um lp In re pt su sc io la n en te ce ex In de te su rn te la al ct te or w s al w ls al ls (e to xt er un na co lly nd ) iti on Se ed al in sp g ac w e in do w ai rl ea ks C ha ng e w in do w ng e lig ht bo ile r r r pi pe s bo ile r g) bu at in bo po in g se t tin st In In st al l ile rn e t

om as

la te

C le a

os ta

ha ng

In su

al l

rm

to

he a

bi

ll th e

C ha n

ed

uc e

ta

In s

Figure 10: Distribution of energy saving measures Energy saving measures in shops Similarly, in shops the most frequently suggested measures are the insulation of external walls, walls to unheated space and the roof, followed by the change of windows. Other measures are the installation of a biomass boiler, a solar collector system, the change of lights to low consumption and the installation of presence detectors.

C ha

al l

so la r

st

In

ge

w at er s

od er n

th e

to

t( he

ga s

th

22

Percentage of different energy saving measures in shops

25,00%

20,00%

15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
sa ol vi ar ng co llc to rs ys to te lo m w In co st ns al um lp In re pt su sc io la n en te ce ex In de te su rn te la al ct te or w s al w ls al ls (e to xt er un na co lly nd ) iti on Se ed al in sp g ac w e in do w ai rl ea ks C ha ng e w in do w C ha ng e lig ht s bo ile r at (h ea tin g) se tp oi nt In st bo ile r bu rn er bo ile r pi pe s th e

od er n

ga s

as s

C le an

In su la t

In st al lm

C ha ng e

C ha ng e

R ed uc e

he rm os t

to

he at in g

Figure 11: Distribution of energy saving measures

Energy saving measures in offices In offices, the insulation of external walls and walls to unconditioned space, as well as the exchange of windows are measures that are named very often. Especially in offices the change of lights to low consumption is an attractive measure for energy savings with a share of around 12 % compared to 4,5 % in shops and 7,5 % in hotels. The installation of a biomass boiler and the insulation of the pipes are also very important.
Percentage of different energy saving measures in offices
25,00%

20,00%

15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
al lm od er n bo e to ile r bi om as s C bo ha ile ng r e to ga s bo ile C le r an th e bu rn In er su la In te st al th lt e he pi pe rm s os ta R t( ed he uc at e in he g) at in g se tp In oi st nt al lw In st at al er ls sa C ol ha vi ar ng ng co e llc lig to ht rs s ys to te lo m w In co st ns al um lp In re pt su sc io la n en te ce ex In de te su rn te la al ct te or w al s w ls al ls (e to xt er un na co lly nd ) i ti on Se ed al in sp g ac w e in do w ai rl ea ks C ha ng e w in do w C ha ng

Figure 12: Distribution of energy saving measures 23

In st

In st al ls

In st al lt

al lw at er

bi om

th e

to

Bulgaria Top 10 energy saving measures in Bulgaria (for multi dwelling buildings erected before 1999):

Figure 13: Distribution of energy saving measures Denmark

Most frekvent measures for single dwellings
35%

30%

25% Frequency

20% % 15%

10%

5%

0% Insulation Windows Air filtrat. Temp.Ctr. Boiler Pump

Figure 14: Distribution of energy saving measures 24

Greece
Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions
20 18 16 14 12 % 10 8 6 4 2 0
Cleaning Bur ner Installing moder n boiler Change Fuel Oil Insulating Pipes to Gas. Install Gas Boiler Changing Glazing Windows Insulating exter nal Walls Insulating Walls in contact to unconditioned pr em ises Reducing Heating Set Point Incr easing Cooling Set Point Changing lights to low consum ption Installing pr esence detector s Installing HVAC VRV Installing Water Saving System s Installing Solar Collector s Installing Reflective Cur tains (Heating) Installing Reflective Cur tains (Cooling) Installing Awnings Im pr ove Windows Inflitr ations

Intervention

Figure 15: Distribution of energy saving measures Slovenia

20 18 16 14 Frequency [%] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

INSTALL MODERN BOILER

INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the wall)

CHANGE WINDOWS

INSULATING WALLS CLOSE TO UNCONDITIONED SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Figure 16: Distribution of energy saving measures single dwellings

25

25

20

Frequency [%]

15

10

INSTALL MODERN BOILER

INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the wall)

CHANGE WINDOWS

INSULATING WALLS CLOSE TO UNCONDITIONED SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Figure 17: Distribution of energy saving measures block of dwellings

25

20

Frequency [%]

15

10

INSTALL MODERN BOILER

INSULATE THE PIPES REDUCE HEATING SET INSTALLING A SOLAR CHANGING ALL LIGHTS INSULATING POINT COLLECTOR SYSTEM TO LOW EXTERNAL CONSUMPTION WALLS(outer side of the wall)

CHANGE WINDOWS

INSULATING WALLS CLOSE TO UNCONDITIONED SPACES

INSULATING ROOF

Figure 18: Distribution of energy saving measures schools

Spain With respect to the public schools and libraries that have been visited, following energy saving measures are considered to be the most common ones: Windows: changing of frames without thermal bridges 26

Windows: changing from single to double glazing Walls: External insulation Heating system: changing of boilers (> 20 years old) Heating system: installation of regulation system Heating system: installation of thermostats Water: installation of water saving systems (WC) Hot water: installation thermal panels for hot water production (kitchens of the public schools) Electricity: installation of presence detectors (corridors) Electricity: install low consumptions lamps (all)

25,00

Distribution of Energy Saving Interventions

20,00

15,00 % 10,00 5,00 0,00

Installation new boiler Changing lights Installation Insulation external Insulation internal low consumption presence detector wall wall Changing window Reduction heating/ Solar panel DHW increase cooling set point

Figure 19: Distribution of energy saving measures Spain

11 Top 10 energy saving measures in 6 EU countries

The top 10 energy saving measures have been made a trans-national comparison, because this has importance for which measures to include into the tool. As a general approach for the project has comparisons between the different involved countries, e.g. of energy consumption, not been carried out., The differences in climate, building traditions, utilization of buildings, different numbers of housing area per resident etc. makes it too complex to evaluate within this project scope.

27

Measure AU Insulation outer walls Insulation of roofs Insulation, uncond.spaces Insulation of pipes Change windows Reducing/stop air filtration Temperature control Energy efficient pump Install presence detector Energy efficient light Increase cooling set point Change to biomass boiler Change to gas boiler Change to efficient boiler Clean burner Install solar collector Water savings 9 10 5 4 10 6 4 3 1 1 7 3 BG 1 6 5 2 7 8

Ranking of measure DK GR SI 3 4 10 6 9 2 2 3 5 6 1

ES 2

2 4 6 4

3 1 5 7 1 8 4 8

7 8

6 5

Priorit y High High High Low High Mediu m Mediu m Mediu m Mediu m Low Low Mediu m Mediu m Mediu m Low Low Low

12 Investment costs of energy saving measures

Introduction For each of the energy saving measures included in the E-TOOL is the identified national (regional) investment costs based on inputs from the partners of the project. For some of the common energy saving measures have been carried out trans-regional comparison of costs to give some ideas about the level of investment costs in the different parts of EU. The results are shown below. The specific costs for a building will depend on the specific conditions and also on the terms of defining costs, but the figures can give some indication of level of costs in different countries. The following energy saving measures are included: Insulation of wall/floor/roof Changing windows / glass Installing biomass boiler Installation of more energy efficient oil boiler Installation of more energy efficient gas boiler 28

New control for the energy system Solar collector

The following table gives an overview of selected investment cost of energy saving measures and shows the wide variety of the costs: Region Wall insulation (16 cm) /m2 43 - 76 60 - 80 28 - 40 170 15-20 35-40 Double glazing windows (1.2 W/mK ) /m2 130 - 208 250-450 19 - 120 250 130-150 176-220 New biomass boiler (50 kW) /kW 70 - 300 300 - 400 48-200 400 190-215 Insulation of pumps and pipes /m 1 -6 2-5 3 7 5-10 12

Slovenia Austria Bulgaria Denmark Spain Greece

The collected data of the investment cost are entered in the development of the E-TOOL to calculate the cost of selected energy saving measures with the E-TOOL. The following figures show the average investment costs for different energy saving measures in the respective countries. The underlying data for the investment costs can be found in the Annex.
Average investment costs for insulation of wall, floor and roof
180

160

140

120

[/m2]

100 Denmark Denmark

80

60 Greece

Slovenia

Austria

Slovenia

40

Austria

Bulgaria

Greece

Denmark

Denmark

Slovenia

Slovenia

Denmark

Greece

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Austria

Bulgaria

Austria

Spain

Spain

Spain

Wall (8 cm)

Wall (16 cm) Denmark Austria

Floor (10 cm) Slovenia Bulgaria Spain

Roof (10 cm) Greece

Spain

Roof (20 cm)

Figure 20: Average investment costs

Spain

20

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Greece

Austria

Greece

29

The average investment costs for the insulation of the wall (8 and 16 cm), the insulation of the floor (10 cm), and the costs for roof insulation (10 and 20 cm) are shown. The costs to insulate the walls are very high in Denmark, followed by Austria and Slovenia. Greece has the highest prices concerning insulation of floors.
Average investment costs for windows
450

400

350

300

[/m2]

250 Austria

Denmark

Austria

200

Denmark

150

Slovenia

Spain

50

Double glazing (1.2 W/m2K) Denmark Austria Slovenia Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Triple glazing (0.8 W/m2K) Spain Greece

Figure 21: Average investment costs In Austria the average investment costs for windows with double- and triple glazing are the highest among the different countries.

Bulgaria

Spain

100

Slovenia

Greece

Greece

30

Average investment costs for new biomass boilers

450

400

350

300

[/kW]

250

150

Slovenia

Austria

Slovenia

100

Bulgaria

Denmark

Spain

Bulgaria

Austria

Slovenia Denmark Bulgaria

100-500 kW

Austria

200

Denmark

< 50 kW

50-100 kW

Figure 22: Average investment costs The average investment costs for smaller biomass boilers < 50 kW are higher then those for > 50 kW in every country. Biomass boilers up to 50 kW are most expensive in Denmark and Austria, between 50 100 kW and 100 500 kW we have the highest investment costs in Austria and Slovenia.
Average investment costs for a new oil boiler
250

200

150 [/kW]

100

Denmark

Austria

Denmark

Austria

50

Slovenia

Denmark

Slovenia

Denmark

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Austria

Austria

Bulgaria

Spain

Spain

Spain

< 50 kW

50-100 kW

100-500 kW

>500 kW

Figure 23: Average investment costs Oil boilers up to 100 kW have the highest average investment costs in Denmark, followed by Austria. The costs for a new oil boiler are almost the same for every capacity in Bulgaria and Spain. 31

Spain

Spain

50

Spain

Average investment costs for a new gas boiler

200

180

160

140

120

100

Denmark

[/kW]

80

Austria

60

Denmark

Austria

Austria

Slovenia

Slovenia

40

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Spain

Bulgaria

Denmark

Bulgaria

Austria

Slovenia Bulgaria Spain

< 50 kW

50-100 kW

100-500 kW

Spain

>500 kW

Figure 24: Average investment costs The figure shows the average investment costs for a new gas boiler. The costs decrease with increasing capacity of the boiler in all countries. For boilers > 500 kW Denmark did not give data.
Average investment costs for the improvement of an existing heating system new control system
2500

2000

1500 []

1000

Austria

Austria

Slovenia

Denmark

500

Greece

Slovenia

Greece

Denmark

Slovenia

Denmark

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

< 50 kW

Spain

50 - 100 kW

Spain

> 100 kW

Figure 25: Average investment costs

Spain

Greece

Austria

Spain

20

32

The average investment costs for a new control system are much cheaper in Bulgaria and Spain, especially for heating systems > 100 kW. Overall the costs for the installation of a new control system are the highest in Austria and Greece.
Average investment costs for a solar collector system
900

800

700

600

[/m2]

500

Spain

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Austria

Slovenia

400

Bulgaria

Austria

300

Austria

Bulgaria

Spain

200

Denmark

Greece

Denmark

Spain Greece

100

8 m2
Denmark Austria

30-100 m2
Slovenia Bulgaria Spain Greece

Greece

>100m2

Figure 26: Average investment costs The average investment costs for the installation of a solar collection system up to 100 m2 are the fewest in Greece (around 100 /m2) and Denmark (around 200 /m2), for systems above 100 m2 there have been no data for Denmark. For solar collector systems of 8 m2 there is not much difference in the average costs, only in Spain the installation is more expensive. Results from Austria In Austria the costs of energy savings in shops, offices and hotels have been compared.

33

Average savings and costs of energy saving measures

120.000

100.000

80.000

[] [kWh]

60.000

Costs () Savings (kWh)

40.000

20.000

0 Shops Office Hotel

Figure 27: Average savings

Payback time for energy saving measures in Bulgaria: Thermal insulation of external walls 8 years; Thermal insulation of roof (water-proofing of roof excluded) 4,5 years Thermal insulation and water-proofing of roof 15,5 years Thermal insulation of basements ceiling 9 years Repair and draught-proofing of windows and external doors 4 years Replacement of windows 20 years Installation of local heating (change of fuel) 11 years.

13 Energy performance (bench mark) after energy retrofitting

It is very simple to derive to the energy performance (bench mark) after retrofitting of the building implementing the energy saving measures - by taking the actual measured heating consumption and deduct the estimated energy savings through implementing the energy saving measures. The energy performance can then be compared to what should be the energy consumption of the building, e.g. compared to the standard of the actual building code, or rating the building according to the national certification energy performance categories. Because bench mark of the energy consumption after retrofitting is very dependent on the regional conditions there has not been made a trans-regional comparison. 34

Results from Austria on commercial buildings This figure shows the benchmarks for the different building types before and after energy saving measures. The greatest difference between the benchmark before and after renovation was discovered at hotels. The results are from Austria.

Benchmarks before and after energy saving measures

200,00

180,00

160,00

140,00

120,00 kWh/m2a Indicator before Indicator after

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00 Shops Office Hotel

Figure 28: Benchmarks Most of the buildings tested were built after 1970, the average heated area is around 1,430 m. The average indicator is about 175 kWh/ma and could be reduced to 117 kWh/ma after renovation. On average 76,877 kWh savings could be achieved annually by implementing the suggested measures, which would require investment costs of about 20,400 in average.

35

Results from Bulgaria

Results from Denmark

Comparison of DK-certificates and E-TOOL Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and after saving
Left collum DK certificates - Right collum E-TOOL 250

200

Before After
150

% pay-back Before After % pay-back

kW h/m2
100 50 0 00-20 20-40 40-60 60-70 70-80 80-00

Year of construction

Figure 29: Comparison E-TOOL to energy audit

36

The results from Denmark include also a comparison with energy audit (calculated) rating, which in general comes to higher energy consumption than the measured (operational) rating.

Results from Greece

E-Tool Benchmarking
450

400

Initial E-Tool Benchmark

350

Final E-Tool Benchmark

300 kWh/m2

250

200

150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 9 109 0

No of Building

Figure 30: Benchmark Greece

Results from Slovenia Results on initial and final (before/after proposing energy saving measures) bench marks of the energy consumption before and after t from regional testing of 550 buildings in Slovenia.

37

300,0 255,8 250,0 225,4

INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK 231,5 209,4

200,0 [kWh/m2] 155,5 150,0 164,2 141,8 151,6

100,0

50,0

0,0 BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

Figure 31: Benchmark Slovenia

Block of dwellings 400
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORE SAVING MEASURES ENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVING MEASURES PAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVING MEASURES

60

350

50

Energy consumption [kWh/m2] `

300 Payback time [year] 40 250

200

30

150 20 100 10 50

0 2 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190

Figure 32: Benchmark Slovenia

38

0,0350

INITIAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK FINAL E-TOOL BENCHMARK 0,0289 0,0255

0,0300

0,0250 [kWh/m *DD] 0,0202 0,0175

0,0200 0,0165 0,0150

0,0190

0,0129 0,0103

0,0100

0,0050

0,0000 BLOCK OF DWELLINGS SCHOOLS MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS SINGLE DWELLING

Figure 33: Benchmark Slovenia

Single dwelling 600
ENERGY CONSUMPTION BEFORE SAVING MEASURES ENERGY CONSUMPTION AFTER SAVING MEASURES PAYBACK TIME OF THE ENERGY SAVING MEASURES

60

500 Energy consumption [kWh/m2] `

50

300

30

200

20

100

10

Figure 34: Benchmark Slovenia

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 10 0 10 9 11 8 12 7 13 6 14 5 15 4 16 3 17 2 18 1 19 0 19 9 20 8 21 7 22 6 23 5 24 4 25 3 26 2 27 1 28 0 28 9 29 8 30 7

Payback time [year]

400

40

39

Results from Spain

Overview tested buildings Spain
700
[kWh/m2 before]

600
Energy consumption [kWh/m2]

[kWh/m2] afer

500 400 300 200 100 0 Schools Office building Library Music school Social services Museums Sport Bus stationMarket hall

Figure 35: Benchmark Spain

Conclusions on bench mark after implementing energy saving measures The following energy savings are obtained from the national values on energy consumption before and after implementing the energy saving measures. It has to be taken into account that it is different types of buildings etc., but the numbers give some indications about the potential for energy savings. Country Austria Type of buildings Shops Offices Hotels Dwellings, blocks Dwelling, blocks and single Public Dwellings and public Public Energy savings, % 38% 20% 38% 46% 25% 20% 33% 40%

Bulgaria Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain

The E-TOOL calculates the energy performance of the building (after implementing the energy saving measures proposed) and show the result as a part of the E-TOOL energy performance rating.

40

14 Quality of the E-TOOL rating

Introduction A key issue in evaluating the E-TOOL rating is to be able to answer the simple question. What is the quality of the E-TOOL rating? With the approach used in this project the focus of the certificate is to make estimations of potential energy savings - in existing buildings. So this has been the criteria for evaluating the performance of the E-TOOL. This is also the central point with regard to implementation of energy savings in the existing building sector - and therefore should also be the central point for promoting the implementation of the energy performance building directive. Two methods have been used for evaluating the quality of the E-TOOL energy rating: Compare E-TOOL/energy audit's proposals for energy saving measures - in Denmark and Slovenia Questionnaire to energy experts about the accuracy of results based on the energy expert's experiences - carried out in Denmark, Slovenia and Spain

Compare E-TOOL/energy audit certificate's proposals for energy saving measures A pragmatic approach of looking into the results of using the E-TOOL methodology and compare it with the use of other certification methodologies with respect of identification of potential energy saving measures. Does the E-TOOL identify the same potential energy saving measures.

Results from Denmark The results from Denmark include also a comparison with energy audit (calculated) rating, which in general comes to higher energy consumption than the measured (operational) rating. For energy saving measures the calculated rating has identified energy savings measures of around the same size as the E-TOOL Results from Slovenia Comparison of the E-tool results with an energy audit of a block of dwellings, built in 1980. The building characteristics are: 50 apartments with totally 100 residents Heated floor area 3.100 m2 External wall area 1.940 m2 Uwall values of approx. 0,8 W/(m2K) 41

Windows 640 m2 Uwindow value 3,0 W/(m2K) with high air leakage

Recommended measures: Additional thermal insulation of outer wall with 15 cm thick polystyrene layer. Installation of energy efficient windows with low-e double glazing (Uw=1,1W/m2K) Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler
POTENTIAL SAVINGS INITIAL INVESMENT INITIAL INVESMENT

POTENTIAL SAVINGS

PAY-BACK

PAY-BACK

CO2 SAVINGS

CO2 SAVINGS

E-tool Investment measure improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) change windows from 3,0 to 1,1 [W/m2K] (640 m2) additional insulating external walls (TI=15cm, faade) additional insulating of roof (TI=25cm) [kWh/a]

Energy Audit [kWh/a]

E-tool []

Energy Audit []

E-tool [year]

Energy Audit [year]

E-tool [kg/m2]

Energy Audit [kg/year]

130.357

85.500

86.000

92.000

11,6

19,0

26.071

17.100

17.827 124.319

5.230 163.800

15.070 146.286

7.840 157.084

13,7 20,6

27,7 17,6

3.565 24.863

1.046 32.760

117.107 23.263

76.000 18.300

68.953 17.056

94.125 8.175

9,6 11,8

22,0 10,5

23.421 4.653

15.200 3.660

Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Improvement of boiler house and install modern boiler 140.000
POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT []

120.000

CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

Figure 36: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

42

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Additional insulating roof (TI=25cm) 25.000
POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

Figure 37: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit INSULATING EXTERNAL WALLS (TI 15cm, facade) 140.000
POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

Figure 38: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit CHANGE WINDOWS 200.000 180.000 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 E-TOOL Energy Audit
POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

Figure 39: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia 43

Comparison between E-TOOL and Energy Audit Additional insulating walls close to unheated spaces (TI=12cm) 25.000
POTENTIAL SAVINGS [kWh/a] INITIAL INVESTMENT [] CO2 SAVINGS [kg/year]

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

E-TOOL Energy Audit

Figure 40: Comparison E-TOOL with Energy Audit Slovenia

15 Accuracy of results - questionnaire

Results from Denmark
E-TOOL evaluation (DK) Result of questionnaires
100 80 Answer in % 60 40 20 0 Survey Function Access Client Fair Good Improve

Figure 41: Result of questionnaires

Results from Slovenia

44

Acceptance of results by client

35
35 30

Accessibility of the data needed for the tests

30 25

response

25 20 15 10 5 0
SU FF IC IE N T IN SU FF IC IE N T EN T O D G O EX C EL G O O D

response
VE R Y

20 15 10 5 0 VERY EASY EASY MEDIUM DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT

Accurancy of results based on your experiences

25

Time required to complete the survey and the report

25

20

20

response

10

response

15

15

10

0
O D T O D EL EN IE NT IE NT O O

0 less than 30 minutes

G G IC IC

30 - 60 minutes

1-2 hours

2-3 hours

more than 4 hours

Other

EX C

VE R

SU FF

Figure 42: Result of questionnaires

Results from Spain Accuracy of the results: Satisfied 60% Accepted 30% Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 10%

Conclusion concerning the accuracy Evaluation Good Sufficient In-sufficient Denmark 27% 34% 39% Slovenia 40% 40% 20% Spain 60% 30% 10% Average 42% 38% 20%

IN

SU FF

45

The average figure of 80% of energy experts expressing that the E-TOOL rating is good or sufficient must be said to be satisfactory.

Conclusion on the quality of the E-TOOL rating In general and overall terms based on evaluation of comparison with energy audits and evaluation by energy experts the E-TOOL rating seems to be of a satisfactory quality.

16 Description of the contribution to advancement on the state of the art

Focus of E-TOOL development on Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe The energy audits and the implementation of energy saving measures are more advanced in the Northern part of Europe, such as in the partner countries Denmark and Austria. One of the motivations of starting-up E-TOOL was to use these long-term experiences and to transfer them to other countries. In this sense, it has to be underlined that that e-tool was developed with Special focus on buildings in Southern Europe and East/Southern part of Europe. It means that Etool needs modification or improvements to be used in Northern climate, as here the energy saving measures are more precise and not only of general character.

17 Feasibility and impact of E-TOOL

Introduction In this context is focused on the feasibility and the impact of the E-TOOL in relation to the objectives defined for the tool. By "feasibility" is meant E-TOOL's ability of fulfilling the functional objectives defined. By "impact" is meant E-TOOL's ability of making an impact in terms implementing energy savings in the building sector of existing buildings. The objectives for the functionality of the E-TOOL are: Operational/simple/practicable. Promote the implementation of the energy performance building directive. Promote the implementation of energy savings in the building sector.

The feasibility and impact have first of all been evaluated by the energy experts testing the tool. In connection to the testing activities the energy experts have filled out questionnaires concerning: Applicability of the tool, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. User (energy expert) friendliness, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. 46

Accessibility of the data needed for the tests, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Acceptance of the results by the client, giving characters of: Good/fair/improve. Time required for completing the survey and the reporting. Improvements of the tool.

17.1 Feed-back from workshops, training seminars

The feasibility and impact of E-TOOL have also been evaluated through the regional workshops carried out with attendance of regional energy experts, who haven given their feed back on the performance of the tool etc. Supplementary to the workshops have been carried out interviews with energy experts, e.g. from energy companies, with evaluation of the tool. The aim of the training seminars was to explain the usage of the E-TOOL to the energy auditors, technicians of public administration and energy companies. The main tasks therefore have been fulfilled, as a large number of implied and qualified people were reached and the philosophy and the practical aspects of the present project could be demonstrated. The two regional workshops aimed at the dissemination of the project results and the discussion mainly of the practicable aspects when applying E-TOOL. In the case of Demark and Slovenia, a special point of discussion was the comparison of E-TOOL to the national certificates. The general feed-back of the auditors that used E-TOOL was positive, despite of the fact that this tool could not cove all different aspects of the particular buildings in each partner country. For example, in the case of large building complex as public buildings, the user influence is important on the total energy consumption. This is especially important to sport complex building with high energy consumptions where it is worth to reduce the energy consumption from very high to lower levels. The interaction between the data collection, default values and software is in general a major factor for the accuracy of the rating. The operational and calculated rating methods have identified the same cost efficient saving measures, but the calculated savings and pay-back time are different. It was concluded that the differences could be caused by calculation models and default values. The difference between the metered and the calculated consumption is often seen by the danish experts and it could be explained with the software for calculated rating did not take the surplus energy from indirect sources into account. It was the general opinion that the simple structure of E-TOOL has maintained its reproducibility compared to the more detailed structure of the DK-software and reporting. In comparison with more complex and advanced rating tools using calculated rating has E-TOOL shown a shorter rating time and has identified the same potential for cost efficient energy savings in the buildings. The efficiency of the rating in time is depended on how detailed the examination and registration of the building is required. The calculated rating will in most cases require more data than the operational rating. The E-TOOL rating took about 1-2 hours for survey and reporting, whereas with calculated rating takes the process 3-4 hours and it is not feasible at all, because of the low fee, if not the energy 47

rating is combined with a condition rating of the building. The impact of E-TOOL compared with the DK-certificates is difficult to evaluate. E-TOOL has been developed with focus on Southern European buildings and modified to adapt the regional differences in climate and buildings. The experts draw the attention to the uncontrolled air filtration through building joints walls and roofs and other examples characteristic for the Northern climate. It was the experts opinion that the surveyor must have a good and broad knowledge about buildings and installations, combined with experience from the building industry. The more advanced and complex rating tool the better qualifications and training. Technical data about the building in form of drawings and other as-built documentation are rare available. The energy performance of a building depends on in general on climate envelope, efficiency of heating installations and use of buildings. The results of E-TOOL rating depend on representative and transparent data about building and accounted energy consumption. With regards to the experts acceptance of E-TOOL as a comprehensive tool for energy rating of existing buildings in comparison with the obligatory DK-certification it was the opinion, that for smaller, regular buildings as flats, apartments ect. The use of E-TOOL will be limited where a detailed data acquisition is required and none representative data for energy consumption are available. With additional modifications could E-TOOL meet the requirements to a additional rating tool for buildings in Northern Europe.

17.2 Feed-back from the market actors

The E-TOOL software was developed to be a simple and practicable tool that could be used by the energy auditors prior to training and instruction. The efficient tool is in general accepted from the market actors, such as energy auditors, public administration and private households as end user, as the results are clear and the proposed implementation of the energy saving measures are given also with an economical point of view. Therefore, the inclusion of the investment and pay-back time in the results and not only a certificate is important for the real implementation of the measures.

17.3 Training/instruction for using E-TOOL

An important indication if the E-TOOL is simple is that it is easy for energy experts to use the tool with little education or training activities. Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the results depends on the qualification of the auditor. Prior to the Testing with the E-TOOL in the 6 involved partner countries, training activities of the energy experts were carrying out. Each partner decided on his own how to train the experts and to choose the necessary academic background of the auditors. Country Austria Education activity Training seminars were carried out for 50 energy experts in energy management and cooling of commercial buildings. As part of the seminars E-TOOL was 48

Bulgaria Denmark Greece Slovenia Spain

presented. Training seminar for 15 energy experts presenting the E-TOOL methodology and software. The experts involved in testing the E-TOOL had brief instructions, and they were able to use it directly. They were instructed, if they had any questions. Mini seminars were carried out instructing the energy experts in the software and methodology of E-TOOL Short training instruction of energy experts - no problems for using E-TOOL is registered The testing of E-TOOL was carried out by energy experts from the local region. The public administration technicians of the local government as end users and a local company that is responsible for the implementation of the energy saving measures that are proposed for the public buildings were trained additionally.

From the experience of the regional training activities in connection to preparing regional testing activities it can be concluded that education of energy experts in using the E-TOOL can be made with a short instruction for one day or less. This is a clear indicator that the E-TOOL is a simple tool - for energy experts with experience in energy rating.

17.4 Time required for completing the carry out E-TOOL certification
The time used for completing an E-TOOL certification including survey and reporting to the end-user (house owner) gives a good indication, if the tool is simple and practicable. The time required is also an important success criteria defined for the E-TOOL, with a maximum of 2-3 hours for a standard dwelling. As part of the regional testing activities the energy experts carrying out the testing of the E-TOOL were asked to answer a question of: "Time required for completing the survey and the reporting". Denmark For Denmark, a typical value is to perform the test and survey on single dwellings was done within 1-2 hours in 95% of the cases. Greece In Greece, the time effort is reasonably higher due to the additional time effort for the data base establishment as well as due to the fact that more complex buildings were tested. Spain

49

In Spain the energy rating only included public buildings, most of them larger buildings with a poor data base that had to be established expressively for the project. Therefore, the target of E-TOOL rating within 2-3 hours can't be satisfied. The time spent was up to 7 hours with possibility of reducing to 5 hours by improving efficiency. General overview From the testing activities it can be concluded, taking the limited number of tests into account, which the E-TOOL is able to carry out energy rating within the objective of 2-3 man hours. This only counts for "standardised buildings". Nevertheless, the comparison between the countries does not give a representative picture. The most important factor is the availability of the input data and the complexity of the building on the time that has to be spent for the complete test procedure. The following table gives an overview on the time spent in some representative partner countries.

Time 0,5 - 1 1- 2 2 -3 3-4 <4 Building type

DK 2 95 2 1 0 single dwellings

Slovenia 28 43 17 10 2 Residential buildings

ES 0 15 40 40 5 public buildings

Greece 19 22 30 22 7 public buildings

17.5 Reproducibility
Another relevant evaluation criterion is "reproducibility" meaning that the E-TOOL rating leads to the same result independent of the user, requiring that all options of the tool are specified in a concrete and un-ambiguous way with no open ends. This element has not been evaluated specifically, but the simplicity of the tools indicates that the tool has a good reproducibility - when used on more standardised buildings with standard utilization, where the assumptions of effects of energy savings can be expected to be obtained, by definition with a deviation.

17.6 Comparison of rating methodologies E-TOOL operational rating to assessment rating

One additional aspect that has been evaluated with respect to the results obtained with E-TOOL, in two partners countries (Denmark and Slovenia) is was possible to compare the outcome of E-TOOL with 50

other national certifications. This comparison gives an indication on the quality of the developed tool within the frame of the present contract as a simple and user-friendly tool. The results of E-TOOL rating of single dwellings in Denmark and Slovenia indicate a good consistency in the overall picture and trends of the two different rating methodologies calculated rating and operational rating. Most notable is the difference between the metered and the calculated consumption, the same results can be seen from other comparisons in DK of the calculated and metered consumption, they also shows a lower metered consumption than calculated. For both ratings is it clear that the eldest buildings have the largest saving potential and shortest pay-back time.

Comparison of E-TOOL rating and DK-certificates Single Dwellings - energy consumption before and after saving
Left collumn DK (calculated) - Right collumn E-TOOL (metered)

250 200
kWh/m

50 40 30 20 10 0 00-20 20-40 40-60 60-70 70-80 80-00

Year of Contruction

DK-certif.
Before After % saving

150 100 50 0

E-TOOL
pay-back Before After % saving pay-back

Figure 44: Comparison of E-Tool results with assessment audit Single Dwellings (Denmark)

In the case of Slovenia, the E-TOOL results were compared with respect to the calculated energy savings.

18 Support of the implementation of energy savings in building by E-TOOL energy rating

18.1 Criteria for the evaluation of the implementation
51

The overall objective of the project has been to develop a tool, which can promote the implementation of the EU building performance building directive. This objective has been "translated" into developing a tool, which can be applied for efficient energy rating of existing buildings. Above has been described how the E-TOOL performs in relation to: Accessibility of input data Generation of proposals for energy saving measures Generating bench marks of energy consumptions after implementing energy saving measures Need for education of energy experts Time required for the E-TOOL rating Additionally to these evaluations of the single elements of the E-TOOL has also been carried out an evaluation of the overall performance of the tool in relation to: Acceptance of results by the clients Accuracy of results - based on the energy experts' experiences.

The evaluation has been carried through the energy experts carrying out the tests of the tool filling out a questionnaire.

18.2 Acceptance of results by clients

On important aspect in the evaluation process of the E-TOOL project is the acceptance of the outcome of the results and the functioning of the tool by the experts. In general terms, it can be concluded that the clients acceptance of the results is good.

Acceptance Good Fair In-sufficient

Denmark 75% 22% 3%

Greece 52% 32% 16%

Slovenia 38% 55% 7%

Spain 90% 5% 5%

Results of clients acceptance of the results In the following, some examples are given that were supplied by the project partners. Greece The main reason of the E-Tools relative high acceptance from its users, is the simplicity of the tool and the fact that the completion of an audit does not require as many working hours like other more complex software do, demanding the input of data relative to energy use, geometrical features and buildings use. Such methodologies aim in simulating the buildings operation and usually do not 52

incorporate any data related to the financial evaluation of the buildings operation and the measures proposed for the improvement of its energy behaviour. Thus E-Tool proved to be in advance, providing very useful information regarding the pay-back period of the measures proposed by the auditors, helping the financial directors of the services to have draft estimation on the economics of the interventions. The presentation of the financial appraisal for a number of occasions proved to be a strong motivation to the clients to take into strong consideration E-Tools results. The relative high level of the tools acceptance is presented at the following graph.

Figure 45: Results from questionnaires with experts evaluation (Greece) Slovenia External experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested E-TOOL in their ever day work expressed their opinion about the tool. As and additional feature, the partners from Slovenia developed an own new webpage that was used to collect the experts opinion. This is an important aspect to be considered. Spain
Satisfied Accepted Not sufficient (improvements necessary) 90% 5% 5%

The E-TOOL and the corresponding activities are highly accepted by the client. Acceptance of the results by client was mostly very acceptable like a clearness of results too. The end user, in this case the local municipality, was generally spoken satisfied with the results of the E-TOOL. Nevertheless, the main draw-backs came from the availability of the input data. In some buildings it was very timeintensive to get all the needed data. In some cases (special buildings) E-TOOL was considered not to be sufficient enough and it was considered to be a too simple tool.

53

18.3 Accuracy of the results

In this context, the evaluation is not made by actually carrying out precise energy audits to compare the E-TOOL energy rating. In stead is used a "subjective" evaluation method based on the energy expert's experience. The "audit-evaluation" has been made by comparing energy audits and E-TOOL ratings, mentioned previously in the report. In the case of Slovenia, the external experts from ENSVET energy advisory network that tested ETOOL in their ever day work expressed their opinion about the tool and as well on the accuracy of the obtained results. For this purpose, the web-site http://www.gi-zrmk.si/EU_projekti/E-tool was used to collect the experts results of testing and their opinions. Topics: Scope and work programme General invitation to experts to participate in testing Pole (to submitted via internet) A general overview that came out of the questionnaire and the opinion of the experts are summarized in following table.

Accuracy Good Fair In-sufficient

Denmark 42% 22% 36%

Greece 65% 24% 11%

Slovenia 39% 39% 22%

Spain 60% 30% 10%

Overview on the accuracy of results The evaluation of the accuracy of the results obtained by E-TOOL is not scope of the work of the present project. In order to precise an absolute comparison of the obtained results by E-TOOL based on the operational rating method with other methods or national certification standards based on assessment rating, it is recommended in further studies within the frame of the EU network to define the criteria on the accuracy of the results. The experts that used in the different countries the E-TOOL expressed their singular and subjective option on the tool based on their own experiences while working with other methods and came to the conclusion that the results that have been obtained are within a representative margin and therefore were considered to be accurate.

54

19 Overall evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating

Introduction Above has been described the results of the evaluation of E-TOOL for energy rating with respect to different specific evaluation criteria. In this section it is the intention to summarize the results of evaluation, to discuss the results and to make recommendations on the utilization of E-TOOL, and in general the measures (operational) rating methodology for energy rating of existing buildings.

Summarization of evaluation of single elements.

Evaluation criteria Bench marking of energy consumption Accessibility of input data Guidelines for energy saving measures

Energy performance after implementing energy savings Accuracy - compare with energy Acceptable for energy saving measures and energy audit performance after implementing energy saving measures Need of education Small need of education Time required Around 2/3 < 3 hours Acceptance by clients Around 90% good/acceptable Accuracy of results 80% good/acceptable.

Results In general specific bench mark data are not available, therefore bench marking is not included in E-TOOL Positive feed-back Top 10 energy measures identified, U-values etc. are fixed, output for investment costs and energy savings acceptable for standard buildings Acceptable results when comparing with energy audits

"Mark" To be improved Acceptable Good for typical buildings Acceptable Acceptable

Good Good Good Acceptable

Based on the results of the evaluation of the single elements evaluation criteria the E-TOOL seems acceptable for energy rating of existing standard buildings as most single dwellings and especially block-dwellings, but also shops, offices and hotels have shown acceptable results. Overall evaluation for each country Austria Although it is in some cases challenging to obtain the building data for completing the e-tool, it is a useful instrument to asses to the building owner the potential of energy efficiency measures. 55

Often the results have to be interpreted. The energy experts shall have the know-how and experience to clarify about or assess data, eventual not correct calculations, inter etc. For doing that a high level of know-how and experience is required. For the success of the e-tool it is crucial that qualified energy experts use it. Therefore a focus was put on the qualification of the advisers. The training seminars organised were successful and ensured that a number of experts are able to use the e-tool. Bulgaria The real energy consumption in multi-dwelling buildings in Bulgaria is not relevant for testing the building, as many households do not heat the whole dwelling or maintain very low temperature in the rooms. When using the data from the energy bills it appears that the building does not need any improvement. This is because we assess not the building, but the user behaviour For energy certification in Bulgaria we have to assess the whole building, its qualities and energy characteristics. It is not possible to make this assessment flat by flat. It is very difficult to collect the data regarding the energy consumption. There is always something missing (either invoices for heating or for electricity) Building can be assessed as a whole with regard to the heat energy consumption, as there is available data from the district heating companies. But it is not possible to have such data for consumption of electricity as each flat has its own electrical meter. The E-TOOL is very useful at the beginning of the refurbishment process, as different energy saving measures can be easily assessed. The E-TOOL is also useful for public buildings as schools and hospitals were the indoor temperature should reach a minimal required comfort and the building is managed by one organisation.

Denmark The energy performance of a building is in general related to: Condition of the climate envelope Efficiency of heating/cooling system The use of buildings

The E-TOOL tests has shown, that the large potential for improved energy performance is not only related to the climate envelope, but also related to the efficiency of the heating/cooling systems. Modern technology such as coated window glazes, condensation boilers and automatic temperature control can with relative low costs be implemented in the existing buildings and improve the energy performance, whereas additional isolation often is costly and difficult to built into existing building structure. Uncontrolled air filtration through building elements, membranes, building elements is a frequent reason for increased energy consumption and discomfort. An increase in air change from 0.5 to 1.5 will increase the energy consumption with 50-70 kWh/M2/year. 56

The use of handheld infrared cameras have increased the efficiency and the quality of the rating and has increased the quality of the certificates by detecting hidden air leakages and poor insulation. The accuracy of the operational rating depends on the quality of the metered data. In such cases where non-metered energy i.e. firewood or sun panels are used to a large extent can an estimation of the nonmetered energy be used. Unusual use of the buildings can also lead to inaccuracy in the rating. The limitations in use of E-TOOL are mostly related to irregular use of buildings and poor data of energy consumption.

Greece E Tool is an effective rating tool for public buildings that either have simple forms, or for more massive and complex building that can be easily divided into more simple ones. Like all operational tools, the acquisition of energy data and /or the datas allocation into different buildings sectors and use, is the most crucial factor for the programs reliable use. Though E Tool was not tested in private buildings in Greece, it is believed that the tool will be more applicable at this sector and especially at private housing i.e. apartments. Such buildings have simpler forms, the acquisition of the energy data is much simpler and of course the time required to complete the survey is less. Further more the owners of the buildings are more motivated into taking into consideration the proposed energy saving measures and implementing them, since this has a direct financial impact upon them. It is the experts aim to try to implement E Tool to domestic buildings and other small scale private buildings. The projects partner comments on the tools use at similar private buildings will provide the essential background to use it efficiently with reliability. Slovenia Functional aspects of the tool are very acceptable because of easily entered the data into the program. Time required to complete the survey and the report, is dependent upon accessibility of the data needed for the test and type of the building but normally it is between half an hour to two hours. Acceptance of the results by client was mostly declared to be very acceptable, as well as a clearness of results. Accessibility of the data needed for the tests was in many cases difficult, especially in blocks of dwellings (electricity consumption is subject to individual bills). Accuracy and reliability of the results are dependent on the precision Spain The E-TOOL itself is considered to be a fast tool for the energy audit. The E-TOOL could be improved for the local aspects while taking into account the different usage of the buildings and the users habits. The E-TOOL might be split in different parts for different heated and cooled zones of the same 57

building. The dependency on the input data for the operational rating based on invoices showed additionally the influence of the users habits on the energy consumption. It was possible to establish benchmark data for buildings with the same kind of usage and building characteristics.

20 E-TOOL energy rating - discussion and recommendations

Is E-TOOL operational rating a relevant methodology and tool? The evaluation of the testing of the E-TOOL, show that the tool is relevant for rating of energy savings in buildings with regular use The CEN proposed standard concerned with energy rating in connection to the implementation of the energy performance building directive is stating that both measured (operational) and calculated (asset) energy rating of buildings can be applied, there is a possibility of choosing one of the 2 methodologies. The CEN-proposal describes that the main aim of the simplified method of energy rating is to combine high transparency, reproducibility and robustness with adequate (balanced) accuracy. The answer to the question, if the E-TOOL operational rating is a relevant methodology and tool for energy rating of existing buildings, depends on what is the aim of the energy rating. If the aim of the rating is bench marking of the (inherent) energy standard of the building, independent of the users, then calculated (asset) rating may be used.. If the objective of the energy rating of the existing building is to make rating of the potential for energy saving measures the results of the evaluation tests of the E-TOOL indicate that the measured (operational) methodology is relevant - for "standardised" buildings as typical (most) single dwellings and housing block dwellings, offices, shops, hotels and other types of "standardised" buildings. Especially when the cost of rating-parameter is included, it seems evident that the operational rating methodology is to preferred for energy rating of existing "standardised" buildings The effect of using cost efficient rating methodologies is also that it potentially leaves room for including direct communication with the house owners of the results of the rating. This is seen as a vital element, if the objective is to implement the potential energy measures identified (this seems not to be the objective of some of the operating energy rating arrangements). Sensitivity studies carried out by EBM-Consult (NL) indicate that a very advanced asses (energy rating) model with a high degree of accuracy that requires detailed and complex data input using little default values, may lead to very inaccurate data acquisition. The accumulating inaccuracy through the steps of rating can sum up to a total of 45% in extreme, with a common inaccuracy of 20 to 30%".

58

21 Reduction of barriers and support to policy implementation

Increase of subventions for public buildings This depends on one hand side on the cost efficiency of investment itself. In case of public buildings, this is an important aspect as the budget has to be foreseen in the previsions on the expenses for the following year of the local government. The limit of the application of the energy saving measures is the available and always limited budget of public authorities. Here, it is important to underline that the European Commission, together with the national authorities, will dedicate more financial aids for the general improvement on the energy consumption of public buildings. The European Commission should further promote the concrete implementation of the proposed measures that with E-TOOL are only proposals, but no realization. Reduction of barriers - Increase of subventions for private buildings For private buildings, the local and regional government will have to establish more financial aids, subvention or low-interest credits so that the initial investment could be reduced. As a positive example, in some partner countries, such as local governments, motivate private house owner with tax reductions when building new low-energy houses on the initial investment as well as on the annual building taxes. The general vision is more ambitious and therefore the tax reduction was implemented. On the other side, the pay-back time is an important decision taking criteria for private households and hotels that were tested, as the depreciation of the investment is to be considered also in the tax declaration.

22 Resume of achieved results

Data collection The necessary data were collected from each of the partner countries. The main data that are needed for the energy audit with E-TOOL are as follows: Historical energy consumption data Buildings characteristics (age, construction plans, windows, isolations, walls) State of heating and cooling system Description of the electrical installations Description of different zones within one building complex. Prices of most relevant energy saving measures

The E-TOOL - Development of a new software tool based on the operational rating method The E-TOOL project developed a simple and practical toolset, with the purpose of increase the efficiency of energy performance rating of existing buildings. The saving measures were calculated on 59

the basis of the actual energy consumption operational rating and on basis of benchmarks for energy consumption for different categories of buildings. Regional tests The tests have been prepared and performed by the individual partners. The energy-toolset that was carried out in 6 nations and in 3 European climate regions, South, South/East and North and was focussed on different main categories of buildings: Domestic, commercial (shops, restaurants etc.) and public buildings, giving an overall coverage of different types of buildings. The toolset was developed for and tested against public buildings in Spain, Greece and Slovenia. The toolset for commercial buildings was applied in Austria, using experiences from the 35,000 certifications. For residential buildings in Denmark, using experiences from 200,000 certifications, in Slovenia for residential buildings using experiences from energy audits, and in Bulgaria the toolset was applied on residential concrete building blocks. Test certificates One of the mayor outcomes from the projects is the large number of rated buildings with E-TOOL. The test and certificates of E-TOOL are totally completed as planned to comprise performance certificates for: Slovenia 500 residential buildings and 50 public buildings Bulgaria 600 residential buildings Greece 100 public buildings Austria 50 commercial buildings. Spain 100 public buildings. Denmark 1000 residential buildings. With the tests, it was possible to determine the energy performance before and after energy retrofitting for different categories of buildings. Evaluation of the E-TOOL tests The evaluation of the E-TOOL tests comprises the reaction of the end users on the achieved results, such as: Check-list User friendliness (functional aspects) of the tool Time required completing the survey and clients report Acceptance of the results by client Accessibility of the data needed for the tests Accuracy and reliability of the results Improvements to the tool (also with respect to local building practice and climate).

A simple and operational toolset for operational rating of existing buildings 60

Guidelines for typical energy savings based on benchmarks and calculation of pay-back time on investment Increase efficiency for energy rating It is a user-friendly tool that can be downloaded together with the handbook at the project web-site www.e.tool.org. The handbook of the project enables the end user of the ETOOL to apply the tool in the most efficient way.

23 Lessons learned
The E-TOOL has been tested in six European countries, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Slovenia on more than 1,000 buildings, such as single family dwellings, apartment blocks, schools and offices. The experience has shown that 90% of the on-site ratings can be performed within 1-2 hours with acceptance of the results from 60% of the clients. The experts testing E-TOOL had a wide range of qualifications from academic degrees to trained senior craftsmen. With the combination of measure energy consumption and a simple rating tool, can the rating be performed by experienced persons after short training in the use of E-TOOL. It is essential that the experts have experience from working with energy savings or building construction. The results from the workshops carried show that the among market actors, there is a big interest for the E-TOOL being seen as an efficient tool in removing market barriers for implementation of energy saving measures in the existing building stock. The best results with E-TOOL rating are achieved on buildings with regular structure and where the data are transparent and representative. To sum up on lessons learned. The E-TOOL and the operational rating of energy performance in the existing building stock can make a difference in implementation of energy savings. The E-TOOL project has experienced a large difference in access to transparent and reliable building data in the European countries, from regions with almost zero data to regions with high valuable data.

24 Recommendations
Instead of trying to develop a rating tool which combine the best thing from the measured (operational) and the calculated rating is it better to introduce separately an operational tool and a calculation tool in 61

the national certification scheme and then leave it to the expert to decide or set up some rules for which rating tool to use the advanced or simple. The simple measured energy rating, e.g. as the E-TOOL rating, seems to be the best the rating, if the objective is cost efficient to identify potential energy saving measures. With a limited input of resources it has been possible to develop the E-TOOL to a level, where it has got positive evaluation results, e.g. on users acceptance of the results. So there is established a good basis for improvement of the - E-TOOL.

62