The Greatest Grift of All (5): Norway's Gov't Faked Energy Labels for Houses

And thus the grift continues: no amount of reality will change the politics of green™ grift, even if it turns out the gov't is faking the evidentiary basis thereof

We spoke about this topic before—and now it would appear that there’s some movement as regards the re-alignment of media portrayals and reality. For background, please see this posting:

The Greatest Grift of All (3): Thermal Renovations and 'Scenario'-based = Wishful Planning

For the below content, note that all non-English translations, emphases, and [snark] are mine.

---

Energy Labelling of Buildings—Matching Map and Terrain

It is claimed that the energy saving potential in existing homes is huge. But what does data from the energy labelling database say about this?

By Solvor Mathiesen Gjerde, Thomas Thiis, and Arnkell Jónas Petersen, 14 Feb. 2025 [source]

Now that the Labour Party has formed a one-party government, it is likely that the EU’s 2018 Building Energy Directive will soon be introduced in Norway [it’s a minority gov’t, hence it also says quite a lot about democracy™ in Norway]. This will mean an increased focus on energy efficiency in existing buildings—a necessary measure to reduce emissions from buildings. However, if the energy labelling scheme becomes the guiding tool for this transition, it could lead in the wrong direction. A study from NMBU [orig. Norges miljø- og biovitenskapelige universitet, i.e., Norwegian University of Life Sciences] shows that calculated energy consumption often deviates significantly from actual consumption in Norwegian homes. And we cannot cut consumption that does not take place in reality.

More energy-efficient buildings are crucial to the green transition, and this applies to both new buildings and the existing building stock. Rehabilitating existing buildings will therefore be an important measure to fulfil the environmental goals. This marks a crossroads, and we need to ask ourselves whether we have the right tools to move from building new to improving the buildings we already have [there are some indications that this is a huuuuuuuge issue, and for more details, please see the top-linked article].

The Norwegian Parliament has set a target of reducing electricity consumption in buildings by 10 TWh by 2030, compared with consumption of 65.6 TWh in 2015 [i.e., a -15% change]. This builds on the ambition of transforming existing buildings to have close to zero emissions (NZEB) by 2050, i.e., to become buildings with very low energy needs [this appears entirely surreal: -15% over 15 years (2015-30) might be a thing that can be undertaken, but a reduction of another ±80% over the successive 20 years appears totally to reside beyond that which is possible (that is, if one discounts the option of shutting down the grid)]. The small remaining demand will be covered by renewable energy produced on site. However, figures from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) show no actual decrease in electricity consumption from Norwegian buildings in 2024, compared with the reference year 2015 [in a typical year (2024; source), Norway produces about 157 TWh of energy, of which 137.6 TWh—or a whooping 87.6% (!!!)—are produced with hydroelectric power stations; in other words: most electricity consumed is already ‘renewable’ (setting aside the environmental impacts of Norway’s 1,791 hydroelectric power stations (another 10.1% of electricity is produced by windmills)]

If the EU's Building Energy Directive from 2018 is to be implemented in Norway, energy efficiency in the Norwegian building stock will be given increased priority. The EU’s Buildings Directive requires a clear strategy for the renovation of existing buildings [i.e., more centralised regulations: what can go wrong?]. The aim is to reduce energy consumption. The energy labelling scheme, in which all buildings are ranked from A to G, is proposed as a management tool in this transition.

This energy labelling scheme provides information about a building’s energy status and efficiency, and it is already in use in Norway today. New homes are typically labelled C or better, but around 75% of Norwegian homes are rated D or lower. In other words, the majority of Norwegian homes are of relatively poor energy quality, based on the Energy Labelling Scheme [fair enough: who put together that labelling scheme? Well, turns out that this is done by a company named Enova, which isn’t really a company but a gov’t-owned entity (Wikipedia); if you’re in Norway, you can self-register some information and get an official energy label yourself: it’s the same kind of methodological shitshow that we’ve seen in medical research™ based on self-reported symptoms].

Extensive measures will be required if all existing homes are to be upgraded to a modern energy-efficient standard [determined by the EU]. This has caused considerable concern among homeowners with regard to the costs associated with necessary upgrading measures [these are not exactly ‘necessary’ but proscribed by the EU]. The concern is easy to understand, but what is more worrying is that the energy labelling scheme does not seem to capture actual energy consumption [oh, wait—this system is a grift?]. Instead of steering us towards a greener path, we risk being systematically misled [re-read this paragraph, if you need to].

In the energy labelling scheme, calculated consumption is used as the basis for grading. However, findings from the study at NMBU, which analysed more than 5,000 homes, show that there is a significant difference between measured and calculated energy consumption in the homes; in other words, in many cases there is no correlation between the home’s score on the energy label and actual consumption [now I’m actually tempted to see what score™ my house gets…]

Caption: the illustration shows the average measured consumption (red) registered by the consumer and the calculated consumption (blue) that forms the basis for the energy label (A-G). The average is presented for each energy label. The results are shown for homes defined as detached houses, but the results for apartment blocks show the same trend. The data is taken from ENOVA’s own database [oh would you look at that: squeezing my eyes a bit, I’m seeing that the worst category (G) isn’t that much worse in reality as opposed to the gov’t-owned Enova’s calculations™]

It is striking that the Norwegian energy labelling scheme is so poorly suited to the actual energy consumption of existing homes, but we are not alone. Previous findings from similar surveys of residential buildings in Denmark and Germany point to the same systematic tendency [sadly, no references are given]. Energy consumption in the homes characterised as least energy efficient is estimated to use far more energy than what is found from measured data [at this point, I suppose the use of ‘AI’ will reveal that this issue might be much worse than described].

In other words, the difference between measured and estimated energy consumption is greatest for the lowest-rated homes. As the figure above shows, the average measured energy consumption in homes with energy label G is less than half of what it is estimated to be [less than half—when was the last time you were off by that much? I mean, it’s the gov’t plus EU telling you these things—what does this tell you about them?].

Consequently, upgrading measures to A and B homes will not result in the energy savings expected if the energy labelling scheme alone is used as a management tool. Despite the fact that energy consumption in Norwegian buildings may be reduced somewhat, using such an inaccurate tool may actually lead to increased emissions overall due to the materials and resources required to implement upgrade measures [ah, but the point may well be to sustain the grifters in both the gov’t and EU, as well as line the pockets of green™ consultants].

The introduction of the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive could lead to a significant increase in efforts to make Norway’s building stock more energy efficient. A golden opportunity to make real cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, provided that the measures implemented actually target real consumption figures, not just calculations. This will be crucial for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive to be not only a step in the right direction on paper, but also an effective action that meets our environmental goals in practice.

---

Grifters of All Stripes, Unite!

I’m somewhat torn here—I’d love to see the underlying data/paper, but there’s nothing else. I mean, the authors are civil engineers and construction engineering academics, hence I doubt that they’re totally gaslighting everybody (although the outlet in which the above piece is published is the construction industry’s trade publication).

Note that their piece appeared in mid-February 2025—and it took until late April for it to make it into the state broadcaster NRK’s reporting™. The only reason I’m bringing this up is—some journo™ over at NRK read the above piece and asked the gov’t, which replied as follows:

The Political Parties [Respond]

NRK has been working with the government to implement the new energy efficiency programme [not exactly a marker of detached neutrality].

‘There is potential for energy efficiency improvements in Norway, but this must be based on real facts and not on what can be done as a valuable memorandum’, says Gunnar Larsen in the Econa report.

There are also several politicos™ whose reactions are worth quoting:

• Mie Fuglseth, manager at Grønn byggallianse [the Green™ construction industry lobby]:

  The findings of the study are interesting and indicate that energy labelling does not provide a good indication of actual energy consumption in Norwegian residential buildings.

• Carsten Henrik Pihl, Head of Policy, Society, and Sustainability at Huseierne [the homeowner’s association]

  We want homeowners who want to take part in the green endeavour to be able to do so in a simple and affordable way. In order to achieve this, we are dependent on each individual homeowner receiving good advice. This requires a better data basis than we have today.

• Gunnar Larsen, Director of Society and Policy at Econa [both a trade union and professional association for master’s graduates in economics and administration].

  This survey clearly shows that there may be reason to question established truths, or in this case the energy labelling of buildings. It's worrying that we seem to have an energy labelling scheme for buildings that is not based on actual energy consumption.

• Tor Brekke, Enova [that would be the gov’t-owned labelling agency]

  When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, it’s important to look at the entire life cycle of buildings. Upgrades and demolitions must be carefully assessed to ensure that they actually provide climate benefits. It is well known that buildings that are not so energy efficient often use less energy than calculated [what are you honchos actually doing?] while those that are very energy efficient often use more than calculated.

• Solvor Mathiesen Gjerde, civil engineer in Building Technology and Architecture at NMBU [co-author of the above-related study]

  Extensive measures will be required if all existing apartment blocks are to be upgraded to a modern energy-efficient standard. This has caused great concern among homeowners with regard to the cost of necessary upgrading measures. The concern is easy to understand, but what is more worrying is that the energy labelling scheme does not seem to capture actual energy consumption.

• Karen Elkjær, senior advisor at the Riksantikvaren [Directorate for Cultural Heritage]

  We may actually risk increased emissions overall due to the materials and resources needed to carry out the extensive upgrading measures. Such extensive measures, such as retrofitting insulation and replacing windows, also have major consequences for listed buildings. That’s why we still recommend simple measures such as sealing around dormer windows and doors, retrofitting insulation in floor partitions and attics [that is actually something that helps, according to the available empirical observations].

• Lillian Bredal Eriksen, Senior Climate Advisor at the Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment [this is one of Norway’s premier grift’n’consultancies there is: ‘a network of 60 Norwegian organisations within development, environment, peace and human rights. Our vision is a democratic and peaceful world based on fair distribution, solidarity, human rights and sustainability. Our main area of work is on the Sustainable Development Goals’]

  There is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors, and especially in a sector such as the construction industry, which accounts for around 15% of greenhouse gas emissions in Norway [more about this here]. It should be the task of the authorities to ensure that the calculations correspond to the most climate-friendly and energy-efficient measures, and that incentives and measures are implemented accordingly [as expected, there is no recognition of the faulty data base underlying these assumptions].

• Frank Ivar Andersen, Bygghåndverk Noreg [Norway’s umbrella organisation related to small and medium-sized construction businesses]

  Like many others, we believe that it takes a very long time for upgrading and demolition to make up for the benefits of replacing existing buildings with a new low-energy building. Based on the use of resources, and not least the costs involved, we urge you to focus on improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings when planning upgrades [this is one of the few reality-based comments].

• Hege-Lill Hagen Asp, Public Affairs Officer at the Association of Consulting Engineers (RIF) [another one of those quite useless BS jobs who’s peddling, well, nonsense as she makes up stuff she can’t know]

  Due to high energy costs, it happens that in old houses parts of the house are closed off and left cold, which will greatly reduce energy consumption. The actual buildings therefore have a different use than what is assumed in the calculations [this is done to deflect from the fact that the calculations are way off]. This may also be a matter of comfort and indoor climate, with users not being able to afford the same level of comfort because heating is expensive [also, these issues don’t play a role in the paper prepared by the civil engineers].

• Vegard Heide, Asplan Viak [that would be Norway’s biggest independent construction consultancy]

  The energy labelling scheme is imprecise, and this is a general phenomenon when it comes to energy in buildings, especially homes [so, what else may be ‘imprecise’ we’re basing public policy decisions on?]. The solution is to adjust the energy labelling scheme so that there is a better correlation between calculated and actual energy consumption [that shouldn’t be a problem due to mandatory ‘smart’ meters in the first place (since 2017): why wasn’t this fixed™ in, say, 2018?]. There will always be some discrepancy, but we should avoid large systematic discrepancies [you’re telling me now that ‘smart’ meters are useless? May I have been overbilled? WTF else is wrong with these ‘smart’ things?].

• Bård Folke Fredriksen, Director of the Norwegian Federation of Housing Associations (NBBL) [that would be the association of owners who rent out properties]

  The energy label can be misleading, but it is nevertheless important for Norwegian homeowners, housing cooperatives and co-owners to have a real energy label and fact-based information about energy consumption in homes and entire buildings [well, isn’t that WTF the meters are for, I mean, ‘smart’ or not, consumption has kinda always been metered for billing purposes…] This is important so that home buyers do not buy ‘a pig wearing lipstick’ [my free translation] and to recognise the potential for energy efficiency [another one of these stupid comments that are massively misleading, and I think it’s mainly because of the possibilities of abuse by, say, unscrupulous landlords who set rents in relation to these energy labels—now, I have no evidence of these people doing so, but it cannot be ruled out (change my mind)].

• Mari Sand Austigard, Mycoteam [‘competent consultants with an academic background’, i.e., more grift’n’consultancy]

  It's important to bear in mind that some energy efficiency measures can increase the risk of moisture and fungal damage. We constantly receive assignments where major rot damage has occurred as a result of post-insulation, damage that could have been avoided if good investigations and calculations had been carried out in advance and only the ‘low-hanging fruit’ had been picked [so, you people accepted the gov’t BS at face-value and are grifting on the results: well done].

While all of these are more or less interesting™, here’s the comment by the responsible gov’t entity, the Oil and Energy Ministry’s Elisabeth Sæther:

The purpose of the energy labelling scheme is to provide information about the energy status of the building compared with other similar buildings, so that consumers can more easily compare buildings when buying or renting. Since actual energy consumption depends on the users, standardised consumption figures are used to create a relevant basis for comparison.

We have recently changed the energy labelling scheme to make it more relevant for existing buildings. With the changes we have made, more buildings will be able to achieve energy rating A, and the building stock will be distributed more evenly between the various energy ratings. This will make it easier to move between grades, and hopefully motivate the implementation of energy measures. In the new energy labelling scheme, we also better facilitate solutions that relieve the power system, such as district heating.

So, was it all a mistake, then? Note the boilerplate BS and the wonderful™ way of answering™ a different, if unasked, question.

What a shitshow.