Can Building Codes Deliver Energy Efficiency

8/14/2019 Can Building Codes Deliver Energy Efficiency

1/48

Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

www.rics.orgResearch

Can building codes deliverenergy e ciency?De ning a best practice approach A report or the Royal Institution o Chartered Surveyorsby the Building Research EstablishmentJune 2008


2/48



3/48


Can building codes deliver energy e ciency?De ning a best practice approach


4/48

ISBN 978-1-84219-413-3

RICS June 2008

RICS12 Great George StreetLondon SW1P 3ADUnited Kingdom

www.rics.org

This report was written by Roger Hitchin o the Building ResearchEstablishment to support the work o RICS in exploring waysin which we can move towards a low carbon built environment.The views expressed and recommendations put orward are thoseo the author and are intended to stimulate discussion and debateon the way orward. They do not constitute RICS policy and therecommendations are not necessarily endorsed by RICS.

Roger Hitchin is Technical Director at the Building Research Establishment,specialising in energy and environmental issues. He is now a BRE Associate,an energy consultant and an honorary research ellow at the Welsh Schoolo Architecture. In recent years, much o his time has been occupied withsupporting various aspects o the implementation the Energy Per ormanceo Buildings Directive. Previously he worked in the natural gas industry ina variety o roles dealing with technical and business research, including astudy o the US energy regulation system. He has also worked as a buildingservices design consultant and a university researcher.

Building Research EstablishmentBRE, Bucknalls Lane, Wat ord WD25 9XXUnited Kingdom

www.bre.co.uk


5/48

Executive Summary and Recommendations 9Recommendation 1: Basic Calculation Structure 10Recommendation 2: Speci c Calculation Structure 10Recommendation 3: Calculation Procedure 11Recommendation 4: Staged Implementation 11

Recommendation 5: En orcement 12Recommendation 6: Required Per ormance Levels 12Recommendation 7: Complementary scal action 13Recommendation 8: Complementary demonstration action 13

1 What are we trying to achieve? 14

2 Building energy regulations as policy instruments 162.1 Building energy codes and regulatory policy 162.2 Energy policy and building energy regulations 172.3 Building energy codes and other instruments 172.4 Scope o building energy codes and regulations 18

3 Options or structures o building energy codes and regulations 203.1 Prescriptive and per ormance-based codes 203.2 Advantages and disadvantages o elemental and integrated methods 21

4 Setting compliance levels or minimum per ormance 24

5 En orcement 265.1 Options or en orcement routes 265.2 Building control structures: administrative procedures in Europe 265.3 Quality o en orcement 285.4 Characteristics o di erent en orcement routes 28

6 Overview o building codes around the world 32European Union 33Rest o Europe and Central Asia 34Middle East 35A rica 36South Asia 37China and Mongolia 38South East Asia 39Australasia 40North America 41

Caribbean 42Central and South America 43

Re erences 44

Contents

Can building codes deliver energy e ciency?


6/48


7/48

The UK government recently issued a consultation document onthe Future o Building Control in England and Wales. It identi edthat the building control system in England and Wales is notbroken, (but) it has some signi cant weaknesses that must betackled i we are to ensure that it remains t or purpose in todaysworld and in the uture.During the consultation period and the

ollowing months there will be viewsput orward rom various quarters inrespect o the work that needs to bedone many o which will ocus upon

particular elements o the systemThe intention o this report rom theBuilding Research Establishment(BRE) to RICS is to initiate debateon some o those areas o work thatneed development and rein orcement.The recommendations highlighted arein the nature o being rom BRE toRICS rather than an RICS viewpoint.With this in mind, RICS welcomes therecommendations being proposed and

will be considering them urther to seehow they can be urther developed

The RICS Building Control Facultytakes note o this report and welcomesthe debate especially in the contexto the recent report published bythe Building Control Alliance (BCA)entitled, A Building Control System

or the 21st Century.

The BCA report contains severalrecommendations that are relevant tothis research that will help stimulate

urther debate on the uture o buildingcontrol, including issues relating to

non-compliance, sel regulation andenergy per ormance.

It must also be noted that somecredit or improvements to the energyper ormance o buildings over the last20 to 30 years has been due to thework o Chartered Building ControlSurveyors in the UK. This has resultedin the energy per ormance o 2008buildings being vastly superior to their1970s counterparts when buildingregulations on energy conservation rstcame into orce.

RICS recognises the need or changeand hopes that through debate andcommunication within the constructionindustry we can o er viable solutionsto the problems aced by the builtenvironment.

David McCullogh Policy Lead or Building Control Facultyand RICS Representative on BuildingControl Alliance

Foreword



8/48


What are the most e ectiveinterventions that we can makein the overall process o thecreation, management and useo the built environment in orderto reduce carbon emissions?


9/48

Executive summaryand recommendationsSocieties around the world are nowbeing aced with an imperative o howto respond to the challenge o climatechange. We have now reached a pointwhere the ocus is not so much onwondering whether there is a need oraction but to decide on what the bestaction should be. In deciding on that,we have needed to nd out just wherethe carbon emissions responsible orclimate change are actually coming

rom. We need to be sure that we areputting our e orts into the right areas,or otherwise our e orts will be wasted.

As a result o this, we are now in littledoubt that buildings and the builtenvironment play a crucial role, both increating carbon emissions and in oure orts to reduce carbon emissions.

However, simply to say that the builtenvironment is responsible does notget us much closer to knowing whatto do about it. What are the moste ective interventions that we canmake in the overall process o thecreation, management and use othe built environment in order toreduce carbon emissions?

Clearly, there are multiple interventionsthat can be made, some technical,some nancial and some regulatory each has its part to play and eachneeds to be investigated.

In this report, we asked Roger Hitchino the Building Research Establishment

(BRE) in the UK to look at the role obuilding regulations, critically reviewingthe way in which building regulationsin selected countries around the world

can contribute to achieving energye ciency. The aim was to see i it ispossible to identi y possible bestpractice or energy-related buildingcodes and regulations in the contexto both UK and world-wide conditionsand needs.

The speci c ways in which buildingregulations deal with energy e ciencywill inevitably di er around the world,depending on climatic circumstances.However, what we wanted to addresswas whether there are any principlesunderlying their ormulation,compliance and en orcementthat could be highlighted.

What did he ndand what doeshe recommend?There is general acceptance thatbuilding energy codes are an importantenergy policy instrument.a In manycountries, especially in Europe, moredemanding codes have resulted in thebuildings that are constructed todaybeing more energy-e cient than thoseo twenty years ago. Since energypolicy concerns and prioritieslegitimately di er rom country tocountry, it is very unlikely that therecan be a universally applicable buildingenergy code. However, the reviewidenti ed some eatures o codestructure that have been demonstrated

to be applicable over a range odi erent situations and have beenwidely recognised as representinggood practice.

Most o the recommendations belowhave this basis.

Implementation and en orcementhas been the subject o widespreadcomment and debate, but there seemsas yet to be no clear consensus aboutgood practice (beyond a near-universalcall or better resourcing).

The recommendations in these areasare there ore perhaps more contentiousand refect the more convincing-sounding proposals and analyses thathave been discovered rather than much

in the way o empirical evidence.Some weaknesses o implementation especially in the area o apportioningcosts can only be addressed(it seems) by actions that are outsidethe direct scope o building energycodes and regulations. Two sets ocomplementary actions arerecommended in this area.

a The International Energy Agency, or example, is producing a working paper on policy recommendations on building energycodes as part o its work or the G8 Gleneagles Plan o Action. The European Commission Action Plan or Energy E ciencyCOM(2006)545 stresses the importance o minimum energy per ormance standards or buildings.



10/48

Core recommendations to RICS: these recommendations relate speci cally to the structureand implementation o building codes as they relate toenergy e ciency

The basic structureo building regulations

The code should be per ormance-based and should take the orm oan integrated energy calculation thatincludes the demands generated by thebuilding abric and its occupants uponall the xed building services, and theper ormance o the systems that satis ythose demands. It should include all

energy supplies to the building.

Reason

The wide scope and exibility of thisstructure allows changing energypolicy priorities to be refectedwithout changing the basicstructure: or example by changingthe relative weights applied todi erent energy supply sources

This structure provides a base onwhich energy per ormance labellingsystems can be constructed, shouldthis be desired

This recommendation re ects ageneral structure that has beenapplied success ully in manycountries with greatly di eringtraditions o building energy codes.

Comments

We make no recommendationabout the common metric intowhich each consumption isconverted as this will dependon the energy policy prioritieso the implementing governmentor authority. At the moment climatechange is a key policy driver inmany countries,b but this has notalways been so and may not always

be so. Other possibilities includeprimary energy, or might prioritiseelectricity or imported

uel consumption.

Although we recommend that thescope o services covered be all the

xed building services, it is possibleto include or exclude some servicessuch as catering equipmentor kitchen ventilation withoutundermining the methodology

For regulatory purposes, eachspace in the building should beassumed to have a standardisedpattern o use, including set-points,lighting levels, minimum resh airsupply etc. We make no speci crecommendation about how manydi erent standard activities thereshould be

The use of non-standard valuesmay be permitted as a meanso supporting design decisionsbut should only be allowed orregulatory purposes where it isclear that these represent thelikely and continuing actual useo the space.

See section 3 or more details onthis recommendation

The speci ccalculation structure

The calculated integrated energymetric should be compared to thato a re erence building o the samesize and geometry but with de nedelemental properties (such as thermalresistance o envelope elements,boiler e ciencies). These elementalproperties should be clearly de ned

and should allow the re erence buildingenergy metric value to be calculatedwithout urther input.

Reason

With this convention (and withoutthe use o general improvement

actors) a designer (andregulator) knows that satis yingall the elemental requirements will

automatically meet the calculatedtarget. There ore, in practicalterms, the regulation appears to beidentical to one based on elementalvalues, but retains the fexibility oan integrated calculation.

Comments

This approach has the disadvantageo removing incentives to useinherently e cient geometries.It does not prevent the use osuch design strategies, but doesnot reward them

Care is needed with the de nitiono some elemental values orthe re erence building, notablywindow properties, since themost appropriate values are o tenclimate-dependent

Elemental values might be minimum

per ormance standards orequipment set by other regulations

21

b In which case the emission o greenhouse gases is an appropriate metric


11/48

Once the proposed or actualbuilding has been de ned in termswhich the calculation procedurecan use, the re erence buildingcan be automatically calculated

This structure leads naturally intothe development o a per ormancescale ( or example A to G ratingsor a numerical scale) based onthe ratio o actual to re erenceper ormance.


Calculationprocedure

There should be a single recommendedcalculation procedure which should beinherently fexible but should have auser inter ace designed or regulatory(rather than general design) purposes.

Reason

A single procedure ensuresconsistency o calculation andremoves the risk o marketcompetition or ease o compliancebetween rival procedures

A exible procedure (in practicetypically based on hourlycalculations) is needed in orderto properly represent HVAC andlighting systems and some buildingdesign eatures

General design interfaces areunnecessarily complicated orregulatory purposes. Speci cally-designed inter aces should beeasier to check and are likelyto be less prone to user error.

Comment

Different implementations and userinter aces may be allowable, subjectto adequate testing

This recommendation aims to strikea balance between reliability oapplication and the ability to handleany building and system

Alternative calculation proceduresmay be allowed but should besubject to extensive checking

or consistency with thepre erred method


StagedImplementation

This recommendation ollows onrom the recommendation 3. Building

Energy Codes that do not include anintegrated calculation procedure shouldbe designed to be steps towards sucha structure.

Reason

The recommended integrationcalculation structure is onlypracticable given an adequatelevel o understanding and trainingamongst designers, builders, andthose who must en orce the code.This will not always be present,and elemental codes perhapsincluding provision or sometrade-o s may be as ar as

it is reasonable to go.

Comment

It is desirable to move to anintegrated calculation whencircumstances allow and thispossibility should be borne in mindwhen introducing elemental codes.In practice this will impose ewconstraints on the design o anelemental code.

A typical development sequence o building energy regulations is:

1. Elemental thermalrequirements

2. Add trade-o s betweenelements

3. Fully integrated calculations

4. Extension to energyper ormance rating.

See sections 3 and 6 or moredetails on this recommendation

3 4



12/48

En orcement obuilding regulations

Compliance with mandatory minimumper ormance requirements should becon rmed by ormally certi ed privateassessors, who charge building owners

or their services. The process shouldbe audited by the authority underwhich the code is issued normallylocal or central government or bytheir agents. The audit process shouldhave the ultimate sanction o removingaccreditation rom assessors, subject toproper appeals and review procedures.

Reason

Although compliance enforced bygovernment may be theoreticallythe most robust approach, there isvery widespread evidence that in

practice it is very di cult to obtainsu cient unding or this. Therecommendation recognises thisconstraint and allows governmentto concentrate on the properoperation o the process. Thepossible loss o accreditation andthere ore o income provides anincentive or assessors to maintainproper pro essional standards

Building energy regulation requires

specialist technical knowledge anddetailed knowledge o each buildingwhich places onerous demands onbuilding control o cers.

Comment

Inadequate enforcement processesare o ten a constraint on thedevelopment o energy codes,especially o the typerecommended above

This approach runs the risk ofassessors erring on the side oleniency since their uture incomemay depend on repeat business

rom the customer. This could bealleviated by randomly assigningassessors to projects

A central register of assessmentsis required in order to monitorthe process. This also has theadvantage o providing policymakers with in ormation aboutthe per ormance o buildings

If a code is voluntary, rather thanmandatory, compliance shouldbe checked by a similar process

There remains a need for adequate(and en orced) penalties or non-

compliance In the UK (and some other

countries) the development oin rastructure to support buildingEnergy Per ormance Certi catesis creating an cadre o trained,certi ed assessors with suitableskills to take on this role.


RequiredPer ormance Levels

As a general principle, mandatoryminimum per ormance levels shouldrefect an assessment o the balance ocosts and bene ts to society, includingexternal costs.

Reason

The justi cation for mandatorycodes is that there should be (orat least be believed to be) a societalbene t that would not be gainedin the absence o legislation.

Comment

The valuing of costs and, especially,bene ts is an essentially politicalprocess (and the perceived values

will change rom time to time)and we do not set out speci crecommendations other than thatthey should be done in accordancewith internationally recognised rulesand procedures

Due account should be takeno transitional costs or theconstruction industry

Voluntary levels of compliance ( or example green codes) maybe justi ed on other bases

Since our recommended structureenables the impact o di erentmeasures to balanced against eachother, we see no virtue in mandatoryrequirements or particulartechnologies ( or example,renewables) within building energycodes. This does not rule outregulation to encourage the useo new technologies but we eelthat these should be separate rombuilding energy codes.


5 6


13/48

Fiscal action

Fiscal incentives or penalties should belinked to building energy labels.

Reason

The market does not suf cientlyvalue the uture bene ts o goodenergy per ormance o buildings.This penalises the initial buyer oa new building who cannot avoidthe extra initial cost but cannotcurrently recoup it when selling.

Comment

Effectively penalising poorerper orming buildings and rewardingbetter ones is a step towardsremoving this imbalance

The closer market prices are torepresenting li ecycle optimumvalue, the lower the incentive toconstruct below-quality buildings.


Demonstrationaction

Programmes should be unded todemonstrate (or not) the easibility obuildings that exceed current regulatoryminimum per ormance levels.

Reason

To build industry con dence thatthe technical easibility and costo higher levels o per ormancehas been properly and practicallyexplored in advance o thembecoming mandatory.

Comment

Although integrated calculationmethods can alleviate thecosts o substantial changes in

requirements, it is pre erable toboth demonstrate easibility andallow the construction industrytime to become amiliar with newdemands be ore they becomemandatory

This will reduce the risks associatedwith new techniques.


7 8

Can building codes deliver energy e ciency?Complementary recommendations:these relate to issues which are outside the direct scopeo building codes but are, nonetheless, o importance insupporting the core recommendations


14/48


Worldwide, energy use in buildings is an important elemento energy use and there ore o energy policy. Refecting this,energy-related building regulations and building energy codesare widely-used national policy instruments.

1 What are we trying toachieve ?

Typically they have been developedsomewhat empirically in responseto particular energy policy concerns,and gra ted onto existing regulatorymechanisms or implementationin rastructure originally devised

or other purposes.

In looking at the way in which building

codes can contribute to energye ciency, we have concentratedon principles and context.

There are a number o principlesthat should rame the ormulation obuilding energy codes and regulations.In an ideal world, they should:

Be easy to apply

Be applicable to all types of buildingsand systems

Be suf ciently adaptable/ exible to accept new technologies anddesign approaches

Be easy and reliable to police

Produce reliable outcomes

Be consistent in application

Discriminate between better and less good buildings

Not have adverse side effects

(eg on health or sa ety).

Clearly some o these principlesare likely to be in confict. Whatconstitutes best practice (or evengood practice) can only be judgedaccording to context.

The context in which building energycodes operate includes:

The regulatory regime within whichcodes are implemented

The resource available to administerthe codes

The level of understanding andeducation o those who must applythe codes

The general policy framework within which the code operates

The existence or otherwise of

complementary or supportinglegislation.

This report briefy surveys practice,experience and commentary romaround the world with the aim ode ning (or at least suggesting) whatmight be considered good practice.

Firstly, a note o de nition. Buildingenergy codes and energy-relatedbuilding regulations are overlappingconcepts with di erent boundaries.

This review is centred on the coreconcept o mandatory minimum energyper ormance regulations or newbuildings. However, one aspect o goodpractice is the ability to apply the sameprocesses more widely, or exampleto energy rating or labelling o existingor high per ormance buildings.

The review rst considers the policycontext within which building energycodes and regulations exist, be oreexamining alternative structures or thecodes. This is ollowed by discussiono the principles behind the choice oappropriate compliance levels. Thecrucial issue o en orcement is nextconsidered. The nal section providesan overview o the review o buildingenergy codes around the world onwhich the main text is based.


15/48

Valuation and Sale Price report 2007Can building codes deliver energy e ciency?


16/48


This section discusses the role o building energy codes and

regulations as instruments o regulatory and energy policy.It also considers how they overlap or interact with other policyinstruments relating to building energy. It is widely recognisedthat building energy codes are a key element o energy policy but that they are not a panacea.

2 Building energyregulationsas policy instruments

2.1 Building energycodes andregulatory policyRegulations o any sort exist toencourage or compel organisationsor individuals to take measureswhich they might not otherwisetake, in order to achieve somebene t or society or or themselves.

Building energy regulations sit at theintersection o energy policy andregulatory policy and are usually a

relatively recent addition to the originalhealth and sa ety objectives o buildingregulations. Analysts o regulatorysystems (Visscher and Meijer, 2007)identi y building regulations generallyas being mainly concerned withsocial regulation rather thaneconomic regulation.c

Social regulation includes the health,sa ety and environmental standardsthat have been the traditional basis

o building regulations. The role obuilding regulations in social regulationis generally justi ed by re erring toexternalities and in ormation

asymmetries that are not properlycaptured by the market. This type oregulation typically has substantialgovernment involvement, but is o tendeveloped in consultation with theindustries being regulated.

While it is widely recognised that thereare societal bene ts rom buildingenergy e ciency (and more generally,

rom sustainable building design) andthat these are not properly refectedby the market, this is not a universalview. This review identi es a numbero states that have only voluntarycodes, or choose not to have codesat all. Sometimes such voluntary codesrefect a lack o an implementationin rastructure but at times seem torefect a undamental view that themarket will properly value the costsand bene ts or, i it does not, thatit is not the role o energy codes toaddress this.

Economic regulation re ers to theway in which companies or otherorganisations do business. It includesissues relating to the way in whichproducts are traded. For construction

products the most important legislationin Europe is the Construction ProductsDirective. This includes energyeconomy and heat retention amongstthe requirements on which productsmay be subject to regulation. TheEnergy-using Products Directive islikely to extend the use o minimumper ormance standards or energy-using products in Europe as isalready common elsewhere.

Building energy codes and regulationsare, in e ect, product regulations wherethe product is the building or part o thebuilding. There is there ore an indistinctboundary between building regulationsand product regulation applying to suchitems o equipment as boilers or lamps.A common boundary distinction iswhether or not the product in questioncan easily be removed rom a buildingand used elsewhere but this is di cultto apply rigorously since theper ormance o many items o buildingservices equipment such as lamps

depends on the circumstances inwhich they are used, and the systemso which they orm part.d

c The principle that building regulations are essentially a orm o social regulation has been most explicitly stated bygroups examining and developing per ormance-based regulation, or whom the starting point is the identi cationo an explicit societal goal which the regulation is intended to achieve.

d I the key policy driver is to restrict growth in electricity demand, appliance per ormance standards may take priorityover building codes.


17/48

While there are series-producedbuildings, most buildings are one-odesigns, so the type-approval processapplied to most appliances is notappropriate or building regulations.However the de nition o acomprehensive per ormance metric

or a building (and its energy systems)must include the per ormance o theindividual components.

2.2 Energy policy andbuilding energyregulationsEnergy policy priorities di er betweencountries and change with time,in response to political events andconcerns. Building energy regulationshave usually developed empirically inthis way.

In the UK, or example, building energyregulations were introduced in the ormo insulation requirements to reduce

ossil uel demand or heating at a timeo oil supply crisis. (As energy e ciencywas not within the legal scope o theregulations the ostensible and notunreasonable justi cation was toreduce condensation risk). Later, thecost o energy became the ocus anda cost-based index or housing basedon annual consumption was introduced.The growing political importance oclimate change resulted rstly incarbon-based trade-o s and recentlyin integrated carbon emissions targets.This is not an untypical sequence orEurope and North America and raisesthe question i we could start with aclean sheet now, would we have thesame regulations?

This incremental process does notnecessarily result in a structure thatis su ciently fexible to accommodate

uture changes. We discuss alternativestructures in later sections.

The most common concerns o energypolicy today at least in developedeconomies are security o supply,environmental impact and a ordabilityo energy. Di erent countries (and thesame countries at di erent times)interpret each o these di erentlyand place di erent degrees oemphasis on each o them.

Thus security o supply concernsmight relate to the political securityo imported uel sources; year to yearvariability o hydro-electricity supply;the technical reliability o energy supplyin rastructure or the investmentrequirements to meet growing demand.Environmental impact may relate toclimate change; outdoor air qualityor health impacts o energy-relatedimpacts on indoor air quality.A ordability may relate to uel povertyor to the oreign exchange impact oenergy imports.

Other things being equal, buildingenergy codes and other measures thatreduce energy consumption have thee ect o decreasing environmentalimpacts, and reducing the stresseson the energy supply in rastructure(in energy exporting countries theyrelease production or export). Theydo not directly improve supply security,but do reduce the scale o exposureto supply risks. I suitably ramed, theycan encourage the use o uels that areless environmentally harm ul or less atrisk o supply interruption.

There are non-energy bene ts rombuilding energy codes but these arenot usually the principal drivers or thecodes. However one o South A ricaspolicy drivers or housing energy codesis to improve the health o people whocurrently experience poor indoor airquality (through the use o biomass).Although rarely expressed in building

energy codes this is an importantissue or many other countries withpopulations without easy accessto developed energy supplyin rastructures. Other, o ten implicit,non-energy objectives can be topromote the use o new technology,or to produce health service savingsby reducing the exposure o vulnerablepeople to excessive heat or cold.

2.3 Building energycodes and otherinstrumentsA not untypical objective or buildingenergy regulations is that o Sri Lanka:to reduce energy use withoutconstraining building unctions, com ort,health or productivity o the occupantsand with appropriate regard oreconomic considerations.

The core role o building energyregulations is usually to imposemandatory minimum energyper ormance requirements on newbuildings (or elements o buildings).But the boundaries o the de nition arenot so clear. There are building energycodes that are not mandatory. Thereare policy instruments that have thesame structures as energy codes butwhich apply to existing buildings.There are similar instruments that donot impose minimum standards. Somecode structures have been extendedto provide energy per ormance labellingin ormation, which can itsel be usedto trigger other interventions suchas nancial incentives or penalties.For brevity, we will usually use theterm building energy code to includeall these possible variations.e

Part o the answer to the questionwhat constitutes good practice orenergy-related building regulations?

e However, we exclude energy ratings based on measured consumption



18/48

12

lies in the scope o regulations andthe way in which they can interactand support other energy policyinstruments.

Policies or improving the energye ciency o the building stock area orm o market trans ormation policy.This requires a standard measurementprocedure to determine the

per ormance o a product (in this casea building or a building component)and a classi cation system orper ormance scale.

Once these are in place, it becomespossible to introduce:

A minimum performance level, which has to be satis ed by allnew products. This is a regulatoryrequirement

A best practice level, which describesa level that is achievable through theapplication o established goodpractice. This is used to stimulatethe market by o cial endorsement,voluntary use in procurement, asa criterion or nancial incentives but not a legal requirement

A state-of-the-art level (sometimeknown as best available technology)that represents the highest

practicable level. This is anaspirational level or leadingedgepractitioners and their clients

A labelling system for existingproducts. This is particularlyimportant or buildings whichare long-lived products that areroutinely modi ed.

The classic orm o building energyregulation is, in market trans ormationterms, a minimum per ormancestandard, intended to stop the lowestper orming products rom entering themarket. Extension to graduated ratings

as is becoming more common,especially in Europe, and representsa move towards using codes asin ormation-providing instruments.In this orm they can be applied toexisting buildings to identi y poor(energy) quality buildings or to highlightnew buildings that exceed theregulatory minimum standards.Other types o market trans ormationinstrument can then be linked to them.

Frank Klinckenberg o KlinckenbergConsultants in the Netherlands, andMinna Sunikka o the University oCambridge (Klinckenberg andSunnikka, 2006) reviewed Europeanexperience o di erent regulatory,voluntary, economic, communicative andorganisational instruments, in housing,commercial and public buildings odi erent orms o tenure. For newbuildings o all types and tenures, theyconcluded that a key instrument wasmandatory per ormance evaluationscombined with regulatory bene ts orabove-standard per ormance. Thisphrase extends minimum per ormancestandards to include some means oidenti ying and rewarding per ormancein excess o the minimum in e ect,extended building energy regulations.They recommended that this be

accompanied by nancial incentivessuch as tax breaks and pre erentialloans. For housing, energy auditsand organisational support werealso suggested.

For existing buildings, theyrecommended energy upgradingrequirements or example, regulatoryrequirements on replacementcomponents. This is a eature o somebuilding energy regulations already.

Again, they recommended that thisbe supported by general nancialincentives and audits or dwellings.

They also recommended in ormationaland promotional activities to supportthe substantive instruments, and thatpublic buildings should be requiredto be exemplars o good practice.

Other instruments that can be usedto support building energy e ciencypolicy include taxation, carbon trading,utility regulation, nancial incentives,

in ormation (including energy labelling),publicity and promotion. Thesegenerally do not interact directly withbuilding energy codes though (ideally)they orm part o a coherent energypolicy strategy.

2.4. Scope o buildingenergy codesand regulations

Building energy codes are typicallydivided into sections dealing withenvelope issues, HVAC systems,lighting, and hot water systems.A comprehensive energy code shouldinclude all these, though historically(and currently) many building energyregulations only address some o them.Most regulations include heatingenergy: ew include lighting or cooling.Some other services that mightreasonably be seen as integral to thebuilding operation are o ten excluded or example, kitchen ventilation andswimming pool heating.

By convention the energy used byequipment and appliances (whetherportable or xed) is not usually includedwithin regulations (although the heatgains rom it are included in integratedcalculations). This is perhaps inevitable at least or portable equipment but it does result in some weaknesses.Spaces that are not intended(nominally) to be heated (or cooled orarti cially lit) may in practice be heated,

As in Canada where nancial incentives exist or new buildings that are 25% better than the minimum standards.The European Commission has suggested that the impact o the Energy Per ormance o Buildings Directive couldbe increased by the introduction o supporting policies.

g Metered energy consumption will include energy used by these appliances and so is not a comparable measureto the calculated values.


19/48


cooled or lit by portable equipmentresulting in underestimation o thebuilding energy use.g

Indoor environmental issues are rarelyan explicit part o energy codes, otherthan to de ne the standardised valuesthat are the basis or an integratedenergy calculation. There is an implicitassumption that these issues are best

dealt with in other legislation. But thereare exceptions. Summer overheatingrisk is a common requirement eitherexplicitly or as a restriction on windowsize. This is justi ed by the closeassociation with cooling demand some integrated energy codespenalise overheating risk by includinga cooling energy consumption eventhough there is currently no coolingsystem installed. Lighting andventilation requirements are commonelements o building regulations,though not o their energy sections.

Also by convention, building energycodes cover energy used in theoperation o the building and not thatused in its construction or demolition.Systems to report and grade these

gures do exist, o course, but areconsidered (here and elsewhere)as sustainability codes rather thanenergy codes.


20/48


This section examines and compares alternative structures

or building energy codes. It provides the reasoning behindrecommendations 1, 2, 3 and 4. These recommendationsrefect eatures that are already in use, but rarely all in thesame set o codes.

3 Options or structures o buildingenergy codes and regulations

3.1 Prescriptive andper ormance-basedcodesThe undamental distinction usuallydrawn between types o buildingcodes is between prescriptive andper ormance based codes. GregFoliente o CSIRO suggests thatA prescriptive approach describesan acceptable solution while aper ormance approach describesthe required per ormance(Foliente, 2000)

In countries that have lengthy historieso building regulation interest in codesthat are per ormance-based, or whichcontain per ormance-based elements,has been growing or some time. Thisis not con ned to energy issues butincludes re sa ety and other issues.The move away rom purely prescriptivespeci cations started at least 30 yearsago when the Nordic Committee onBuilding Regulations developed amodel o technical requirements or

such an approach. Subsequently CIBhas had a task group addressing theissue (www.cibworld.nl)

There has also been concern thoughless or building energy codes than orother regulations that un-harmonisedelemental procedures can establish

barriers to trade between countries.Recognising this, the World TradeOrganisation has stated Whereverappropriate, Members shall speci ytechnical regulations based on productrequirements in terms o per ormancerather than design or descriptivecharacteristics. (Clause 2.8 oAgreement on Technical Barriers toTrade ull citation in Foliente, 2000).

Per ormance-based rameworks

generally use a variation o the

Nordic Five Level System h summarised below.

Although it is possible to envisageprescriptive building energy regulationsthat demand the use o components

rom an approved list, it is debatablewhether a use ul building energy codecan be purely prescriptive. As aminimum, it would seem necessary tode ne the energy (typically thermal)per ormance o a building element orcomponent. For energy codes a moreuse ul distinction is between elemental(o ten labelled prescriptive) andintegrated per ormance methods.

Level Basic Heading Description

1 Goal The essential interests o the community atlarge or needs o the consumer

2FunctionalRequirement

A description o an aspect or per ormanceeature required to achieve the goal.

(Several unctional requirements maycontribute to meeting the goal)

3 Operative Requirement A speci c description o the requiredper ormance4 Veri cation Instructions or veri cation

5 Examples oacceptable solutionsSupplementary in ormation demonstratingexample solutions

h There are other variants, some o which are more complex and some simpler but all sharing much the same ramework


21/48

An elemental method de nes theper ormance requirements o speci cbuilding elements or example, theinsulation per ormance o a wall, orthe e ciency o a boiler. An integratedmethod, on the other hand, sets awhole-building per ormance target andprovides a calculation mechanism orevaluating whether or not a proposed(or actual) building complies.

The compliance target or integratedprocedures can be set either using ageneral consumption intensity (typicallykWh/m2 per year) or di erent typeso building or with a customised targetthat refects the (calculated)consumption o a re erence buildingo identical size, shape and use tothe actual building. Simpler methodsassign points to di erent eaturesrather than applying an explicitcalculation. The advantages anddisadvantages o the alternativesare urther discussed below.

The two approaches are not mutuallyexclusive. Regulations may haveprescriptive requirements or some

eatures or example air-tightness and per ormance limits on others such as summer overheating. Elementalmethods o ten include trade-o rules( or example to allow lower insulationlevels in some elements to be o setby higher ones elsewhere). Integratedmethods commonly include limits onthe per ormance o individual elements.i

3.2 Advantagesand disadvantageso elemental andintegrated methods

Elemental structureAn elemental structure is the easiestto ollow and is generally pre erred by

designers and builders o relativelysmall buildings. j Since the key issues

or compliance relate to the productsand construction methods, it is o tenpossible or manu acturers to checkand certi y per ormance ( or windows,

or example) or to have straight orwardcalculation rules ( or, say, insulation).This makes compliance checking morestraight orward (though not entirelyproblem- ree).

Elemental minimum per ormancerequirements may be needed or otherpurposes: to ensure that a buildingremains reasonably energy-e cientwhen modi edk or to control theper ormance o replacement elementssuch as windows.

There are two signi cant problemswith the approach. Firstly, it restricts

the designers ability to optimise valueor money by balancing the use o

elements o higher per ormance (whichcomply with regulations but are morecostly) against lower cost but lowerper ormance elements that are notcompliant. Secondly it is a barrierto innovation. Improved or cheaperproducts may be developed, yettheir use might not be allowed.

It is also di cult to set elemental

per ormance requirements that areappropriate to di erent building typesand climates. The best choice owindow or an air-conditioned buildingmay well be di erent rom that ora one that is heated but not cooled.

Integrated methods

Integrated methods are more fexible,but are more di cult to apply andcheck. They require the use o acalculation procedure, usuallycomputer-based, which may be moreor less complex depending on thescope o the code. O ten, residential

calculation procedures are relativelysimple, while those or non-residentialbuildings are more complex. To takeadvantage o the potential advantages,building designers need to have asound understanding o building energyissues and be com ortable with the useo so tware through suitable userinter aces (or have so tware integratedinto the design process). As quite largevolumes o data are needed to describeeach building, it can be time consumingto set up the calculation and di cult tocheck or accuracy. Given approvedstandardised so tware, it is onlynecessary to check the input dataand not the calculation itsel . This maybe less onerous than having to checka manual calculation step by step.

Integrated methods can easily beadapted to generate a per ormancerating scale in addition to a pass: ailcompliance test. Such a scale canbe used to show that a new buildingsigni cantly exceeds the minimumrequirements. In Canada, this processis used to quali y or nancialincentives. The scale also providesa mechanism or the energy labellingo existing buildings.

For these reasons, integrated methodsare becoming more common. Theexperience o Russia shows thatregulations that include an integratedcalculation give designers the fexibilityto meet demanding standards quicklyeven when some parts o the supplyindustry need time to adapt to changes.Manu acturers o concrete block panelshad di culty in quickly changing theirproduct line to provide higher insulationlevels. By using high-per ormancewindows, designers were able to

comply with new, demandingregulations.l In time, better-insulatedpanels are expected to take back

i Outside the regulatory sphere design brie s are commonly a mixture o per ormance and prescriptive requirements. j Although small buildings individually have lower energy demands than large ones, they exist in substantial numbers

and collectively produce major energy demands.k For example minimum insulation standards may be needed to guard against a uture switch rom biomass heating to ossil uel use.l Although this was also somewhat constrained by production limits.



22/48

market share (and perhaps regulationswill move to levels that require bothimprovements).

As stated earlier, compliance targetsor integrated methods can be set

generically or customised to thespeci c building. Both are in use.

Generic targets are typically expressedin kWh/m2 per yearm with di erenttarget values or di erent buildingtypes, such as o ces, schools, andsport halls. Ideally such targets shouldbe based on measured per ormanceo a representative sample o buildings,though this is obviously impractical ornew buildings. They are conceptuallystraight orward, but in practice it isdi cult to derive targets that arereasonably equitable between di erentbuildings o apparently similar types.

For example, hotels might be a singleclassi cation, but di erent hotelsprovide di erent acilities and servedi erent markets. Put another way,a generic target will result in di erentelemental requirements or buildingsthat do not precisely match the (usuallyimplicit) standard building con guration.A single target value is probablyunrealistic, and even multiple classeso , or instance, hotels will notcompletely deal with the issue.

Customised targets are based ona re erence building that allows theenergy target to refect the particularmixture o activities within the building.The re erence building has the samesize and geometry as the actualbuilding but each element has astandard level o per ormance. Thus,in the re erence building, U-values oenvelope elements are xed as arethe e ciencies o boilers. In this way,a building containing a speci c mixtureo activities is compared with one withidentical use.n The impact o some

types o data error, such as physicaldimensions, is alleviated because thesame error is applied to both the actualand re erence buildings.n This isparticularly use ul when the methodis applied to existing buildings, orwhich data quality is likely to berelatively poor.p

The main drawback is that this process

removes the bene ts o inherentlye cient geometries. There is no doubtthat, in some circumstances, somegeometries have inherently higherenergy e ciency, allowing eithercost savings to comply with minimumstandards or better per ormanceusing the same construction elements.The optimum geometry, however, isnot always clear. In purely heat lossterms, large buildings with lowperimeter:volume ratios are best.Typically, these are multi-storey squareplan buildings. For day-lighting andnatural ventilation however, spacesdistant rom the perimeter are adisadvantage and single-storey,relatively shallow plan- orms are tobe pre erred. In practice, plan ormis o ten determined largely by spaceplanning needs and suite constraints.

Codes using integrated procedurescommonly also impose minimumacceptable per ormance values or atleast some building elements. Thesecan be needed to guard against uturechanges, especially where the energyper ormance depends heavily on oneparticular measure. For example, theuse o a biomass uel might beconsistent in regulatory terms with lowlevels o envelope insulation. But thiswould make the building per ormancevulnerable to uture uel switching.

In order to carry out integratedcalculations, su cient componentper ormance in ormation is necessary.

For some building elements suchas heating and cooling systems, thisrequires the component suppliersto make the in ormation ( or example,part-load e ciency) publicly available.This is rarely made a ormalrequirement in building orproduct codes.

Combined Methods

With care ul design o the process,it is possible to combine theadvantages o both approaches.

The elemental per ormance levelsset or the re erence building o anintegrated method comprise a seto requirements that guaranteecompliance.q There ore there is noneed to carry out the calculation ora building that complies with all theelemental requirements. Only i thedesigner chooses to take advantage othe fexibility o ered by the integratedapproach is a calculation needed.

Calculation so tware

Calculation procedures should ideallysatis y a number o somewhatconficting requirements

Credibility: technical soundness,producing realistic results

Repeatability: different users shouldget the same results

Transparency: both the data and theprocess should be auditable

Discrimination: more ef cientsystems should give better gures

Ease of use, including dataavailability: to reduce errors and cost.

What is important or the user is theinter ace. Ideally the user should not

be asked or in ormation that he or shecannot obtain reliably and airly easily.Studies in the Netherlands by BartPoel (Poel, 2006) have shown that

m O ten in terms o Primary Energy.n A consequence is that the rating may change i the mixture o uses changes.o This approach also reduces the impact o di erences between calculation methods, i more than one method is permitted.p The European Commission seems to be moving towards this model as recommended practice.q Provided that the target is not set by applying an improvement actor to the re erence building .


23/48


constraining the data options is moreimportant or improving reproducibilityo results than adding sophisticationto calculation methods.

The possible calculation optionsvary considerably in mathematicalcomplexity but, with a well-designedinter ace, the user should not needto be concerned with the detailed

mathematics.In Europe, a pre erence or a relativelysimple, monthly heat balancecalculation seems to be emerging(though not everywhere). Technicallythis has limitations when representingHVAC and lighting systems and someenergy eatures o buildings. In the US,on the other hand, codes based onintegrated calculations usually use amore complex but more versatile hourly

calculation method.Any application o an integrated (orcombined) methodology has to addressthe question o whether more than onecalculation procedure is acceptable.Consistency o output is crucial since,without it, there is a risk (perhaps evena likelihood) o market competitionbetween procedures based on ease ocompliance. On the other hand, unlessone methodology is clearly superior,

restricting users to a single calculationprocedure (possibly in competingimplementations) may disadvantageenergy e ciency strategies that themandatory procedure does not handlewell. The best compromise appears tobe to use a fexible (and there orerelatively complex) procedure operatingbehind a well-designed user inter ace.

This confict between consistency oresult and (perhaps) accuracy has been

resolved in di erent ways in di erentcountries and sometimes within asingle country. In the UK, housing mustbe assessed using SAP o which

there are several approvedimplementations. Non-domesticbuildings can be assessed using the

ree-issue so tware SBEM, or any oseveral approved dynamic simulationmodels. In Cali ornia there is arecommended dynamic simulationmodel, but other models may be isused provided that they can be shownto produce essentially identical resultsto it.r

Existing buildings

While the ocus o building codesis traditionally on new buildings, thisis commonly and logically interpretedas including extensions (or at leastmajor extensions).

Having decided on this, it is a relativelysmall step to apply minimumper ormance regulations to buildingcomponents when they are replaced:windows or boilers, or example.s A more contentious extensiont is torequire consequential improvements that is a degree o more generalupgrading o a building when oneelement is replaced. While the objectiveis clear, the risk is that the cost o theseconsequent improvements will mitigateagainst any improvement being carriedout. Policing the improvements seems

likely to be complex too, and it seemsdi cult to justi y such a regulatoryrequirement unless the risk is mitigatedby the availability o nancial supportsuch as so t loans or grants.

The extension o energy codes toallow the energy labelling o existingbuildings seems more logical, thoughthe bene ts will depend on the reactiono the market to the in ormation. Butthe energy rating o buildings is a

potentially power ul enabling measurethat opens the way to the use o otherinstruments such as nancial incentivesor mandatory energy audits.

r A stronger requirement than is currently the case in the UK.s This is only practicable when the code is or contains elemental requirements.t Included in the European EPBD.

The extension oenergy codes toallow the energylabelling o existingbuildings seemsmore logical, thoughthe bene ts willdepend on thereaction o the marketto the in ormation


24/48


This section discusses the basis or choosing compliance levels,leading to recommendation 6. Recommendations 7 and 8 ( orcomplementary actions) arise rom the related issue o where thecosts o compliance actually all and where, ideally, they ought to.

4 Setting compliance levelsorminimum per ormance

The undamental justi cation orminimum standards is to requirepeople or organisations to takesteps that they might not takevoluntarily. This lack o action maybe through ignorance, or because

the bene ts do not accrue to thosewho have to take (and pay or)the actions. Typically, this isbecause the bene ts are societalrather than individual. For buildingregulations they have historicallybeen principally concerned withhealth and sa ety, and latterlywith environmental costsand disbene ts.

From an economic perspective, thecompliance levels should refectbest estimates o whole-li e costsand bene ts to society as a whole.Buildings have long lives and so thecosts and environmental impactsinevitably depend on uncertainestimates o the uture. These maybe unrecognised or incompletelyrecognised by the market place andhence orm a justi cation or regulation.This results in building energy codesimposing requirements that aresigni cantly more demanding than arecommon in the existing building stock.

Commonly, proposed regulatoryper ormance levels are assessed

or one or a series o buildings,intended to be broadly representativeo the intended target buildings.Societal costs or example, thesocial cost o carbonu are sometimesincluded in the assessment.

From an economic and social equityperspective, measures should be paid

or by those that bene t rom them.We can distinguish at least inprinciple between measures thatpurchasers would invest in i they wererational and well in ormed; and thosethat result in bene ts or society asa whole beyond those that accrue tothe (rational) customer. In principle,the latter (at least) should be undedby society through taxation. This isvery rare in the context o buildingregulations but not unknown. In the1980s, Sweden greatly increasedthe e ciency o new housing by acombination o subsidised loans orthe inclusion o energy e ciencymeasures, combined with traditionalminimum per ormance buildingregulations. (Geller and Nadel, 1994).Canada provides nancial incentives ornew commercial buildings with energyper ormances that exceed the minimumrequirements by 25% or better.

But the prevailing model is thatthe direct costs o compliance all

on builders and their immediatecustomers. In principle this is air i themarket values the bene ts accurately in which case the argument orhaving mandatory requirements wouldbe greatly weakened.v In practice it

amounts to the rst buyer o aproperty subsidising subsequentowners. This market ailure could,in principle, be addressed by scal orother measures linked to the energylabelling o buildings.w

Other, more restrictive tests o airness (in the sense o costs allingunreasonably on some sections osociety) are possible. US energyregulators have sometimes appliedno-loser tests that require that thecosts and bene ts o proposed energye ciency programmes are distributedso that no-one is worse o as a result.In building energy regulation terms,the equivalent requirement could bethat the required levels o per ormanceare cost-e ective or all new buildings.Given the variety o usage patterns towhich apparently identical buildingsare put, this is likely to lead toundemanding requirements in e ecta lowest common denominator level.

u In the UK, Treasury rules exist or valuing the social cost o carbon.v And there would be little incentive not to comply.w The European Commission has suggested this approach as a means o strengthening the impact o the Energy

Per ormance o Buildings Directive.


25/48


2

This approach to setting requirementlevels is not unknown in other elds minimum per ormance standards orequipment commonly aim to remove

rom the market only the worst 10%or 20% o products, rather thanall those that all short o optimumli e-cycle cost. (Although the use oli e-cycle impact is becoming a morecommon procedurex). There are alsoexamples o much more assertivemarket trans ormation policies thatset demanding minimum per ormancelevels that require manu acturers tochange their product design. Notableexamples are in heating and coolingequipment where the US and Japan(in particular) have introducedmandatory minimum energyper ormance levels based on ornear top o the market per ormanceo products already on the market but with signi cant lead timesto allow manu acturers to developnew products.

Encouragement o the developmentand use o un amiliar new (ratherthan best currently on the market)technology can, o course, bea legitimate policy objective. Itis debatable whether explicitrequirements in building codes areusually the most appropriate instrument

or thisy

. Such requirements canimpose signi cant extra costs onpurchasers, at least until any bene tso cost reductions rom learning bydoing appear. It also exposes themto per ormance risk i the technologyis genuinely innovative. On the otherhand, the use o demanding overallper ormance levels or buildingsallows designers to choose innovativetechnologies i they judge them to bean appropriate means o compliance.

Recent ministerial statements in theUK (and elsewhere) on plans to requireall homes to be zero-carbon by 2016imply that building regulations are

expected to become agents o changeto a much greater extent than hastraditionally been the case.

Changes to compliance levels imposetransition costs on suppliers anddesigners as they adjust their practicesand products to meet the new situation.These are greatest when change israpid and un oreseen. Transition costs

should be included in cost-bene tanalysis and can be obviously bemitigated by early announcemento changes. In practice this usuallyinvolves a process o discussion andnegotiation with the constructionindustry. Such a consensusbasedprocess should result in implementablecodes but might also constrain therate o development o new products.There is experience rom severalcountries that well- unded voluntary

demonstration programmes (in theUSA, typically carried out by energyutilities as a regulatory requirement)can show the practicability odemanding standards and thus pavethe way or code upgrades. (Goldstein,2007; Bell, 2004)

x For example in the assessment o priorities or the European Energy-using Products Directive.y There are codes that require, or example, the installation o solar water heaters but these are hardly

untried technology.

the use o demandingoverall per ormancelevels or buildingsallows designers tochoose innovative

technologies i theyjudge them to be anappropriate meanso compliance


26/48


This section considers the perceived strengths and weaknesseso di erent en orcement routes. There is widespread concernabout the resources actually committed to en orcement.Recommendation 5 is based on the content o this section.

5 En orcement

5.1 Options oren orcement routesThe question o en orcementobviously depends on whether codesare mandatory or not. A nominallymandatory code that is not en orcedbecomes de acto a voluntary code but probably without theexhortations that would accompanyan explicitly voluntary code.

A number o en orcement routes arepossible. The list below is developed

rom options identi ed by the MainePublic Utilities Commission (MainePublic Utilities Commission, 2004).They are not mutually exclusive anddi erent routes may exist in parallel.

The term builder is used belowas shorthand or the element o

the design/construction team thattakes responsibility or guaranteeingcompliance.

En orcement by central or localgovernment. Perhaps the most commonsituation, with a (usually local)government department or agencyreviewing designs and/or performing a post-construction inspection. Theagency commonly provides guidanceand in ormation to builders and may

oversee code development (thoughcode development may be a centralgovernment responsibility as in Englandand Wales).

En orcement by private entities.Private entities or individuals arecerti ed to carry out design reviewand inspection. They may be employedeither by the builder or by government.Commonly the builder or designer hasto pay or the service. Government isresponsible or managing the processo certi cation, but may outsource theprocess itsel (in England and Walesthis model coexists with local authorityen orcement).

Sel -certi cation by disclosure to thebuilding owner. The builder providesa statement that the building complieswith the code, typically in the orm oa sticker. I the code is voluntary, hemay be required to state and explainnon-compliance.

Sel -certi cation by disclosure to

a government agency. The builderprovides a statement to the governmentagency that the building complies withthe code. The agency has the authorityto inspect and does so at its discretion.

5.2 Buildingcontrol structures:administrativeprocedures in EuropeTrends and practices in Europeanbuilding regulations (generally rather

than speci cally or energy-relatedaspects) have been reviewed by theConsortium o European BuildingControl (CEBC), reported in a DCLGreport on Achieving Building Standards(DCLG, 2007) and by Henk Visscherand Frits Meijer (Visscher and Meijer,2007) The ormer study looked at 15countries and the latter in more detailat 8. Several countries were coveredby both reports.

What did these studies nd? Althoughthe building control structures in eachcountry o ten share (or have in the pastshared) a number o eatures, theoverall picture o the European permitprocedure is one o variety.

In most countries, technicalrequirements are established inbuilding acts, which provide detailed

descriptions o minimum standards.Most countries have o cialsupplementary documents to regulatestandards, approved solutions andadministrative procedures. There is atrend towards more rather than ewertechnical requirements.

The most common eatures are:

Planning approval by a building authority

Approval of plans by a building authority


27/48

Announcements made to a buildingauthority on the start o construction

Completion certi cate provided by a building authority.

However these are not universallypresent and each may takedi erent orms.

Although the organisation oprocedures varies widely, all countries

require building permits be oreconstruction work can begin. In manycountries this includes considerationo locational issues that would beseparately considered within theplanning process in the UK. In Norwayand Sweden location-dependent andother issues are separate parts o asingle phased permit procedure. Allcountries are attempting to streamlineand accelerate their procedures. O tenthis includes widening the range oexemptions rom the need or a permit,and including a category o minorworks which must be noti ed butwhich do not require a permit.

Looking at the stages o theconstruction process, countriesapproach this in di erent ways.

Pre-consultation

Most countries provide the acilityor in ormal discussion o proposed

projects between applicants andbuilding authorities. In Norway andSweden this is obligatory, but generallyit is voluntary.

Approval o plans

Approval o plans is generally required,but not in France or Ireland.

Start o construction

In most countries start o constructionhas to be noti ed to the buildingauthority. However this is not universal,with Belgium, France, Netherlands and

Poland (and possibly other countries)apparently not requiring it,

Inspection during construction

In principle, works are inspected duringconstruction, though in Denmark thishas been explicitly only a samplechecking procedure. Inspection may beby local authority or private organisationor both according to country. Accordingto Visscher and Meijer, in Belgium andFrance this work is carried out byprivate inspection bodies only.According to CEBC, inspectionsare not required in Belgium (but theapparent di erence may be becauseBelgium has three separate regionswith their own processes).

Inspection on completion

In most countries a building cannotbe brought into use until the nal

certi cate has been issued or the nalinspection has taken place. Accordingto CEBC, there is no requirement ora completion certi cate in France orIreland. In Poland only a declarationby the owner, builder or architect isneeded. However, according to Visscherand Meijer, in Netherlands and Belgiumno ormal completion certi cate

is issued. In France local authoritieshave the right to inspect and issuea certi cate within two years ocompletion. In Denmark and Norwaythe requirement is that the applicantmust sign a declaration that thestructure complies with the regulations.In Sweden nal inspection is contractedout to private organisations.z

Responsibility or control

Responsibility is split between thepublic and private sectors in waysthat di er between countries ascan be seen in the table (based onVisscher and Meijer). The table belowdemonstrates that many countries havemore than one line o responsibility.

The responsibility or granting permitsalmost always rests with localauthorities, although in Englandand Wales private organisationsare quali ed so to do.

Only the local authority has powerso en orcement. Separate ormalcompetent persons schemes exist

or some specialised services, suchas heating and hot water.

Public responsibilityor control Private responsibilityor controlLocal authority carries out control(Netherlands, Denmark, Englandand Wales)

Full private responsibility (Norway,Sweden, Germany)

Local authority contracts out butremains responsible (Netherlands,Denmark)

Local authority contracts out, privateorganisation is responsible. (Germany)

Legal liability or private control basedon building regulations (France)

Private inspection because oliability and insurance requirements(Belgium, France)

z The European Commission has suggested that an Energy Per ormance Certi cate should be a legal requirement



28/48

5.3 Quality oen orcementAlthough hard evidence is very di cultto nd, there is a widespread belie that,in practice, the en orcement o energyrequirements in building regulations isnot given high priority nor adequateresources. (van der Heijde, 2007;Wilkinson, 2007; IEA, 2008). Whilethere are estimates o rates o non-compliance, these have not beenconverted into estimates o energyconsumption.

A survey or England and Wales in2006 by Future Energy Solutions(Future Energy Solutions, 2006)came to the ollowing conclusions:

Some local authority building controldepartments are not in ull control

o the revenue that their work isgenerating. This means that theymay be restricted in recruitmentand training o sta

Energy regulation was thought to be one o the weaker areas withrespect to compliance. In particular,there was a eeling that o cers willnot re use certi cates or prosecute

or ailures in this area. This leads toa lack o respect or the regulations

by buildersaa

Building regulations were perceivedto be too complex or many parts othe building industry, which strugglesto understand the need or energyregulations

Site inspection was perceived to be inadequate

The existence of parallel competentpersons schemes or some servicesadded complexity.

One key nding was that the Scottishsystem was perceived to be morerobust because:

Building cannot commence until awarrant certi cate has been issued

All building control of cers areattached to local authorities.

Chinas Ministry o Construction issaid to have ound that while 60%o buildings complied on paper onlyhal that number complied in actualconstruction.bb

It has been reported that in theNetherlands between 2003 and 2005only 12 to 16% o municipalitiescarried out control o building permitapplications (generally not just orenergy issues) and only 7 to 11%carried out control o construction workadequately. The main reason or thiswas understa ng. Understa ng hasalso been cited as a shortcoming inAustralia. In Denmark, energy

per ormance certi cation is inprinciple mandatory or dwellings,but in practice only about 50% ohouses and 25% o fats hadcerti cates ve years a terimplementation. Similar results havebeen reported or Sweden (a ter sitechecks became non-mandatory), and

or New York. (IEA, 2008)

En orcement costs can be substantialor energy codes. A Cali ornian code

o cial has been quoted as estimatingthat 30% o his sta s time is used toveri y energy code compliance. It iseasy to underestimate the time required

or site visits, especially in countrieswhere inspectors may not have accessto cars.

It is perhaps unrealistic to expect thaten orcement o building energy codesshould be given as much attention asen orcement or sa ety. Nevertheless

it seems clear that in many perhapsmost jurisdictions the en orcemento building energy codes is seen asbeing under-resourced.

The impact o cost constraints isexacerbated by the level o specialistknowledge required by those involvedin en orcement. A 1980s review oen orcement and administration obuilding codes in the USA by theBusiness Roundtable (BusinessRoundtable, 1982, reprinted 1989),

ound that a serious problem inbuilding code en orcement is thelack o quali cations o many buildingo cials at all levels: administrators,plans reviewers and inspectors.They ound that one reason or thiswas that suitable training opportunitieswere limited.

5.4 Characteristicso di erenten orcement routesThe table opposite (based on the MainePUC analysis) describes some key

eatures o the di erent optionsdescribed earlier.

aa A particular problem which it is currently proposed to remedy is that any prosecution must take place within6 months o the completion o the o ending work.

bb Other sources have suggested that compliance is much lower outside the Northern region.


29/48

While each o these en orcementroutes has inherent strengths andweaknesses, in practice the way theyare implemented can be crucial.

GovernmentAgency

PrivateInspectors

Sel -certi cationto owner

Sel -certi cationto Agency

Civilpenaltiesonly

Key eatures Governmentdepartment oragency whollyresponsible

Private assessorscerti ed bygovernment

Builder providescompliancestatement toowner

Builder providescompliancestatement togovernment

No speci cmeasures

Supportin rastructureneeded

Governmentinspectors

Certi cationand policing oinspectors

Policing ostatements (unlessle t to owner tocomplain). Perhapscerti cation obuilder

Policing ocompliancestatements.Perhapscerti cationo builder

Normal legalprocedures

Cost togovernment

High but may berecovered rombuilder

Moderate Low. Moderatei builders arecerti ed

Low. Moderatei builders arecerti ed

Low

Cost to owner Low unless agencycharges

High Low Low High i courtaction is

needed,otherwise low

In ormation andIn rastructureneeds

Trained governmentassessors

Trained privateassessors.Certi cationprocess

Knowledgeablebuilders andowners. Sometrained assessorsto policestatements

Knowledgeablebuilders. Sometrained assessorsto policestatements

Knowledgeableowners

Non-compliancerisk

Low, providedadequate unding

Low. Assessorsdepend oncerti cation or

income (butalso on satis edbuilders)

High unlessowner places highvalue on energy

e ciency. Loweri builders arecerti ed

Moderate. Loweri builders arecerti ed

High



30/48

I (as suggested earlier) regulationis primarily to overcome marketimper ections or the bene t o societyas a whole, it is logical or the costs oen orcement to be borne by the state.Implicitly this seems to be the widely-held perception though in practice itseems to lead to under-resourcing oen orcement (perhaps suggesting thatlocal government does not share thisview). Refecting this, the governmentagency route is common and is in principle the option with theleast inherent risk o non-compliance.This requires substantial governmentresources, which are o ten di cult toobtain in competition with other callson unding and, in practice, is almostalways accompanied by concernsabout the levels o en orcement.cc

In general, building regulations and especially energy codes havebecome ever more complex. Or, tobe more accurate, the necessaryknowledge needed to apply them(and judge compliance) correctlyhas become more extensive andspecialised, as is illustrated by thecomplexity o guidance. Energyregulation, especially o calculation-based methods, requires a considerabledegree o specialist knowledge and

submissions are di cult to checkin detail. This has a bearing on theen orcement route: is it reasonableto expect local government buildingcontrol sta to be experts in energye ciency, or should this be le t toprivate pro essionals, with localgovernment having a more ocussed(but still specialist) auditing unction?

While the ideal might be properlyresourced government en orcement,

and specialist training or buildingcontrol sta , empirically it seems morerobust or government to concentrateon policing a system o accredited

private assessors, who are paid by thebuilder or designer. The costs oen orcement would be apportioned inthe same way as the direct costs ocompliance that is they would allmainly on the builders (and, in principle,be recouped by higher market value).

There seems to already be a movein this direction while almost all

European countries once had atraditional control system basedon local authority building control, theimportance o private organisations inchecking and controlling regulations isincreasing across the board. Visscherand Meijer also take the view that the(building control) authorities in manyEuropean countries are insu cientlyequipped to o er the necessaryinspection capacity [ or energyper ormance inspection]. We oreseethat private inspectors will supply theinspection need. In Europe, theEPBD requirement or buildingEnergy Per ormance certi cates to beproduced in an independent manner byquali ed and/or accredited experts iscreating an in rastructure in manycountries (including the UK) to support

just such a pro ession. As new buildingshave to have certi cates on completion,extending the role o the accredited

experts to deal with other aspects oenergy codes or buildings seems alogical step.dd

However, a move away romgovernment en orcement to the useo private assessors in Australia isreported to have led to a reduction inthe perceived authority o the buildingsurveyor and a eeling that he maybe perceived to be in the employmentof the builder even if in theory he/she

is independent. This perception isunderstandable i the surveyor isemployed directly by the builder.

Presumably it would be more di cult tosustain i it was a government agencythat assigned surveyors to projects.

The general arguments above orthe greater use o accredited privateassessors have particular orce orenergy regulation. Because o thedi culty o detailed auditing thereneed to be signi cant sanctions against

raudulent approval. The risk o aprivate assessor losing accreditationand there ore income could providepart o this. But there will inevitablybe pressure on the assessor to keephis customer happy. (I designers arepermitted to become accredited andto certi y their own designs, thisbecomes a greater risk.) An adequateauditing procedure is essential and thisseems a better use o the resourceso local or central government agencies,rather than expecting them to carry outall assessments themselves. Penaltieson designers or builders or non-compliance are also needed and shouldbe signi cant relative to the initial costsavings avoided (and obviously needto be en orced). Australia and Denmarkare moving towards systems o nesthat are related to the scale o energywastage caused by the non-compliance. (IEA. 2008)

cc However, there are exceptions the city o Seattle, or example that demonstrate that the model can be e ective(IEA, 2008)

dd Some countries, such as the UK, already allow building control sta to rely on the opinion o accredited specialists(Competent Persons) or speci c technical areas o compliance.


31/48



While the ideal might be properlyresourced government en orcement,empirically it seems more robust

or government to concentrateon policing a system o accreditedprivate assessors, who are paidby the builder or designer


32/48


This section aims to provide an overview o the development o

building energy codes in di erent regions. It is the basis o mosto the commentary and discussion in the rest o the report.

6 Overview o building energy codesaround the world

This section summarises a muchlarger body o in ormation whichhas been gathered by (mainly on-line) in ormation searches, (Anon)augmented by direct contacts witha number o help ul individuals.Inevitably it will be incomplete and,as time progresses, become outo date.

From the review, we can recogniseseveral generic orms o energy code:in order o increasing complexity:

Elemental envelope thermalrequirements

As above but allowing trade-offsbetween elements

Fully integrated calculations

Extension to labelling using thesame basic processes.

In any particular country, this typicallyrepresents a historical sequencethat refects changes energy policyconcerns: or example developing

rom concerns about the availabilityand price o oil (and gas); towardsglobal environmental concerns. Theincreasing complexity is only easiblewith a parallel increase in the level ounderstanding amongst designers andbuilders, and a well-developed andincreasingly costly in rastructure toeducate and police the regulations.

In practice the position o an individualcountry in the sequence seems to beprimarily determined by this level osupporting in rastructure more thanby di erences in policy drivers. Mostcountries have taken several decadesto move (or not) through this sequenceand many regions o the world arestill in the early stages o codedevelopment. However some countries Russia and China being notableexamples have moved throughit rapidly.

A number o countries initial stepshave been supported by GEF/UNDPprojects. These (and other experiences)show that development o a code canbe a lengthy and time-consumingbusiness. Where there is no existingcode there is a learning curve orall involved. Even i a ready-madestructure is in place, assessing whatper ormance levels are appropriateand extending the code aredemanding tasks.


33/48

European UnionBuilding energy codes are starting toThe European Energy Per ormanceo Buildings Directive (EPBD)requires that minimum per ormancerequirements be expressed interms o an integrated calculationmethodology. The Directive shouldhave been implemented in January2006, although some provisions canbe delayed or up to three years.Member states are moving towardsthis at varying speeds rom a rangeo di erent starting points (EnergyPer ormance o Buildings Directive).

The most common pre-EPBD orm oregulations takes the orm o elementalrequirements, usually or insulationlevels o envelope components ando ten only or housing. Some degreeo trade-o (typically by de ningan overall heat loss coe cient orthe envelope) is o ten allowed. FewMember States have regulationsthat cover lighting or cooling. TheEPBD does not require that a speci cmethodology should be used, and it isclear that a variety o approaches willbe used. A ew countries, notably theNetherlands, had already moved towhole-building per ormance methods.

In 2008, the European Commissionset out suggestions or strengtheningthe EPBD by, amongst other things,moving towards common rameworks

or codes, and encouraging MemberStates to introduce policies that providemore power ul incentives and penalties.



34/48

Rest o Europeand Central AsiaUntil the mid-1990s the standardbuilding designs used widely in Russiaand its neighbours paid little attentionto energy e ciency. The last twodecades o joint US-Russian energycode development have resulted in

mandatory energy codes covering mosto the country. The codes have movedrapidly through the stages o simpleelemental requirements, through theintroduction o trade-o routes andwhole-building thermal per ormancecriteria, to integrated primary energy-based requirements. Targets are foor-area based by building type rather thanbeing based on a re erence building.

The fexibility o the integrated route

is reported to have eased complianceproblems caused by the varyingspeeds o adaptation o the componentmanu acturers. Ukraine is movingtowards implementing building energycodes similar to those o Russia, andArmenia and Moldavia have rati edthe Russian ederal code as a basis

or development o national codes.Similarly, Kazakhstan is implementingcodes based on the Russian model andKyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistanhave rati ed the Russian ederalcode as a basis or development onational codes. En orcement is unclear.(Matrosev et al)

The last two decades ojoint US-Russian energycode development haveresulted in mandatory

energy codes coveringmost o the country


35/48

Middle EastBuilding energy codes are starting toappear in the region though, in general,they are a new development. WithUNDP and GEF support, a numbero codes have been developed, andthese typically include both elementaland integrated routes to compliance,but o ten only dealing with buildingenvelope issues.

In most countries the lack o anestablished regulatory in rastructureis a signi cant barrier to practicalapplication. Kuwait developedstandards in the 1980s, but theircurrent status is unknown. Syria,Jordan and the Palestine Territorieshave been considering codes.Lebanon has proposals intended to beimplemented voluntarily in 2010. Israelintroduced a code in 2005. Dubai plansto introduce regulation early in 2008.


In most countries thelack o an establishedregulatory in rastructureis a signi cant barrierto practical application

8/14/2019 Can Bui

Can Building Codes Deliver Energy Efficiency

Documents

Transcript of Can Building Codes Deliver Energy Efficiency