Primary energy consumption is a metric that is commonly used worldwide, including by the European Commission. Most experts agree though that the metric is not fit for purpose when it comes to measuring energy use in buildings.

Energy accounting is a challenge. The dominant method until now is the input-reliant system of “primary energy,” which measures the energy content of coal, oil, gas, solar or wind before their conversion into electricity or thermal energy. For fossil fuels, much of the energy is lost in the conversion process, while renewables have little to no conversion losses.

This reference to primary energy can be found in all EU climate and energy legislation, including the ‘Fit for 55’ package of laws currently under discussion in Brussels, which aims for a 55% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

However, some are questioning the relevance of using primary energy use as a metric when it comes to buildings, which can be both producers and consumers of energy. In fact, most experts consider the current energy labelling system for buildings to be inaccurate and even unhelpful when it comes to measuring climate performance.

“Fundamentally, primary energy use is the wrong metric to focus on. Not a single consumer knows what it refers to, or cares about it,” says Sam Hamels, an energy economics researcher at the university of Gent in Belgium.

The reliance on the primary energy metric becomes especially problematic when looking at the assessment of “zero-emission buildings” under the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which is currently up for review.

“The use of only one requirement is misleading,” warns the International Energy Agency’s Energy in Buildings and Communities (EBC) initiative, referring to the global best-in class zero-emission building standard EN ISO 52000-1.

Read the full article here.