Shaping the Energy Efficiency in New Buildings - Building Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and local jurisdiction contact information are regularly updated thus providing a clearcomparison of states that have adopted the most updated building energy codes, statesthat have an older version of the codes in place and states that have no statewide codeenforced.South Korea’s building code provides a comprehensive manual prepared by KEMCO,which is intended to give the user all the information required to comply with thebuilding code.A list of some of the most prominent training courses and information materials providedin each country is available in Appendix D. The table in Appendix D illustrates thediverse approaches each APP country is undertaking and the different stakeholdersinvolved.4.5 Some Innovative Programs and SummaryInternational comparisons can be helpful to policy makers by giving them an indicationof what is successful elsewhere. Implementation programs are integrally linked withmany aspects of a country’s political system and policy approach. As such, there is nosingle right answer to what is innovative. Each country has something innovative thatmay be useful elsewhere. This section outlines a few overarching ideas and highlightssome examples of innovation.Effective implementation of building energy codes requires a comprehensive approach.The elements that are typically needed include: Training to help code officials and the building design and construction communitiesunderstand the requirements and how to meet them. Tools such as checklists or compliance software to ease the job of checking forcompliance. Review of building designs and inspections of actual construction. Incentives for compliance.Countries vary quite a bit on the details of these elements. Some countries reach out to abroader spectrum of stakeholders in their training than do others, and training programsmay cover different issues in different countries. Japan has very extensive trainingprograms for its building energy codes. For example, the Japanese government recentlyfunded over 100 training seminars over several months regarding a single set of changesto the existing code. The training covers a range of issues related to energy efficiency inbuildings, not just meeting the minimum requirements of the code.Most countries have at least one type of compliance tool, usually at a minimum astandardized format for compliance checklists. Many also have software to aid withcompliance checking, particularly when trade-off methods are used for compliance. Thesoftware varies in the consistency of the results it produces and whether or not it is freelyavailable. The United States, for example, has a longstanding program to provide freesoftware that local jurisdictions can rely on to implement their codes. Ensuring that thesoftware is free is important in the United States because it encourages local jurisdictionsto adopt the national model standards. Countries where codes are adopted centrally may66
not need to provide such software free of charge, though they will still need to ensure thatthe available software provides accurate and consistent results.While all countries with mandatory codes review building designs, not all countriesinspect actual construction. Experience in other fields like pollution monitoring andpolicing of speed limits indicates that actual checks on compliance do improvecompliance. Jurisdictions with strong inspection programs like California have seensignificant improvements in building energy efficiency—to the point that per capitaelectricity consumption has been stable for decades despite major economic growth overthat period. To our knowledge, besides anecdotal evidence, there are no broad surveysthat compare the results of building energy code enforcement programs acrossjurisdictions with varying practices.South Korea has set up a system requiring several checks, including the signatures ofboth a certified architect and a certified engineer, as well as onsite inspection by localgovernment officials. South Korea has seen enforcement of its building energy codes gofrom low levels to more than 50% compliance with this approach in recent years. Chinahas developed an inspection system relying heavily on third-party inspectors. These thirdparties must pass exams to obtain certification as building energy code verifiers. This hasallowed China to rapidly increase the number of inspectors, although there are alsoquestions about the potential conflict of interest of such private inspectors and the rigor ofthe certification procedures in some localities. China’s approach may be innovative andof interest to India, for example, in that India too will likely want to consider options forinspecting buildings once India’s jurisdictions adopt the ECBC.Almost all countries with building energy codes have some incentives for compliance,but the specific incentives vary. In some jurisdictions, building owners are not allowed tooccupy a building until the building passes inspection for compliance with the buildingenergy code. This means that if there is a problem, a building would have to be retrofittedto comply, which would be expensive and quickly get the attention of builders andowners. This approach exists in several APP countries including Australia, South Korea,and the United States. China has also recently adopted rules giving local building energycode enforcement organizations this option. Another approach is to give fines for noncompliance.Japan and China have recently updated their rules to provide for fines fornon-compliance. In addition, Japanese code officials can publicize the names of propertyowners who fail to submit information on the energy design of their buildings. SouthKorea has rules that allow building owners to access several benefits for designingbuildings that exceed the minimum requirements. Under South Korea’s point system, abuilding must score a minimum of 60 to meet the mandatory standard. High scores (morethan 70) make building owners eligible for subsidized financing and/or relaxation ofcertain legal requirements (e.g., maximum floor space index and maximum buildingheight). This is an interesting way to encourage building owners to exceed the minimumstandard. Both Japan and China have also experimented with such an approach in certainlocalities. Other countries like the United States, Australia and Canada have systems setup to reward high-performance buildings, but these systems are not as integrally linked tothe code compliance system.The question of innovation depends on perspective and needs. For countries that want toexpand their inspection capabilities rapidly, China has created an interesting system of67
Page 1 and 2:
PNNL-122267Shaping the Energy Effic
Page 3:
Shaping the Energy Efficiency in Ne
Page 6 and 7:
efficient air conditioning system,
Page 8 and 9:
ContentsForeword ..................
Page 10 and 11:
List of TablesTable 1 GDP, Primary
Page 12 and 13:
ForewordBuildings account for about
Page 14 and 15:
1 Introduction and Background1.1 Im
Page 16 and 17: esidential buildings in 2006, with
Page 18 and 19: JAP 1. Criteria for Clients on the
Page 20 and 21: can significantly increase energy d
Page 22 and 23: f) South Korea’s building energy
Page 24 and 25: 2.1 AustraliaIn the past, Australia
Page 26 and 27: small cities will be pilot of such
Page 28 and 29: (DCGREUH) issued by the Ministry of
Page 30 and 31: according to the current codes. Thi
Page 32 and 33: Table 7 Structural Comparison of Bu
Page 34 and 35: 3.3 Building EnvelopeKey Findings A
Page 36 and 37: JAPCCREUH1999KORBDCES2008USAASHRAE9
Page 38 and 39: This study selects the midpoint sco
Page 40 and 41: MiamiUSA0.36(Insulationabove deck)t
Page 42 and 43: Six countries have jurisdictions in
Page 44 and 45: thermal requirements for roofs, flo
Page 46 and 47: Figure 6 Maximum U-factors in Resid
Page 48 and 49: Table 16 HVAC in Japan’s Building
Page 50 and 51: ItemsService water heating refers t
Page 52 and 53: Water conservation Canada has manda
Page 54 and 55: practice (MNECB 1997). India sets m
Page 56 and 57: Canada and India adopt compliance p
Page 58 and 59: Japan only supervises the building
Page 60 and 61: 4.2 Testing and RatingKey Findings
Page 62 and 63: Other commonly used tools among APP
Page 64 and 65: CAN 55MNECH1997CHNINDECBCJAPCanadia
Page 68 and 69: certifying third-party verifiers or
Page 70 and 71: Point of ControlIncentives for Comp
Page 72 and 73: Point of ControlIncentives for Comp
Page 74 and 75: AUS,continuedCANTesting Agencies an
Page 76 and 77: CAN,continuedCHNTesting Agencies an
Page 78 and 79: Testing Agencies and Certification
Page 80 and 81: USA,continuedTesting Agencies and C
Page 82 and 83: Appendix C - Compliance SoftwareAUS
Page 84 and 85: CANMNECB1997,continuedSoftwareMetho
Page 86 and 87: USAIECC 2006,continuedSoftwareMetho
Page 88 and 89: AUSBCA 2007,continuedCANMNECB1997CA
Page 90 and 91: JAP,ContinuedKORUSAASHRAE90.1-2007T
Page 92 and 93: AcronymsAPPAS/NZSASHRAEAUSBATFBCABD
Page 94 and 95: ReferencesABCB (Australian Building
Page 96 and 97: IEA (International Energy Agency).
Page 98: OEE. 2008. Energy Use Data Handbook
show all

Shaping the Energy Efficiency in New Buildings - Building Energy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?