2. What proportion of the energy efficiency improvement measures put in place by the obligated parties must be independently verified?


According to the proposal for a directive Member States should put in place control systems under which at least a ‘statistically significant’ proportion of the energy efficiency improvement measures put in place by the obligated parties is independently verified.

It is obvious that the verification means financial costs for obligated parties and the extent of this obligation influences on higher or lower future service expenditures. On the ground of the literal wording of the Commission’s Proposal we can only note that the scope for the verification obligation should be ‘statistically significant’ but what does this phrase mean is so far an open issue.


3. Who could be ‘other third party’ (different from energy service providers) achieving energy savings eligible to be counted towards the obligation of the obligated parties?


Another norm of the Proposal for the new directive which could influence on adaptation choices of the business entities is the provision that permits obligated parties, covered by the energy efficiency obligation scheme, to count towards their obligation certified energy savings achieved by energy service providers ‘or other third parties’.


And despite including in the regulatory text the legal definition for ‘energy service provider’ (it means a natural or legal person who delivers energy services or other energy efficiency improvement measures in a final customer's facility or premises) there are no clear legislative clues as for potential ‘other third parties’. Such a regulatory gap may effect in a situation where business entity incurring costs for energy efficiency measures does not qualify for energy efficiency obligation scheme only because doubts as regards merits of the ‘other third party’ which achieved them. Maybe establishing an accreditation process (which according to the draft Proposal must be clear, transparent and open to all market actors, and that aims at minimising the costs of certification) solves this ambiguity and uncertainty. And this is the point for consideration for Member States implementing the future directive.


4. Will alternative measures be decided by Member States?


When it comes to the implementation process by the Member States the fundamental uncertainty at the level of adaptation to the prospective directive by market actors is the alternative leaved by the said regulatory measure to Member States which may opt to take other measures to achieve energy savings among final customers.

The Commission’s Proposal only requires in that regard that the annual amount of energy savings achieved through this approach be equivalent to the amount of energy savings described above.


This ambiguity will, however, be cleared, by 1 January 2013 at the latest, because Member States opting for this option should notify the Commission by that date.



We use cookies on our website to support technical features that enhance your user experience and help us improve our website. By continuing to use this website you accept our Privacy Policy.