Some key general conclusions derived for all the features are:
- An underlying need for all the features is the establishment of right conditions and quality assurance of EPC databases at national level giving access to public and other relevant stakeholders.
- New or revised EPCs must not be burdened with a lot of new information for the end-user. Information on the first page must be prioritised for the end-user application. Thus, it should be considered which information is presented on the EPC (on paper) and which on the digital EPC or DBL.
- New features must not overload the assessor’s work which risks the quality, cost and reliability of EPCs.
- Automation and simplification of procedures are necessary for overcoming major issues regarding interoperability and data exchange.
- User-friendliness of features is highlighted as one of the most important drivers during test of all features and more research is needed in this regard, because so far, most features were tested with experts, not with end users.
- EPCs must be coherently linked with other instruments such as DBL and building renovation passports to increase their impact.
- Training is required for some features to upskill and improve the competence of the workforce responsible for delivering EPCs. Some features do not require at all, while others have methods either simple or complex with different training needs.
- New features must be voluntary in the initial stages of implementation and should be integrated once they showcase acceptance and demand in the building sector.
- All the features are compatible for different building typologies and construction period. Some features have two calculation methods, one more simple and less reliable, while other complex and more reliable and each method can fit different building typologies (e.g. detailed SRI is needed for large commercial buildings, CARP and CORP of the comfort tool can be used for school, office and residential buildings)
- Calculation methods were adjusted for individual test countries. However, this presented challenges in different aspects such as missing databases to complete calculations, measurement issues, regional restrictions due to Covid-19, etc.
- All the features have the potential to increase the uptake of renovation if implemented, however, this varies for features that are more directed toward public authorities
- Stakeholders consider GDPR to be a major barrier for many of the features. However, it requires careful evaluation at Member State level for the successful implementation, since it can be shown that the understanding GDPR issues in the context of EPC data is very different in different EU Member States
- It is important to establish partnerships and alliances between public and private stakeholders to overcome the market barriers and enable affordable solutions for the implementation of the features
- Some features demonstrate an increase in cost burden for the end-users of EPC marginally, while some need specific mechanisms to be set up for functioning (e.g. enhanced recommendations, EPC databases)
