CRREM's EUI methodology concept paper is a welcome step forward, but important questions remain

In response to CRREM's recently-published Energy Use Intensity (EUI) methodology concept paper¹, we spoke with Ben Ross, Head of Sector for Construction and Real Estate, about the opportunities and challenges presented.

What was your initial response to the EUI methodology concept paper?

I was pleased to see the publication of the concept paper.

The proposed methodology represents a significant step forward from previous approaches and demonstrates a welcome willingness to engage the market through an open and staged consultation process.

Do you think the methodology is heading in the right direction?

At its core, the direction of travel feels right. Energy performance is driven by the design, operation and management of buildings, and any forward-looking methodology should recognise the influence of climate, building type, and operational performance.

The proposed approach also considers how heating, cooling, and base building loads may evolve over time as the climate warms and building technologies improve.

The introduction of a Technical Feasibility Test (TFT) is also encouraging. Rather than relying solely on top-down modelling, it provides a mechanism to test whether pathway end points are achievable across the existing building stock.

Are there any challenges presented by the CRREM EUI methdology?

1. Balancing global consistency with local relevance.

The proposed methodology currently relies on the CBECS datasets and climate zone assumptions to create a globally consistent framework. While this has clear benefits, it raises a legitimate question: how should other local datasets be incorporated where robust evidence already exists?

Consistency is valuable, but there is also a risk that regional differences in building operation, regulation, and energy systems could become diluted.

2. Practical application

No real estate asset is truly average. Buildings sit across a distribution of performance shaped by location, design, tenant mix, and operational characteristics. Investors and asset managers will need to understand not only whether an asset sits above or below a pathway, but what that means for risk, resilience and future value.

CRREM understand and promote this. However, in a rapid data economy, are we ready for this more nuanced explanation?

What aspects of the CRREM EUI methodology are raising questions?

1. The relationship between technical feasibility and climate reality

The methodology seeks to translate a 1.5°C-aligned energy budget into asset-level pathways, but what happens if significant parts of the existing building stock cannot achieve the resulting EUI targets?

2. The TFT

The TFT provides an important reality check, but it also introduces a critical question: if pathways need to be recalibrated to reflect what buildings can realistically achieve, do they still collectively align with the energy and carbon reductions required for a 1.5°C future? Are the pathways intended to represent what buildings must achieve, or what buildings can achieve?

3. Building emissions

As buildings become more energy efficient, heating systems are electrified and electricity grids continue to decarbonise, refrigerants are likely to become an increasingly important source of operational emissions. For many high-performing assets, future differences in emissions performance may increasingly be driven by refrigerant management rather than energy consumption. Understanding how these emissions fit within the broader transition risk framework will be important and need to be clearly written in from the outset.

4. Heating, cooling, and performance assessments

There are several more key questions that will require further clarification, including:

the assumed split between gas and electricity use (as this again varies significantly by property type and geography);
the treatment of district heating and cooling networks; and
whether performance should be assessed on a gross or net energy basis where on-site renewable generation is present.

What are the next steps for CRREM’s EUI methodology?

Overall, we welcome the direction of this concept paper. It represents a meaningful step forward in how the industry assesses operational energy performance and transition risk.

The consultation process now provides an opportunity to strengthen the methodology further. Crucially, it must help the industry understand how technically achievable asset-level pathways can combine to deliver the emissions reductions required across the wider built environment.

How can BIP.Verco help?

BIP.Verco helps real estate clients assess their portfolios and assets against the CRREM pathways. This support can be delivered through desk-based assessments or site audits.

Find out more about our services

If you're keen to discuss this topic, and would like a chat with our experts, feel free to reach out and arrange a call.