Décret tertiaire: obligations, OPERAT deadlines and the -40% trajectory for 2030

The Décret tertiaire (France's energy reduction mandate for commercial buildings) leaves you one month: by 30 September 2026, the 2025 consumption of every building in scope must be filed on the OPERAT platform, and since 1 July the certificate it produces has to be displayed in the lobby and attached to your leases. What we see on the ground is more troubling than the calendar: buildings compliant on paper without a single piece of equipment having been tuned, and others making the effort without seeing it at the meter. Here is how the Éco Énergie Tertiaire scheme works, where it does not hold up, and where to start if you want to hit -40% by 2030 without heavy building works.

What is the Décret tertiaire, and who does it apply to?

A definition of the Éco Énergie Tertiaire scheme

Éco Énergie Tertiaire is the official name of decree no. 2019-771 of 23 July 2019. It requires commercial buildings over 1,000 m² to cut their final energy consumption: -40% by 2030, -50% by 2040, -60% by 2050, against a baseline year chosen by the obligated party, or to reach an absolute-value threshold set by activity category. The meter is what counts. Nothing else.

From the ELAN law to decree no. 2019-771 of 23 July 2019

Article 175 of the ELAN law wrote the obligation into article L174-1 of the French building and housing code. The implementing decree appeared in the Official Journal in July 2019, the "method" order of 10 April 2020 set the calculation rules, then six "absolute value" orders followed through to 2025. It is easy to forget that the first version of the text, in 2017, was suspended by the Conseil d'État in June 2017 and annulled in 2018 over unworkable deadlines (according to Eco CO2). In March 2026, nineteen retail organisations went back to the Conseil d'État, this time against the absolute-value thresholds. A text annulled once, rewritten, added to over five years and challenged again is a work in progress, not a framework. And yet you have to commit ten-year budgets to it.

An obligation of results, not of means

The Décret tertiaire sets an energy consumption level to reach, and the obligation stops there: no insulation, no equipment, no BMS is prescribed. On paper that is an opportunity for a real estate department, free to design its own action plan. In practice it is the problem: the budget gets argued over by people who each have an answer to sell, the integrator a new BMS, the maintenance contractor a contract, the design office a renovation. Who, in your chain, has an interest in the answer being "building works"? The hierarchy of levers, with payback periods, is set out further down: that is where most compliance programmes are actually won or lost.

Why target commercial buildings?

The commercial sector weighs heavily in national energy consumption and in building greenhouse gas emissions, and the legislator targeted it ahead of housing, across the whole country, from the office to the airport. The stock is moving: the OPERAT review published in early 2026 reports -26% in consumption adjusted for climate between the baseline period and 2024 (ADEME data, 2026). Keep that figure in mind, we will come back to it: nobody knows precisely how much of those 26% comes from building works, from the restraint of the 2022 winter, from the price of gas, or from offices emptied by home working.

Buildings in scope: the 1,000 m² operating floor area threshold

Commercial premises with an operating floor area reaching 1,000 m²are in scope, counted cumulatively across a single site or a single land parcel: offices, retail, education, healthcare, logistics, airports, using the INSEE definition of commercial activity. The notion of a "site" is defined nowhere. A 900 m² building escapes the text, then falls under it the day it is administratively attached to another. Co-ownerships, coworking, car parks counted or not in the floor area: nothing is settled, and the ministry's guides have no legal force (source: Annabelle Bourg avocat; Batiactu, 2019). Document how you read the perimeter, because that is what will be discussed the day somebody takes an interest.

Owner, tenant, landlord: who carries the obligation?

Article L174-1 places it on "owners and, where applicable, tenants". Both, then, with no rule for splitting it: the text hands the allocation to the lease, and leases signed before 2019 say nothing about it. It is a joint responsibility whose rule nobody wrote. The prefect orders the landlord to produce the action plan, which makes the landlord responsible in practice. And energy efficiency works risk being classed as major repairs under article 606 of the civil code, payable by the landlord, except for leases predating November 2014 (source: Zakine avocats; Advant Altana, RDI, 2023). There is no case law to date. A text that creates a two-headed obligation without saying who pays, on a subject worth several million euros, is years of litigation held in reserve. Reread your environmental annex before your tenant does.

Buildings excluded from the scheme

Decree no. 2019-771 sets a closed list of three exclusions (source: legifrance.gouv.fr):

• Temporary structures
• Places of worship
• Defence and civil security buildings

Nothing else: no activity category is excluded from the obligation. A care home, a hospital, a laboratory or a logistics warehouse remains fully in scope, with the same milestones as an office building, even though those buildings run 24 hours a day and cannot switch much off.

Special cases: new buildings, extensions and mixed-use sites

An RE2020 building delivered last year is in scope, with its first full year of operation as the baseline. New buildings have to cut what they never consumed. Retailers argue, in their March 2026 challenge, that some recent stores would be non-compliant from opening day against the 2030 thresholds; that is a figure from the claimants, to be read as such (source: Alliance du Commerce, 2026). The same logic applies to mixed-use sites: on an industrial estate, the offices, the staff restaurant and the commercial premises add up, and the factory comes into scope as soon as the total exceeds 1,000 m². A regional airport likewise adds terminal, offices and retail together within each functional entity of its perimeter.

What reduction targets and what timetable does the Décret tertiaire set?

The relative value: -40% by 2030, -50% by 2040, -60% by 2050

The first method, known as Crelat, sets a target in relative value : the building's consumption, corrected for climate, must fall by -40% by 2030, -50% by 2040, -60% by 2050 against a baseline year. Those milestones also carry the national target on greenhouse gas emissions. They come from the ELAN law, and that is where the first anomaly hides: we come to it in two paragraphs.

Absolute value and the Cabs orders

The second method sets a consumption threshold in absolute value, in kWh/m²/year, by activity category and sub-category, modulated according to the declared intensity of use. Meeting either target is enough, and the more favourable one prevails. These Cabs thresholds were published in six waves: November 2020, April 2022, November 2023, February 2024, July 2024, and finally the "Absolute values VI" order of 1 August 2025, published in the Official Journal on 6 September 2025 for retail, cinemas and banks (source: Légifrance; CCI Jura). Do the maths: a hypermarket learned its 2030 threshold four years before the deadline, for a scheme voted in 2018, when a real estate CAPEX cycle is planned over ten years. The retailers' challenge points out that chains had five months, until 1 July 2026, to set their trajectory. You can dislike big retail and still find the complaint well founded.

How should you choose your baseline year?

You choose your baseline year from twelve consecutive months of operation taken between 2010 and 2022; the calendar year is not imposed. The consumption used is corrected for climate, which changes everything: the most favourable year is not necessarily the highest in raw terms, and a corrected cold year can offer a better base than a mild year that was badly run. Anyone who renovated between 2010 and 2019 collects a retroactive credit for work done before the decree existed; anyone who had renovated before 2010 starts with a handicap that no modulation makes up for. This is not an incentive to consume less, it is a prize for good archiving. Before you decide, make your historical data trustworthy: a dataset full of holes makes the choice indefensible, and you will not be able to revisit it before 2030.

Modulating the targets, and the technical file

Targets can be modulated for technical, architectural or heritage constraints, for a change in the intensity of use, or for manifestly disproportionate cost. Article 11 of the order of 10 April 2020 sets the gross payback periods, net of grants, beyond which disproportion is accepted: 30 years for the envelope, 15 years for replacing equipment, 6 years for optimization and management systems (texts: Légifrance; Cegibat). Some consultancies publish 10 years for that last category; the text says 6. Read the first threshold carefully: thirty years is the service life of a facade. No investor judges a project on that basis, and the payback calculation guide promised by the authorities still has not been published. Economic modulation on insulation is a scheme designed to stay shut. The 6-year payback on operational optimization, by contrast, is a calculation framework you can use tomorrow morning; we come back to it.

Pooling the effort across a property portfolio

Article R174-31 of the building code and article 14 of the method order allow results to be pooled across all or part of a portfolio: the consumption caps of each functional entity are added together, and a high-performing building offsets one that is behind. For a property company or a multi-site business, that reverses the order of priorities: you concentrate the effort where the opportunity is accessible instead of spreading it thinly building by building. It does require a consolidated view of consumption across the property portfolio, with historical data that is comparable from one site to the next. On the portfolios we open up, every site has its own integrator, its own time interval and its own gaps.

2019-2022: entry into force and the first filings

The decree came into force on 1 October 2019 and the OPERAT platform opened the filing phase in stages. The first filing, due on 30 September 2022, slipped to 31 December 2022 (according to Hellio), the baseline year remained changeable throughout 2023, and the order of 13 April 2022 changed substantive rules five months before the first submission. That start installed a habit: treating every deadline as negotiable. It no longer is, and the accumulated delay shows in the figures in the next section.

1 July 2026: the annual digital certificate becomes mandatory

Since 1 July 2026, the digital certificate generated by OPERAT, with its Éco Énergie Tertiaire rating, is no longer a provisional document: it has to be displayed in the building, somewhere visible, and attached to leases and deeds of sale (source: DRIEAT Île-de-France; order of 1 August 2025). It is not published online, but every tenant, every buyer and every visitor to the lobby sees it, and failure to display it is a breach in its own right. The obligation changes in nature: compliance stops being a matter between you and the administration and becomes a line in the lease negotiation. An asset with a grey leaf negotiates less well, before any penalty.

30 September 2026: filing 2025 consumption

Your 2025 consumption must be entered on the OPERAT platform by 30 September 2026at the latest. Yet lateness is the sector norm: 40% of 2023 consumption arrived after the deadline (source: O-Immobilier Durable, OPERAT review). That de facto tolerance is not a right, and a missing or inconsistent filing weakens any later request for modulation. The obligation applies to every entity, activity by activity, including those whose meter is shared. Collecting the data from tenants, suppliers and network operators takes weeks, not days, especially when the main meter also feeds an EV charge point and premises that are not yours.

30 September 2027: submitting the technical modulation file

On the prevailing reading of the texts, the technical modulation file must be submitted by 30 September 2027 at the latest, five years after the first filing deadline. Some advisers write 2026: the divergence exists, refer to the texts (source: Opéra Énergie; Cegibat). The file requires a full energy audit, a payback analysis and a reasoned action plan. Each element takes months, and the audit serves twice: to decide the investment, and to prove disproportion where it exists.

2030, 2040, 2050: the three decade milestones

Each decade milestone checks that the target is being met, in relative or absolute value. The figures call for clear eyes: 47% of declared floor area already meets the 2030 target, but the 2024 fall is only 0.8% against 6% in 2023 (ADEME data; Greenta, 2026). The restraint effect is running out. What remains to be done will no longer come from thermostats turned down a degree or from empty offices: it will have to be found in the installations, less than four years from the first milestone.

OPERAT filing: how to file, and what you risk if you do not

The role of the OPERAT platform, run by ADEME

The OPERAT platform (operat.ademe.gouv.fr), run by ADEME, centralises the collection and tracking of consumption for buildings in scope: floor areas, activity, baseline year, annual consumption by energy type. It also serves as the calculation base for absolute values, and its FAQ acts as unofficial doctrine on points the decree does not settle. Yet only 55% of filings are considered reliable, a third of the floor area is not filed at all, and full coverage is expected around 2031 at the current rate, in other words after the deadline (source: O-Immobilier Durable; eGreen). The thresholds imposed on you were calculated on a base of which the administration itself judges only one filing in two to be reliable.

The filing steps: account, EFA and consumption

Filing on the OPERAT platform has four steps:

1. Create the organisation's account on operat.ademe.gouv.fr
2. Define each in-scope functional entity (EFA): perimeter, floor area, activity, attached premises
3. Enter the baseline year and its consumption
4. Enter last year's consumption, every year

Since 2023, network operators and energy suppliers have been able to send some data directly to the platform, which lightens the data entry but does not settle the underlying question: the notion of an EFA is still judged hard to grasp by real estate professionals themselves, even though its perimeter conditions everything else. The result: up to 50% of filings incomplete or incorrect, up to 90% in multi-tenant configurations (eGreen figures). A badly scoped EFA distorts the baseline year, the target and the rating all at once.

The Éco Énergie Tertiaire rating and the annual certificate

Every validated filing generates an annual certificate and a rating per functional entity, calculated on the declared activity category: a grey leaf for consumption that rises without justification, up to a triple green leaf for an entity already below its absolute threshold. That scale from the Éco Énergie Tertiaire scheme is now displayed in the building and attached to leases, and the market has started reading it: acquisition due diligence, rent negotiation, the tenant's own non-financial reporting. A grey leaf becomes an argument for the tenant. Archive every certificate, you will be asked for them.

Making your metering data trustworthy before you file

I once opened up a new building delivered with 230 sub-meters. Not one was usable as it stood: data gaps at every disconnection, duplicates, unstable intervals, drift nobody had seen because nobody was looking. The owner's ESG reporting rested on it, and so did its OPERAT filing. On the instrumented buildings we audit, that is the rule, not the exception.

There is something more troubling than false meters. A building can show perfect compliance without a single system having been tuned: two floors emptied by home working, a well-chosen baseline year, or a roof of photovoltaic panels whose self-consumed output is not counted in OPERAT, a rule that comes from ADEME's FAQ and that the decree states nowhere (source: Hellio; ADEME). The same text does count EV charge points towards your target if they are not sub-metered separately. The decree measures kWh at the meter, not performance. It does not distinguish a well-run building from a half-empty one. The only thing you can defend in front of a prefect, as in front of an investor, is clean data and a measurement method somebody else can verify.

Formal notice and the administrative fine

The procedure escalates. The prefect first gives the obligated party formal notice to produce its action plan within six months, then within three. Failing that, the administrative fine reaches 7 500 € per functional entity for a legal entity and 1 500 € for an individual, renewable each year. Read it carefully: the penalty targets the absence of a plan, not the missed target. An obligation of result with no penalty on the result. And to date we have found no public record of a fine actually being issued (according to Opéra Énergie; Annabelle Bourg avocat). Keep a copy of every exchange with the State services, that is the only file that will count.

Name and shame: publishing the formal notices

The text provides for formal notices left unanswered to be published on a State website. For a property company or a retail chain, the exposure matters more than the fine. The procedures, however, do not exist: no appeal before listing, no regulated period to put things right (source: Annabelle Bourg avocat). The risk is real on paper and theoretical in practice, which entitles nobody to bet on lasting leniency: a scheme that has never penalised anyone always ends up making an example.

The indirect impacts: asset value, ESG and CSRD

The real cost of non-compliance is not the fine: an envelope renovation runs into millions of euros against a €7,500 cap per entity (source: Opéra Énergie; Annabelle Bourg avocat). That asymmetry shifts the entire risk to reputation and finance. Since July 2026, the rating attached to leases has made compliance a market criterion in the commercial sector : discounts on lagging buildings, CSRD requirements from tenants, expectations from funds about their property portfolios. For an asset manager, the OPERAT position has become a line in the asset's business plan, and that line rests on a raw material almost nobody controls: final energy consumption measured accurately.

BACS decree, BMS and levers for action: how to comply, and how to fund it

Two complementary texts: consumption results versus automation

The Décret tertiaire imposes a consumption result. The BACS decree no. 2020-887, for building automation and control system, imposes a means: fitting buildings with an automation and control system, in other words a BMS, according to the effective rated output of the heating or cooling installations (above 290 kW since 1 January 2025, 70 to 290 kW on 1 January 2030 following the postponement in decree no. 2025-1343 of 26 December 2025). The two texts are supposed to complement each other. They do not even agree on what counts as cost-effective. The Décret tertiaire accepts disproportion beyond 6 years of payback for an optimization system (article 11 of the order of 10 April 2020); BACS only exempts you from a BMS if the payback exceeds 10 years (annex 1 of the order of 7 April 2023), using a different calculation method. A BMS with an 8-year payback is mandatory under BACS and "manifestly disproportionate" under the Décret tertiaire, and nobody at the ministry seems to have noticed. Even so, despite that drafting error, the synergy between the two decrees remains obvious:

The BMS, the central tool of the OPERAT trajectory

BACS funds and mandates the tool; the Décret tertiaire mandates the result that tool has to deliver. A BMS made reliable and then actively controlled turns a compliance expense into an instrument that acts every day on reported consumption: setpoints, schedules, air network flow rates, loop temperatures. Two competitors out of eight ranking on this query mention the BACS decree, one of them in a few lines (analysis of competing content). Yet it is the only subject that matters for a real estate department: you are going to pay for a BMS because of BACS, so it may as well be good for something under the Décret tertiaire. That only happens if it is genuinely commissioned, tested point by point, and then properly operated. The diagram sums up the convergence: two texts, one execution tool.

When a badly run BMS sabotages compliance

What we see in supervision systems rarely looks like the brochures. A VIP complaint triggers a setpoint override (the director on the top floor who wants 24 °C all year round, seen many times), and nobody ever removes it. A degraded mode switched on one winter weekend lasts three years, because the building is warm and nobody remembers any more why normal mode was cut. Disconnected meters go unnoticed for want of any equipment status check. I have seen BMS installations perfectly compliant on paper and incapable of holding a setpoint three years after handover. The consequence has a name, energy drift : the consumption of a new or renovated building creeping up year after year with nothing identifying the culprit, like an air handling unit whose filter clogs day after day until the alarm goes off. The culprit is operation. An installation riddled with overrides executes no reduction target, whatever was invested in it.

Make it reliable, then optimize: the twin pillars of a workable trajectory

The method has two stages and the order is not negotiable. First make it reliable: repair the control sequences, remove the overrides, set useful alarms, verify the metering. Then optimize: tune the control on that cleaned-up foundation. Reversing the order means optimizing false measurements, which is flying blind with more effort. Making the system reliable has value in its own right, and there is not necessarily an AI phase behind it: on a badly tuned installation, putting the setpoints and schedules straight already returns several points. That sequence also structures the action plan the prefect expects: it documents each gain instead of asserting it. What remains is to rank the actions against each other.

Comparing the levers: gains, investment, lead time, building works

The question for a decision-maker on a constrained budget is not "what should we do?" but "where do we start?". None of the eight competing articles ranks the levers; the best of them lists six, in no order (analysis of competing content). The table below ranks them by the payback period article 11 accepts, because that is the only criterion the text gives you, and by what we measure in the field.

Read it straight: operating the BMS is the only item that naturally falls within article 11's 6-year payback. It is the first lever on the road to -40%, and the only one a building that is already equipped can activate before winter.

Optimizing operation and controlling the existing BMS

Immediate action, with no building works: tune what is already there. Temperature setpoints, restart time, air flow rates, hot and chilled water loop temperatures, load shedding during peaks. Predictive control continuously recalculates what reactive control froze into schedules written at commissioning. This field of energy management, also called technical energy management and structured by ISO 50001 for organisations that adopt it, has a usable regulatory framework: article 11 accepts a 6-year payback for optimization and management systems (source: Légifrance, order of 10 April 2020). In other words, the text itself tells you where the most profitable lever sits. One caveat: on a small commercial site, the payback can be considerably longer, and a serious figure is calculated on your own historical data, not on a range.

The energy audit and the action plan

The energy audit establishes the state of consumption by end use and ranks actions by their profitability. It serves twice: to decide the investment programme, and to justify a modulation through the technical file, of which it becomes the centrepiece. Two caveats. The payback calculation guide promised by the authorities still has not been published (source: Cegibat), so every obligated party builds its own method, with the interpretation risk that entails. And an audit carried out on false meters produces a false action plan with a great deal of confidence: making the metering reliable comes before the audit, not after.

Replacing equipment with high-performance systems

The second family: replacement. HVAC generation, LED lighting, terminal control, rebalanced hot and chilled water networks. The modulation grid allows a 15-year payback for this item. Legitimate, but second in the order of execution, and booby-trapped by the order of 13 April 2022. Its article 16 only permits a change of energy source if it increases neither emissions nor non-renewable primary energy, using ad hoc coefficients: electricity 2.3, gas 1, wood 0. Switching from gas to biomass is therefore allowed, and it increases the final energy consumption reported, because of boiler efficiency, the very indicator the decree measures; leaving a highly renewable district heating network for a heat pump can conversely be barred by the coefficient, even though the final kWh would be cut by three (source: News Tank Cities; Légifrance). A text that blocks the action improving its indicator and permits the one degrading it: check the calculation before signing a boiler room quotation.

Renovating the building envelope

Insulation, windows, airtightness: the heavy programme, on a 2040-2050 horizon, to be sequenced after the operational actions. On this item, modulation will save nobody. Article 11 allows 30 years of payback for the envelope, the service life of a facade (source: Légifrance; Annabelle Bourg avocat). Economic disproportion is almost impossible to demonstrate there, whatever arrangement you consider. The envelope is planned, not modulated, and it is planned all the better once the operational gains have been taken: you insulate a building whose real consumption you finally know.

Occupant awareness

Good habits, switching workstations off, adjusting usage: a real action but a capped one, and not durable without technical control, because every occupant remains free to do as they like. Its limit shows in the national figures: a 0.8% fall in 2024 against 6% in 2023 (ADEME data; Greenta, 2026). The momentum of restraint runs out without a foundation. And the decree measures only a meter: a building emptied by home working improves its rating without a single action on building energy, while a full building that has tuned everything can stay on an orange leaf. Nobody has planned to correct that.

Energy Saving Certificates (CEE)

The standardised CEE schemes for the commercial sector reward operational actions (control, pipe insulation, BMS) as much as renovation, and that support is deducted from the payback in the modulation file, which mechanically improves the profitability of the actions selected. Only one competitor out of eight covers CEE and energy performance contract funding (analysis of competing content). Yet CEE remain one of the few funding routes an obligated business can mobilise immediately. One caveat we repeat on every file: the grant funds the installation, not the commissioning. A subsidised BMS that is never tested is still a BMS that drifts.

The energy performance contract (EPC)

An energy performance contract commits the operator to a result: it guarantees a level of savings and shares the risk if there is a shortfall. The logic matches the decree's, since an obligation of performance calls for contracts of the same kind. On one condition contracts often forget: every performance calculation carries an uncertainty, and that uncertainty widens as soon as the measurement data is unreliable. With meters full of holes or duplicated, the margin becomes so wide that the operator gets paid whatever happens, even with zero real savings. An energy performance contract built on data that has not been made reliable is not a performance commitment, it is a guarantee of payment. Insist on a verifiable baseline and an enforceable measurement method before signing, not after the first disputed review.

The Fonds Chaleur and other support schemes

ADEME's Fonds Chaleur, local schemes and sector-specific grants stack with CEE to fund compliance. One nuance to handle knowingly: connecting to a district heating network gets a coefficient of 0.77 in OPERAT, in other words "23% of the reduction counted" according to the government site France Chaleur Urbaine (source: France Chaleur Urbaine; order of 13 April 2022). A quarter of the 2030 target won without touching a radiator. It is as much an accounting subsidy as an energy one, and it is a political choice that dares not say its name: factor it into the decision, without making it the alibi for leaving operation as it is.

How does Foobot secure your Décret tertiaire trajectory with no building works?

BMS Advisory: making your meters and your OPERAT data reliable

At Foobot, a brand of EnergyWise SAS, we work as BMS Advisory, and we sell none of the works we recommend. We audit your BMS, remove the overrides that have piled up, restore coherent sequences and useful alarms. Above all, we make your meters reliable: disconnections, data gaps, duplicates, invisible drift, the defects that make an OPERAT filing indefensible. Our deliverables cover the "Obsolete" BMS audit, a second opinion on obsolescence that is often declared too fast, commissioning and the defects liability year, operational advisory, and meter data reliability for every unit in your portfolio.

AI Control: regulating HVAC every 15 minutes through the existing BMS

Where the building lends itself to it, and only then, our AI Control trains a digital twin of each building on your BMS history, weather data and occupancy. The AI predicts demand, then regulates HVAC every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day: hot and chilled water loops, air flow rates, supply temperatures, peak shaving. It sits on your existing equipment, over BACnet or LonWorks (often shortened to LON), at supervision level, with no added hardware and no building works. The commitment is 12 months, among the shortest on the market: clients stay because they are satisfied, not because of a contract. And if your BMS is not reliable enough to be controlled seriously, we will tell you, and we will start by putting it straight.

AI Optimal Start: restarting each zone at the right moment

Conventional optimal start controllers have not moved on in 25 years: a global, reactive restart, identical for the whole building, set once at commissioning. Our AI Optimal Start recalculates the optimal restart time zone by zone every day, from thermal inertia, weather, solar gain and forecast occupancy. Neither too early nor too late. It also exists in a self-service version for BMS integrators and design offices that want to run it themselves on their own sites.

Gains measured under the IPMVP protocol, not declared promises

We do not promise 30% because a slide says 30%. A building is not a mass-produced item: the potential depends on the HVAC, the BMS, how the building is used, the instrumentation and what is actually controllable, and the only serious answer before opening up the historical data is "we do not know yet". What we do guarantee is the measurement: every gain is calculated under the IPMVP protocol with degree-day climate correction, auditable by an independent third party, exactly what a defensible OPERAT filing requires. At Valeo, that method measured -28.6% HVAC consumption with no equipment replaced (case study available from the home page). The commercial sector needs accurate meters and somebody looking at them, not promises.

FAQ: your questions on the Décret tertiaire