Even if savings were justifiable (they are not as explained on the website) then taxation, eg emission taxation on buildings, makes more sense:
Choice is maintained, and – unlike with bans – government gains income that can be used towards dealing with actual energy/emission problems
eg towards renewable energy

See
http://ceolas.net/#cc241x

Efficient buildings are sealed buildings.
That means windows that can’t open, no balconies, no open plan rooftop
communication: Not always what people want.
Of course, that doesn’t mean no buildings will have balconies in the
future, it means that to keep within the efficiency regulation for a
type of building, architects no longer have the option to build as
they – and the purchasers and occupiers – might wish.

Notably, related to electricity,
while local solar/wind/geothermal energy may sometimes provide
heating/cooling requirements for buildings,
for widespread emission-free energy supply,
grid electricity will play a key role too.

Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
–The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected
– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing
–The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence
–The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs