Webinar Recap: “Switching on the EPBD: Launch of the eu.bac Guidelines”
On February 24th, eu.bac hosted the webinar “Switching on the EPBD: Launch of the eu.bac Guidelines“.
This event focused on implementing the smart building provisions of the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and marked the official launch of the eu.bac guidelines to support EU Member States, inspectors, and building professionals.
We heard from:
- Bogdan Atanasiu (DG Energy – European Commission), who reminded the audience that the 2024 recast of the EPBD provides a robust legal basis for smart systems and recognises their role in making our buildings more energy efficient and more comfortable for inhabitants, in reducing the GHG emissions and in offering the necessary flexibility to the electricity grids. Digitalisation is a cornerstone of EPBD implementation, but overcoming market and integration challenges are essential for a smooth uptake and for reaching the expected benefits.
- Gusts Kossovics (eu.bac), Yehia Kamel (Johnson Controls), Francesco Rossi (Schneider Electric), Reto Wälchli (Belimo Climate Foundation) and Jon Berggren (Danfoss), who introduced the Guidelines and presented real-life applications underscoring the potential of BACS in improving energy performance, comfort and indoor environmental quality.
- Cindy Devacht (Brussels Environment), Nuno Baptista (ADENE) and Vaidota Ludavičienė (Lithuania’s Ministry of Environment), who identified the biggest challenges in national implementation.
Watch the webinar recording here and download the slides here.
Key Takeaways
Member State representatives highlighted the key barriers to implementing the EPBD on the ground:
- Existing buildings still represent the biggest challenge
- Skill gaps at multiple levels (inspectors, designers, HVAC consultants, installers and administrators)
- Lack of practical compliance guidance
- Coherence between SRI, BACS & EPC requirements
- Residential buildings need tailored, lower-cost solutions
On the industry side, experts emphasised key recommendations:
- Start with monitoring (you cannot optimise what you cannot see)
- Hydronic balancing is essential, not optional
- Interoperability and open protocols are key
- Education is needed across the whole chain (HVAC designers, installers, authorities)
- Small steps in existing buildings can unlock major savings
As we approach the transposition deadline, eu.bac remains committed to supporting Member States in the process, with practical solutions for the implementation.
Q&A
After an insightful discussion with industry leaders and Member State representatives, we missed the chance to answer some of the audience’s questions. Find eu.bac’s answers below:
1) Can “one-system buildings” be exempted from BACS based on technical/economic feasibility?
The EPBD trigger for non-residential BACS is about system size (kW thresholds), not the number of systems. A blanket exemption just because a building has only heating or only cooling doesn’t match the Directive’s logic. “Technical and economic feasibility” can only be applied via a transparent method / case-by-case assessment, rather than a broad carve-out.
2) Is lighting quality part of IEQ under the EPBD?
The EPBD’s IEQ definition explicitly mentions parameters like temperature, humidity, ventilation rate, and contaminants. Lighting quality isn’t explicitly listed there. That said, under Art. 13, Par. 4 Member States are given the responsability to set requirements for the implementation of adequate indoor environmental quality standards in buildings in order to maintain a healthy indoor climate. They should consider lighting in this process. The parameters they will monitor, and lighting is also addressed through separate lighting control requirements.
3) Why does the EU approach to BACS and SRI feel slow, if decarbonisation is urgent?
A lot of this comes down to scaling reliably across 27 Member States: the EPBD sets mandatory capability requirements (like BACS functions and interoperability) and introduces tools like SRI in a staged way to avoid fragmentation and “27 different versions.” The bigger takeaway from today is: the real accelerator is clear compliance mechanisms + verifiable evidence, not just ambition on paper.
4) Should Digital Twins be required, at least for new buildings, to prove performance and ROI?
Digital Twins can be very useful for credible ROI, commissioning, and continuous optimisation. But the EPBD currently focuses on required capabilities and evidence in operation, not prescribing a specific tool. In the near term, Digital Twins are more likely to appear through procurement requirements, guidance, and best-practice frameworks, before any “hard mandate.”
5) Interoperability: can monitoring hardware work with multiple software platforms (not just the vendor’s own)?
This is a core EPBD intent: BACS should support communication and interoperability across different devices and manufacturers. In practice, that means implementation should avoid lock-in by enabling multi-vendor integration (e.g., open protocols/APIs, accessible data, exportable evidence). Without this, compliance at scale becomes unnecessarily expensive and hard.
