News

The Energy Efficient Mortgages NL Hub has reviewed the European Commission’s proposed amendments to the Climate Delegated Act and submitted a consolidated set of comments on behalf of its members. Our central message is clear: while the consultation aims to simplify the EU Taxonomy and make it more workable in practice, the current draft risks doing the opposite for residential mortgage lending.  Our analysis, prepared with input from the members and affiliated members of the EEM NL Hub, concludes that the proposed changes may reduce rather than increase the volume of EU Taxonomy-aligned residential mortgage loans. If implemented, we expect the new CDA wording to make compliance more difficult for new construction, post-2020 properties and residential renovation finance, with negative implications for Green Asset Ratios and the broader development of green funding markets.  At the same time, we do recognise a number of positive steps in the proposal. We welcome i) the addition of ’acquisition’ to activities 7.3 and 7.6, ii) the general intention to align the EU Taxonomy more closely with EPBD IV, and iii) the introduction of a deep renovation route under activity 7.7. However, in our view these improvements are too limited to solve the underlying usability problems with respect to residential property finance.  A core concern is that Section 7 still appears to be designed mainly from a corporate perspective, while residential homeowners are the actual counterparties in most mortgage lending transactions. The current framework insufficiently reflects how household lending works in practice, not only for the financing of new constructions in the Netherlands but also where loans finance multiple renovation measures at once, or where institutions must work with fractions of loans that cannot realistically be separated in funding and reporting.    We are also concerned about the timing mismatch between the EU Taxonomy and EPBD IV. The proposed shift from NZEB-based criteria to Zero-Emission Building requirements for new buildings is, in our view, premature. For residential properties, national implementation frameworks and data infrastructure will in many Member States not be operational before 2030. As currently drafted, this would create a period in which compliance becomes legally and technically unclear, especially for post-2020 buildings that would need to be assessed against new standards that are not yet fully available in practice.    The same issue arises for air-tightness testing and whole life-cycle GWP disclosure under activity 7.1. The draft wording lowers the air-tightness testing threshold and broadens its application, even though many Member States do not require such testing for residential buildings and the necessary evidence is often not available at building-unit level. Likewise, the proposed GWP disclosure requirements go further than what is currently operational under EPBD IV for residential buildings, making compliance impossible in many cases until 2030 when GWP implementation will be required under EPBD IV.    For renovation, the EEM NL Hub remains concerned that the proposal does not introduce a genuinely workable new criterion for households. The current structure still relies too heavily on the concept of major renovation, strict primary energy demand calculations and fractional loan attribution, all of which are difficult to verify and operationalise in retail lending. We therefore argue for a more practical approach, including qualification routes linked to EPC improvement, Renovation Passports, National Building Renovation Plans and Minimum Energy Performance Standards under EPBD IV.    We also question the practical value of the newly proposed 60% primary energy demand reduction route in activity 7.7. Although the intention is positive, our assessment is that this threshold is so demanding that in many cases it will simply lead to the same outcome as the existing EPC A or top-15% routes. That means it may do little to expand the universe of green assets in practice, especially for properties that need staged renovation pathways rather than one deep renovation step.  Another major concern is DNSH. For residential lending, the proposed changes do not fundamentally resolve the problem that most DNSH criteria are impossible to assess at household or building-unit level. Public data sources do not contain the information needed to verify waste, pollution, biodiversity and similar criteria for individual properties. In our view, DNSH should be treated far more proportionately for residential mortgage lending, with greater reliance on national legal frameworks and public data sources where available.    In its response, the EEM NL Hub therefore calls on the European Commission to make the EU Taxonomy more coherent with national EPBD IV implementation, to provide interim solutions for the 2027–2029 period, to introduce workable renovation criteria for households, to clarify the treatment of post-2020 buildings and grandfathering, and to improve the process around interpretative Q&As and guidance.    Our position is not to weaken the EU Taxonomy, but to strengthen its real-world impact. If the framework is to channel capital at scale into the renovation and decarbonisation of Europe’s housing stock, it must be both ambitious and operational. An EU Taxonomy that cannot be applied in practice will not accelerate the market. A workable EU Taxonomy can.

At the recent EEM HUB NL ALV session, Robert Dijksterhuis, Envoy for Sustainable Construction at the Dutch Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning, presented an overview of how the Netherlands is approaching the implementation of EPBD IV and related regulation. His presentation gives members a useful picture of the legislative timeline, the policy choices ahead and the expected impact on buildings, labels, renovation pathways and market actors.  A central message in the presentation is that the Dutch implementation will take place in tranches . According to the Ministry, this phased approach is needed because not all EPBD IV obligations apply immediately, while some major elements such as zero-emission building requirements and whole life-cycle global warming potential need further methodological and regulatory development. The Netherlands wants to use that time to make well-founded choices while still ensuring that the legislation is adopted on time.  The planning shown in the presentation is especially relevant. The first tranche , scheduled for 29 May 2026 , covers solar energy, technical building systems including GACS, adjustments to the energy label and inspections of installations. The second tranche , planned for 1 January 2027 , addresses zero-emission requirements for new public buildings from 2028 and the obligation to calculate whole life-cycle global warming potential from 2028. The third tranche , targeted for 1 July 2027 , includes minimum energy performance standards for non-residential buildings and zero-emission requirements for existing buildings. The fourth tranche , foreseen for 1 January 2030 , introduces a modernised energy performance methodology, recalibrated zero-emission thresholds, limits for whole life-cycle global warming potential and a new label system.  The presentation also gives substantial attention to the National Building Renovation Plan (NBRP) . Robert explains that the Dutch draft plan describes how the Netherlands intends to meet the EPBD end goal for 2050. The concept version was submitted to the European Commission on 19 March 2026, the public consultation is open until 1 May 2026 , and the final Dutch NBRP must be submitted by the end of December 2026. He also shows that the plan is not only strategic, but highly concrete in scope: it covers the national building stock, roadmaps to 2030, 2040 and 2050, policy measures, investment needs, ZEB thresholds, minimum performance standards, renovation pathways for homes and consultation.  One of the most striking parts of the presentation is the scale of the housing challenge. The slides indicate that between 2020 and 2050, measures are needed in around 7.5 million homes , including about 16 million insulation measures  and the replacement of more than 7 million gas boilers . By 2030, the expectation is that 35% of the insulation challenge for homes will have been completed, all rental homes with labels E, F and G will have improved to at least label D, and around 1.4 million homes  will be gas-free or hybrid. The remaining challenge from 2030 to 2050 is still substantial.  The presentation is also highly relevant for members working with energy labels . It explains that in 2026 only limited adjustments will be made to the label format and information shown, including a label obligation for monuments upon sale or rental. From 2030 , however, a new energy label system will apply, with a scale from A to G and an indicator based on total primary energy use  rather than fossil primary energy use. Buildings meeting the zero-emission building level will also have this indicated on the label. Because labels remain valid for ten years, Robert notes that the market will likely have to work with two different label systems side by side until 2040.  Another important development is the renovation passport , expected in 2026 . In the presentation, this is positioned as a practical route map for existing buildings towards zero-emission status. It will be added to the existing tailored advice approach and will become a renovation passport when the advice meets the required goals. The logic is structured in three steps: first the insulation standard, then sustainable heat, and finally renewable energy. The slides also note that this information will be accessible through EP-online and MijnOverheid.  Robert also clarifies the relationship between the renovation passport and the current energy label. Both are prepared by qualified energy advisers under certified companies, both are based on the NTA8800 methodology and both are stored in EP-online. The difference is that the energy label describes the current state of a building and gives standard recommendations, while the renovation passport uses that starting point to create a route towards an emission-free building. That distinction is especially relevant for organisations active in financing, customer journeys and renovation guidance.  The presentation further highlights methodological changes. The current NTA8800  method remains in use until 2030, with smaller changes in May 2026, including better valuation of storage, a worse energy performance outcome for buildings that do not comply with legal requirements for building automation and control systems, and the introduction of new indicators on the energy label. From 2030 onward, a more modernised method is planned, which should better reflect actual building-related energy use, installation performance, recent climate developments, updated primary energy factors and the role of storage and automation systems.  A final important theme is whole life-cycle global warming potential (wlc-gwp) . The presentation explains that this concerns both embodied and operational emissions over the life cycle of a building. Calculations are expected from 2028 , with thresholds and target values from 2030 , and outcomes will appear on labels for new buildings. Robert notes that the Dutch framework already has similarities through the MPG methodology, but also points to key differences, especially the inclusion of operational emissions in use and the focus specifically on greenhouse gas emissions.  For EEM HUB NL members, this presentation is valuable because it connects European regulation to the actual Dutch implementation route. It shows that the coming years will not only bring new requirements, but also new instruments, new data needs and new implications for market processes. For organisations active in mortgage lending, renovation finance, building advice, software, compliance and customer support, these developments will directly affect how sustainability measures are assessed, explained and financed in practice.  Nederlands Robert Dijksterhuis schetst de Nederlandse aanpak voor de implementatie van EPBD IV Tijdens de ALV van de EEM HUB NL gaf Robert Dijksterhuis, gezant duurzaam bouwen bij het ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke Ordening, een toelichting op de manier waarop Nederland werkt aan de implementatie van EPBD IV en aanverwante regelgeving. Zijn presentatie geeft leden een helder beeld van de wetgevende planning, de beleidskeuzes die nog gemaakt moeten worden en de impact op gebouwen, labels, renovatiepaden en marktpartijen.  Een centrale boodschap in de presentatie is dat de Nederlandse implementatie in tranches  zal plaatsvinden. Volgens het ministerie is die gefaseerde aanpak nodig omdat niet alle verplichtingen uit EPBD IV direct ingaan, terwijl belangrijke onderdelen zoals de eisen voor emissievrije gebouwen en het aardopwarmingsvermogen over de hele levenscyclus nog nadere uitwerking vragen. Nederland wil die tijd benutten om deze onderdelen zorgvuldig uit te werken, maar tegelijk wel zorgen voor tijdige vastlegging in wet- en regelgeving.  De planning uit de presentatie is daarbij bijzonder relevant. De eerste tranche , gepland op 29 mei 2026 , gaat over zonne-energie, technische bouwsystemen inclusief GACS, aanpassingen aan het energielabel en keuringen van installaties. De tweede tranche , voorzien per 1 januari 2027 , ziet op emissievrije nieuwbouw voor overheidsinstanties vanaf 2028 en de rekenplicht voor het aardopwarmingsvermogen over de levenscyclus vanaf 2028. De derde tranche , gepland op 1 juli 2027 , bevat minimale grenswaarden voor utiliteitsbouw en emissievrije bestaande bouw. De vierde tranche , voorzien per 1 januari 2030 , omvat een gemoderniseerde bepalingsmethode voor energieprestatie, een herijking van de ZEB-eisen, grenswaarden voor wlc-gwp en een nieuwe labelsystematiek.  De presentatie besteedt ook veel aandacht aan het National Building Renovation Plan (NBRP) . Robert licht toe dat in dit plan wordt beschreven hoe Nederland in 2050 wil voldoen aan het einddoel van de EPBD. De conceptversie is op 19 maart 2026 ingediend bij de Europese Commissie, de publieke consultatie loopt tot en met 1 mei 2026  en eind december 2026 moet het definitieve NBRP worden ingediend. Daarbij laat de presentatie zien dat het plan niet alleen strategisch is, maar ook heel concreet van aard: het gaat onder meer over de nationale gebouwenvoorraad, routekaarten richting 2030, 2040 en 2050, beleidsmaatregelen, investeringsbehoeften, ZEB-drempelwaarden, minimumnormen, renovatietrajecten voor woningen en consultatie.  Een van de meest opvallende onderdelen is de omvang van de opgave in de woningvoorraad. Volgens de slides zijn tussen 2020 en 2050 maatregelen nodig in circa 7,5 miljoen woningen , waaronder ongeveer 16 miljoen isolatiemaatregelen  en de vervanging van ruim 7 miljoen aardgasketels . Voor 2030 is de verwachting dat 35% van de isolatieopgave bij woningen is gerealiseerd, dat alle huurwoningen met label E, F en G minimaal naar label D zijn gebracht en dat circa 1,4 miljoen woningen  aardgasvrij of hybride zijn. De resterende opgave na 2030 blijft daarmee groot.  De presentatie is ook zeer relevant voor leden die werken met energielabels . Daarin wordt toegelicht dat in 2026 slechts enkele aanpassingen worden gedaan aan de vorm en informatie op het label, waaronder een labelplicht voor monumenten bij verkoop of verhuur. Vanaf 2030  komt er echter een nieuw energielabel met een schaal van A tot en met G en een indicator die gebaseerd is op totaal primair energiegebruik  in plaats van primair fossiel energiegebruik. Ook zal op het label zichtbaar worden of een gebouw voldoet aan het niveau van een emissievrij gebouw. Omdat labels tien jaar geldig blijven, geeft Robert aan dat de markt vermoedelijk tot 2040 met twee labelsystematieken naast elkaar te maken krijgt.  Een andere belangrijke ontwikkeling is het renovatiepaspoort , dat in 2026  wordt verwacht. In de presentatie wordt dit neergezet als een praktische routekaart voor bestaande gebouwen richting emissievrij. Het renovatiepaspoort wordt toegevoegd aan het maatwerkadvies; wanneer het maatwerkadvies voldoet aan de beoogde doelen, wordt het een renovatiepaspoort. De route is opgebouwd in drie stappen: eerst de isolatiestandaard, daarna duurzame warmte en vervolgens hernieuwbare energie. Ook staat in de slides dat het renovatiepaspoort beschikbaar komt via EP-online en MijnOverheid.  Robert verduidelijkt daarnaast de relatie tussen het renovatiepaspoort en het huidige energielabel. Beide worden opgesteld door vakbekwame energieadviseurs binnen gecertificeerde bedrijven, beide zijn gebaseerd op de NTA8800 en beide worden in EP-online opgeslagen. Het verschil zit in de functie: het energielabel laat de huidige staat van een gebouw zien en geeft standaardadviezen, terwijl het renovatiepaspoort dat vertrekpunt gebruikt om een concreet stappenplan naar emissievrij te maken. Juist voor organisaties die actief zijn in financiering, klantreizen en renovatiebegeleiding is dat een relevant onderscheid.  Verder laat de presentatie zien dat ook de onderliggende methodiek verandert. De huidige NTA8800  blijft tot 2030 in gebruik, met in mei 2026 enkele kleinere wijzigingen, waaronder een betere waardering van opslag, een slechtere energieprestatie voor gebouwen die niet voldoen aan de eisen voor gebouwautomatisering en controlesystemen, en nieuwe indicatoren op het energielabel. Vanaf 2030 komt een gemoderniseerde bepalingsmethode die beter moet aansluiten op het werkelijke gebouwgebonden energiegebruik, installatierendementen, recente klimaatontwikkelingen, nieuwe primaire energiefactoren en de rol van opslag en automatisering.  Tot slot is ook het onderdeel over aardopwarmingsvermogen over de gehele levenscyclus van een gebouw (wlc-gwp)  van belang. De presentatie legt uit dat dit zowel materiaalgebonden als operationele emissies omvat. De berekening wordt verwacht vanaf 2028 , met grens- en streefwaarden vanaf 2030 , en de uitkomst komt op het label van nieuwe gebouwen. Robert geeft daarbij aan dat dit in Nederland inhoudelijk raakvlakken heeft met de bestaande MPG-methodiek, maar ook duidelijke verschillen kent, met name doordat operationele uitstoot wordt meegenomen en de focus specifiek ligt op broeikasgasemissies.  Voor leden van EEM HUB NL is deze presentatie waardevol omdat zij de vertaalslag maakt van Europese regelgeving naar de Nederlandse uitvoeringspraktijk. De komende jaren brengen niet alleen nieuwe eisen, maar ook nieuwe instrumenten, nieuwe databehoeften en nieuwe gevolgen voor processen in de markt. Voor organisaties die actief zijn in hypotheken, verduurzamingsfinanciering, gebouwadvies, software, compliance en klantondersteuning raken deze ontwikkelingen direct aan de manier waarop verduurzamingsmaatregelen straks in de praktijk worden beoordeeld, uitgelegd en gefinancierd.

Several important publications and consultations were released in recent days that are directly relevant for EEM HUB NL members. Together, they show how quickly the policy landscape around sustainable buildings, renovation, finance and reporting is evolving in both the Netherlands and the EU.  The first major development is the opening of the European Commission’s consultation on revisions to the EU Taxonomy Delegated Acts . According to the Commission, the review is intended to improve usability, support access to green finance and enhance transparency. The consultation opened on 17 March 2026 and runs until 14 April 2026. Within EEM HUB NL, working groups are currently preparing shared positions together with members.  A second important item is the publication of the SER advice “ Energie voor iedereen ” . The report argues for a more people-centred approach to the energy transition in the built environment, with stronger attention to the practical barriers faced by households and small entrepreneurs. It stresses that the transition will only succeed if policy and implementation better match what people can understand, afford and act on in practice.  CE Delft’s new report, “ Duurzaam beleid, lagere lasten ” , adds an important affordability perspective. The study concludes that household energy bills are expected to increase by 10 to 16 percent between 2025 and 2030. At the same time, home renovation can soften that increase or even turn it into a reduction, while additional cost savings in the renovation chain appear possible if market volumes become larger and more predictable and if administrative burdens are reduced.  For Dutch stakeholders, the consultation on the National Building Renovation Plan (NBRP)  is another key development. The Dutch government has published the draft plan for consultation, with responses possible until 1 May 2026 . The NBRP explains how the Netherlands intends to work towards the EPBD IV end goal of an emission-free and highly energy-efficient building stock by 2050. The draft also makes the scale of the task more concrete, including an estimated need for measures in around 7.5 million homes, about 16 million insulation measures and the replacement of more than 7 million gas boilers over the 2020–2050 period. EEM HUB NL will prepare a response for this consultation before the deadline.    Another relevant publication comes from the Platform on Sustainable Finance , which has responded to the Commission’s consultation on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The Platform’s response focuses strongly on better integration with the wider EU sustainable finance framework, especially the EU Taxonomy. It highlights the need for greater consistency, reduced duplication and clearer links between ESRS disclosures, Taxonomy criteria and transition planning.    Finally, EEM HUB NL members may also want to review the presentation by Robert Dijksterhuis  of the Dutch Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning on the implementation of EPBD IV in the Netherlands. The slides outline the phased Dutch implementation approach, the expected timeline for new rules, the role of the renovation passport, changes to the energy label, and the connection with the draft NBRP consultation.  Taken together, these developments confirm that 2026 is becoming a decisive year for the alignment of building policy, renovation pathways, sustainable finance and reporting standards. For EEM HUB NL members, this is not only relevant from a policy perspective, but also for product design, financing propositions, customer journeys, data requirements and implementation planning. EEM HUB NL will continue to review these developments with members and translate them into collective input where relevant.  Nederlands EEM HUB NL zet belangrijke beleids- en marktontwikkelingen rond verduurzaming en finance op een rij De afgelopen dagen zijn meerdere publicaties en consultaties verschenen die direct relevant zijn voor de leden van EEM HUB NL. Samen laten zij zien hoe snel het speelveld rond duurzame gebouwen, renovatie, financiering en rapportage zich ontwikkelt, zowel in Nederland als op Europees niveau.  De eerste belangrijke ontwikkeling is de openstelling van de consultatie van de Europese Commissie over de herziening van de delegated acts onder de EU Taxonomie. Volgens de Commissie is deze herziening bedoeld om de toepasbaarheid te verbeteren, de toegang tot groene financiering te ondersteunen en de transparantie te vergroten. De consultatie is geopend op 17 maart 2026 en loopt tot en met 14 april 2026. Binnen EEM HUB NL werken we momenteel in werkgroepen samen met leden aan gezamenlijke standpunten.  Een tweede belangrijk onderwerp is het SER-advies “Energie voor iedereen” . Dit rapport pleit voor een meer mensgerichte aanpak van de energietransitie in de gebouwde omgeving, met nadrukkelijk aandacht voor de praktische belemmeringen waar huishoudens en kleine ondernemers tegenaan lopen. De kernboodschap is dat de transitie alleen slaagt als beleid en uitvoering beter aansluiten op wat mensen in de praktijk kunnen begrijpen, betalen en organiseren.    Het nieuwe rapport van CE Delft, “ Duurzaam beleid, lagere lasten ” , voegt daar een belangrijk betaalbaarheidsperspectief aan toe. De studie concludeert dat de energierekening van huishoudens tussen 2025 en 2030 naar verwachting met 10 tot 16 procent stijgt. Tegelijkertijd kan woningverduurzaming die stijging dempen of zelfs ombuigen naar een daling. Ook laat het rapport zien dat extra kostenreducties in de verduurzamingsketen mogelijk zijn als marktvolumes groter en voorspelbaarder worden en de administratieve lasten afnemen.  Voor Nederlandse stakeholders is ook de consultatie van het National Building Renovation Plan (NBRP)   van groot belang. De Nederlandse overheid heeft het conceptplan gepubliceerd voor internetconsultatie; reageren kan tot en met 1 mei 2026 . Het NBRP beschrijft hoe Nederland wil toewerken naar het EPBD IV-einddoel van een emissievrije en zeer energiezuinige gebouwde omgeving in 2050. Het concept maakt ook de omvang van de opgave concreter, met onder meer maatregelen in circa 7,5 miljoen woningen, ongeveer 16 miljoen isolatiemaatregelen en de vervanging van ruim 7 miljoen aardgasketels in de periode 2020–2050. EEM HUB NL zal vóór de deadline op deze consultatie reageren.    Ook de publicatie van het Platform on Sustainable Finance  over de consultatie op de European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)  is relevant. In deze reactie staat vooral de samenhang met het bredere EU-raamwerk voor duurzame financiering centraal, in het bijzonder de koppeling met de EU Taxonomie. Het Platform benadrukt de noodzaak van meer consistentie, minder overlap en duidelijkere verbindingen tussen ESRS-rapportages, Taxonomiecriteria en transitiedoelstellingen.    Tot slot is het voor leden van EEM HUB NL ook nuttig om de presentatie van Robert Dijksterhuis  van het ministerie te bekijken over de implementatie van EPBD IV in Nederland. De slides geven inzicht in de gefaseerde Nederlandse implementatie, de verwachte planning van nieuwe regelgeving, de rol van het renovatiepaspoort, wijzigingen in het energielabel en de relatie met de consultatie van het NBRP.  Gezamenlijk maken deze ontwikkelingen duidelijk dat 2026 een beslissend jaar wordt voor de samenhang tussen gebouwbeleid, renovatiepaden, duurzame financiering en rapportagestandaarden. Voor de leden van EEM HUB NL is dit niet alleen beleidsmatig relevant, maar ook voor proposities, financieringsoplossingen, klantreizen, databronnen en implementatievraagstukken. EEM HUB NL blijft deze ontwikkelingen samen met leden volgen en waar relevant vertalen naar gezamenlijke inbreng.

The European Commission has opened the public feedback period on draft revisions to the EU Taxonomy technical screening criteria. The consultation was published on 17 March 2026 and is open until 14 April 2026. According to the Commission, the purpose of this review is to make the framework simpler and easier to use, while improving clarity, consistency and practical usability for market participants.  The draft package covers revisions to both the Climate Delegated Act and the Environmental Delegated Act . In practice, this means proposed updates to the technical screening criteria used to determine whether economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable under the EU Taxonomy. The Commission states that the review reflects implementation experience, stakeholder feedback, scientific evidence and developments in EU legislation since the current delegated acts were adopted.  The proposed changes span a broad range of sectors and cross-cutting criteria. According to the Commission, the draft revisions cover most activities under the Climate and Environmental Delegated Acts, including forestry, environmental protection, manufacturing, energy, transport and construction, as well as the generic “do no significant harm” appendices.  The consultation materials currently published by the Commission include draft delegated regulations and annexes for both tracks of the review. The uploaded draft documents confirm that one package concerns amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139, while the other concerns amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2486.    For EEM Hub NL, this consultation is relevant because the EU Taxonomy continues to shape sustainable finance, investment decisions and the interpretation of green economic activities across Europe. The proposed revisions may also be important for institutions and stakeholders working on sustainable buildings, renovation, construction, environmental performance and related financial products. EEM Hub NL is currently studying the consultation documents in detail. Together with our members, we will assess the proposed changes and prepare a joint response to be submitted before the deadline of 14 April 2026. Our aim is to contribute a practical and well-founded industry perspective to the consultation process. We will share further observations with our members as our review progresses.

On Thursday 12 March, members of the EEM HUB gathered at the ASN Store in Utrecht for an in-depth session by W/E adviseurs on WLC-GWP: Whole Life Cycle Global Warming Potential. The topic is rapidly gaining importance, as the sector is moving beyond energy performance alone toward the total climate impact of buildings across their full life cycle.    WLC-GWP looks at all CO₂ emissions associated with a building over its lifetime. That includes not only emissions from materials and construction products, but also emissions from operational energy use, maintenance, replacements and end-of-life processing. This integrated perspective is what makes WLC-GWP fundamentally different from many existing indicators.      In the Dutch context, this is a significant development. While MPG focuses on a weighted environmental score for materials and BENG focuses on energy performance, WLC-GWP brings both dimensions together in a single climate indicator. As defined in the Dutch methodology, WLC-GWP is expressed in kg CO₂-equivalent per m² of usable floor area per year, over a fixed reference period of 50 years.    That distinction matters. During the session, it was explained that WLC targets greenhouse gas emissions specifically, whereas MPG uses a broader set of environmental impact categories. The unit of measurement and building lifetime assumptions also differ. In other words, WLC-GWP is not simply a rebranding of existing environmental performance requirements, but an additional and more integrated way to steer on carbon.    WLC-GWP is expected to become increasingly visible in both policy and practice. It is likely to appear in permitting, energy labels, certification, tenders, subsidies and broader frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy, Level(s) and CSRD. For market participants, this means Whole Life Carbon is no longer a niche topic. It is becoming a factor that will increasingly influence design decisions, investment strategies and reporting requirements.    The policy direction is also becoming clearer. In the Dutch implementation of the EPBD, WLC-GWP is positioned as part of the transition toward zero-emission buildings. A national WLC-GWP roadmap must be published by 1 January 2027. From 2028 onwards, a WLC-GWP calculation must be submitted for new buildings over 1,000 m² and shown on the energy label. From 2030, all new buildings subject to energy labelling must comply with the applicable life-cycle greenhouse gas limits.      At the same time, the methodology is still evolving. Discussions continue on topics such as module D, the valuation of biobased materials and the treatment of energy carriers and existing buildings. That is exactly why this is the right time to build knowledge. Stakeholders that understand WLC-GWP today will be better prepared for future regulation and for the strategic decisions that come with it.    The W/E adviseurs session made one thing especially clear: Whole Life Carbon is not just a technical calculation issue. It is a new way of looking at sustainability in the built environment—integrated, life-cycle-based and increasingly linked to policy, finance and market standards. For EEM HUB members, this is precisely the kind of development that benefits from shared interpretation and knowledge exchange. WLC-GWP: waarom Whole Life Carbon nu relevant wordt voor de gebouwde omgeving   Op donderdag 12 maart kwamen leden van de EEM HUB bijeen in de ASN Store in Utrecht voor een inhoudelijke sessie van W/E adviseurs over WLC-GWP: Whole Life Cycle Global Warming Potential. Het onderwerp staat hoog op de agenda van de gebouwde omgeving, omdat de focus verschuift van alleen energieprestatie naar de totale klimaatimpact van gebouwen over hun volledige levenscyclus.    WLC-GWP kijkt naar alle CO₂-emissies van een gebouw gedurende de hele levensduur. Het gaat daarbij niet alleen om emissies die samenhangen met materialen en bouwproducten, maar ook om emissies uit het operationele energiegebruik, onderhoud, vervanging en sloop. Juist die integrale benadering maakt WLC-GWP wezenlijk anders dan veel bestaande indicatoren.      In de Nederlandse context is dat een belangrijke ontwikkeling. Waar MPG vooral stuurt op een gewogen milieuscore van materialen en BENG zich richt op energieprestaties, brengt WLC-GWP beide werelden samen in één klimaatindicator. Daarmee ontstaat een completer beeld van de CO₂-impact van nieuwbouw. Volgens de Nederlandse bepalingsmethode wordt WLC-GWP uitgedrukt in kg CO₂-equivalent per m² gebruiksoppervlak per jaar, over een vaste beschouwingsperiode van 50 jaar.    Dat verschil met MPG is relevant. In de sessie werd toegelicht dat WLC zich specifiek richt op broeikasgasemissies, terwijl MPG werkt met een bredere set van milieu-effecten. Ook verschilt de rekeneenheid en de levensduurbenadering. WLC-GWP is dus niet simpelweg een nieuwe naam voor bestaande milieuprestatie-eisen, maar een aanvullende en meer integrale manier van sturen op CO₂.    WLC-GWP wordt de komende jaren steeds zichtbaarder in beleid en praktijk. De indicator zal terugkomen in vergunningverlening, energielabels, certificering, aanbestedingen, subsidies en in bredere kaders zoals EU Taxonomy, Level(s) en CSRD. Voor marktpartijen betekent dit dat Whole Life Carbon niet langer een niche-onderwerp is, maar een factor die steeds vaker invloed krijgt op ontwerpkeuzes, investeringen en verantwoording.    Ook de beleidslijn wordt concreter. In de Nederlandse uitwerking van de EPBD is aangekondigd dat WLC-GWP onderdeel wordt van de transitie naar emissievrije gebouwen. De routekaart voor WLC-GWP moet uiterlijk per 1 januari 2027 worden gepubliceerd. Vanaf 2028 moet voor grote nieuwe gebouwen van meer dan 1.000 m² een WLC-GWP-berekening worden ingediend en op het energielabel worden vermeld. Vanaf 2030 moeten alle nieuwe labelplichtige gebouwen voldoen aan de dan geldende eisen voor emissies over de gehele levenscyclus.      Tegelijk is duidelijk dat de methodiek nog in ontwikkeling is. Er lopen nog discussies over onder meer module D, de waardering van biobased materialen en de precieze omgang met energiedragers en bestaande bouw. Dat maakt dit juist een belangrijk moment om kennis op te bouwen. Wie nu begrijpt hoe WLC-GWP werkt, is beter voorbereid op toekomstige regelgeving én op de strategische keuzes die daarbij horen.    De sessie van W/E adviseurs maakte vooral duidelijk dat Whole Life Carbon niet alleen een technisch rekenvraagstuk is. Het is een nieuwe manier van kijken naar duurzaamheid in de gebouwde omgeving: integraal, levenscyclusgericht en steeds directer verbonden aan beleid, financiering en marktstandaarden. Voor de leden van de EEM HUB is dat precies het soort ontwikkeling dat vraagt om gezamenlijke duiding en kennisdeling.

The Netherlands is moving towards a new, EPBD IV-aligned EPC layout . Compared to the current (“old”) label, the draft new label  is designed to be more decision-ready: it keeps the familiar A++++ to G scale , but adds a clearer set of standardised indicators  and more granular information about what drives the score  and what to improve . The version shown is still a draft  and may change. What changes from old → new (draft): From one score to a small dashboard.  Next to the label class and kWh/m², the new front page highlights additional indicators such as heat loss in winter , CO₂ emissions , share of renewable energy , and risk of indoor overheating in summer —making the label more useful for retrofit and climate-adaptation decisions.  More transparency on “why”.  The new layout introduces a clearer split between insulation elements  (façade, roof, floor, windows, doors, panels) and building systems  (heating, hot water, ventilation, cooling, PV, battery storage), using visual markers to show where performance is weak/strong.  New EPBD IV concepts appear on the label.  The draft includes whole life-cycle GWP (WLC-GWP)  and, for new builds (from 2026), an “A0” emission-free building indicator  once specific conditions are met—signalling a shift from operational energy only to broader climate impact.  Stronger link to action.  The draft label explicitly points users to improvement advice and a structured improvement journey (e.g., “Verbetermogelijkheden / Verbetercheck”), making the EPC more of an entry point into renovation planning rather than a static certificate.  For EEM HUB NL members, the key point is that the EPC is evolving into a richer data object  with mandatory and optional indicators  under EPBD IV—relevant for portfolio monitoring, customer journeys, and data access discussions (e.g., what will be available in EP-Online and when).

EEM HUB NL shares this ECB Occasional Paper “Nature at risk: Implications for the euro area economy and financial stability”  because it translates nature degradation  into quantified macroeconomic and banking-sector risk  — and makes a strong case that water-related risks  are emerging as a core financial-stability topic (not just an “E” side note).  The paper introduces a Nature Value-at-Risk (NVaR)  framework that links ecosystem-service degradation (18 services) to sectoral output losses and then maps these exposures to euro area bank lending (AnaCredit). Key headline findings include: 72% of euro area non-financial corporates  (≈3 million firms), representing ~75% of corporate bank lending , are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service.  Water-related services dominate  the risk picture. In a detailed “deep dive”, surface-water scarcity  could put up to ~24% of euro area output  at risk under a 1-in-100-year drought  (granular approach), compared to ~9%  using country-level averages — showing how aggregation can materially understate hotspots.  Mapping to banks: around 19% of loans  are exposed to surface-water scarcity  and ~22%  to groundwater scarcity , with ~12%  linked to degraded water quality  (not additive because systems overlap). Exposures are concentrated in real estate, manufacturing, wholesale/retail, mining and construction .  A distinctive addition is “endogenous risk” (double materiality) : the paper shows how bank portfolios may finance activities that degrade the very ecosystem services they depend on , creating feedback loops that can amplify future credit risk. Water again stands out; manufacturing  is highlighted as the largest contributor to endogenous risk and a leverage point for mitigation (e.g., financing water efficiency and pollution reduction).  Why this matters for EEM HUB NL members:  the ECB explicitly positions nature degradation as relevant for price stability  and financial stability , and this paper provides a concrete analytical direction: expect rising supervisory focus on water scarcity/quality, flood protection , and more systematic integration into risk governance, portfolio monitoring, and (eventually) nature stress testing .

EEM HUB NL shares the ECB’s Climate and Nature Plan 2024–2025  and the accompanying ECB press release (16 January 2026), as they show how climate- and nature-related risks are being integrated into the ECB’s core work — with direct relevance for banks’ data capabilities, risk management and disclosures. The ECB’s update underlines that climate considerations are increasingly embedded  across monetary policy operations and portfolio management, banking supervision, and the ECB/Eurosystem’s risk analysis toolkit — including scenario analysis and stress testing (with Fit-for-55-related work) as well as the continued development of climate-related statistics and indicators . In parallel, the ECB is expanding its analytical work on nature-related risks , with a focus on understanding transmission channels to the economy and the financial system.  For EEM HUB NL members, the practical takeaway is clear: the ECB roadmap points to rising expectations on climate risk integration  (and steadily increasing attention to nature), reinforcing the need for robust data, portfolio monitoring and credible approaches to managing both physical  and transition  risks.

EEM HUB NL shares this Ecorys report (commissioned by NVDE , 9 Dec 2025) on the costs of the Netherlands not meeting its 2030 EU targets  for renewable energy generation  and final energy savings . The study, based on PBL’s Climate and Energy Outlook (KEV), concludes that under current policy the Netherlands is not on track : renewables are projected at 32% in 2030 vs an indicative 39% contribution , leaving a 124 PJ gap  in 2030, while energy savings also fall short with a 107 PJ gap  in 2030.  For renewables, the report highlights “ statistical transfers ” (buying renewable volumes administratively from other EU Member States) as a practical backstop, with estimated costs of roughly €0.5–€1.1bn in 2030  and €1.1–€2.6bn cumulative  over 2030–2034, depending on price scenarios and scarcity.  For energy savings , the key message is that there is no comparable EU transfer mechanism , meaning persistent shortfalls could expose the Netherlands to an EU infringement procedure  if targets are not met.

EEM HUB NL shares this open-access study (Ecological Economics, 2026) on socio-ecological inequalities in housing-related carbon footprints in the Netherlands . Using CBS register data, mobility survey data and life-cycle inventories, the authors show that per-person housing footprints differ sharply by income  and are heavily shaped by urban form and mobility : higher-income households tend to live in lower-density areas , which drives car-related emissions . The paper also highlights a justice angle: private rental housing has relatively high emissions linked to poorer housing quality and higher energy use , while owner-occupied efficiency gains can be offset by suburbanisation and mobility (“rebound” effects). For EEM HUB NL members, this is a strong evidence base for linking housing, planning, tenure and mobility  to portfolio decarbonisation and for designing policies that avoid regressive outcomes  (e.g., focusing only on owner-occupied retrofit subsidies).

EEM HUB NL shares this open-access academic paper on physical climate risk and bank loan pricing . Using a global dataset of ~86,000 syndicated loans (1996–2022), the study finds that firms located in more climate-vulnerable countries face higher borrowing costs —with the effect strongest for longer-maturity loans  and financially distressed firms . Banks also tighten other terms (e.g., collateral requirements, covenants, fees) as physical risk increases, and the paper shows the mechanism largely runs via higher long-term default risk  (credit ratings), rather than short-term risk. For EEM HUB NL members, this is a useful evidence base for linking physical climate risk  to credit risk management, portfolio steering, and prudential discussions .

This text describes a deliverable produced within the OneClickReno  project. EEM HUB NL reads it as a methodological paper that supports the automated creation of Building Renovation Passports (BRPs) —as required under Annex VIII of the EPBD recast —with a particular focus on dwellings . The deliverable explains how renovation “roadmaps” (BRPs) are broken down into renovation steps , each containing one or more Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)  aimed at moving buildings toward Zero Energy Buildings . A central point is that these ECMs only deliver the intended results—while safeguarding broader quality aspects such as Indoor Environmental Quality —if they are executed by skilled professionals . From EEM HUB NL’s perspective, the core contribution is the proposed methodology for linking ECMs to specific skill requirements and relevant occupations , so that homeowners can identify which craftsmen are needed for professional implementation. The document anchors occupations and skills in recognised European and international frameworks (including ESCO  and Bloom’s taxonomy ) and also accounts for country-specific differences , as the project spans four countries. The deliverable also covers how project partners mapped ECMs to the types of craftsmen required, and then supplemented standard skills profiles with additional practical competencies  needed to apply measures properly in real-world settings. It builds on lessons from other EU-funded projects and uses tools from partner ISSO , with an explicit aim to make the approach usable independently—without ongoing dependence on OneClickReno partners. Finally, the text indicates that the methodology is not only about identifying required skills, but also about helping building owners find, assess, and ideally verify/certify  professionals who have those skills.