EPB-verslaggever common mistakes
EPB-verslaggever · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the E-peil as the sole compliance criterion and reporting a building as compliant without checking the other EPB requirements (K-peil, net energy demand, overheating indicator, ventilation requirements, minimum renewable share).
The E-peil is the most publicised number and software reports it prominently, so candidates anchor on it and forget that EPB compliance is a bundle of parallel requirements, each of which can fail independently.
What to do instead
Before signing off, run an explicit checklist of every applicable EPB requirement for the building type and worksheet, recording the calculated value, the limit, and pass/fail for each. Only declare compliance when every item passes.
Using the wrong regulatory version: applying the rules, limit values, or calculation method in force at the permit application date instead of the correct reference date (or vice versa), or mixing versions within one report.
EPB requirements changed repeatedly, and candidates often work from habit or from the version used in a previous file. The date rules (permit date versus start of works) are easy to confuse.
What to do instead
At the start of every file, record the permit application date and the start-of-works date, look up which EPB version applies, and state that version explicitly in the report. Verify that the software version and the calculation method match that same version.
Reporting envelope areas and volumes taken from plan dimensions without applying the correct measurement conventions (internal versus external dimensions, treatment of party walls, unheated spaces, and projecting elements).
Plans show nominal dimensions and candidates measure what is drawn, forgetting that the EPB method prescribes how each boundary is measured and which surfaces count as transmission or thermal bridge areas.
What to do instead
For each construction node, determine the boundary type first (external, adjacent building, unheated space, ground), then apply the prescribed measurement rule. Keep a measurement sheet per surface so each area can be traced to a drawing and a boundary classification.
Ignoring or wrongly entering thermal bridges, or accepting default values without checking whether they are permitted for that construction detail.
Thermal bridges are invisible on plans, are tedious to enumerate, and default values are convenient. Candidates also do not know which details qualify for which default or catalogue value.
What to do instead
Build a thermal-bridge inventory from the detail drawings, node by node, and for each node record the chosen value, its source (catalogue, default, or calculation), and its justification. Flag any node without a documented source.
Entering ventilation flow rates as design intent rather than as the values the installed system actually achieves, or omitting the interaction between ventilation and the energy balance.
Candidates copy the design specification, ignoring that the EPB calculation must reflect the real installation, fan characteristics, and the prescribed supply/extract rates per room.
What to do instead
Derive flow rates from the actual installation data (fan settings, duct design, commissioning data) and cross-check them against the required minimum per room type. Document the source of every flow rate in the report.
Failing to document the evidence trail: no references to drawings, datasheets, or commissioning reports for the values entered, so the report cannot be verified.
Candidates focus on getting the software to produce a result and treat documentation as an afterthought, or assume the reviewer has access to the same file set.
What to do instead
For every input category (envelope, installations, renewables), cite the specific document and page or detail number. Treat the report as unverifiable until each value has a traceable source.
Submitting a report with internal inconsistencies: totals that do not match the sum of the underlying surfaces, or a narrative that contradicts the calculated output.
Reports are assembled from several sources and last-minute changes are made in one place only. Candidates do not perform a reconciliation pass.
What to do instead
Do a formal reconciliation: sum the surface and volume tables, compare with the summary figures, and read the narrative against the output tables line by line. Any change triggers a repeat of this check.
Misclassifying building type or application (new build versus renovation, residential versus non-residential, specific categories) and therefore applying the wrong requirement set.
The category determines which limits and which calculation modules apply, and the distinctions are not always obvious from the project description.
What to do instead
Determine the classification from the permit documents and the functional programme, write down the classification and its justification in the report, and verify which requirement set follows from it before starting the calculation.
Handling renewable energy and primary energy factors incorrectly: using outdated factors, double counting a system, or claiming a renewable contribution the installation does not deliver.
Primary energy factors and the treatment of photovoltaic, heat pump, and biomass contributions are technical and change between versions; candidates rely on memory.
What to do instead
Look up the current primary energy factors and renewable contribution rules for the applicable version, and document each system's contribution separately with its calculation basis so double counting is visible and avoidable.
Missing or mishandling the overheating indicator and summer comfort, or the minimum ventilation requirement, because attention is concentrated on winter heating performance.
The E-peil discussion dominates preparation, and summer comfort and ventilation are treated as secondary checks rather than independent pass/fail requirements.
What to do instead
Add summer comfort and ventilation to the same compliance checklist as the E-peil and K-peil, calculate them explicitly, and report each value against its limit before concluding the file is compliant.