Planning policy - section 3F: research

Appendix D: Overview of Global Policy

Overview of Global Policy on LZCGT Contribution to GHG Emission Reduction

A systematic review of literature was undertaken, focusing on GHG reduction policies and proportion of contribution from LZCGTs. Keywords (LZCGT policy; GHG reduction policies; new buildings) were used to search for peer-reviewed papers in 3 leading scholarly search engines (Google Scholar, Scopus, World of Science); abstracts were perused for reference to GHG policies and LZCGT for new buildings and housing, and most cited 30 papers were downloaded for the literature review.

Key Points

• Two trends are identifiable in the global literature: one, showing what is mostly addressed / covered in the policies and the other, what is not. The former, represents a vast majority of papers discussing GHG emission reduction policies and LZCGT, emphasising various elements, e.g. policy types, energy consumption and efficiencies, carbon emissions and savings, and cost-effectiveness. The latter, shows a dearth of focus in policies setting specific proportions of GHG reductions from LZCGT.
• Existing policies are instead predicated on specifying Building Energy Efficiency (BEE) standards (in building regulations and code) as the foremost choice to tackle GHG reductions. Two main reasons are given:
  i. Efficacy of BEE as a surrogate for GHG reductions;
  ii. Balancing act to avoid a maladjustment where LZCGT is complied with at the expense of BEE, which is a more cost-effective approach, with potential for deep long-term abatements.
• The most common approach has been to prioritise BEE in policies, via holistic design principles.
• While BEE standards offer significant opportunities for low carbon transition especially through direct regulation, they can be politically controversial e.g. in Australia.
• Scotland is a pioneer in considering explicit requirements for quantifying LZCGT contributions towards GHG reductions, in the policy.
• Policy robustness that is the factors that can weaken or support a policy are determined by design and wider societal factors including political economy, macro level external factors, and institutional constraints and opportunities.
• The three factors identified that could strengthen policy were to control the societal cost of the policy, distribute costs incurred fairly across all stakeholders and develop adaptive frameworks that can respond more effectively to innovation and change, to prevent stagnation of ambition.
• In relation to the design of energy policies, six policy design principles were identified:
  i. Keep additional burdens for building owners light.
  ii. Create long-term regulatory certainty.
  iii. Beware technologically specific requirements.
  iv. Anticipate the impact of new regulations on small actors.
  v. Promote knowledge of innovative policy designs.
  vi. Integrate building energy policy in the local context.

Some Lessons from Policy Design

In the vast literature on policies for building energy performance, a notable piece of work (Schwartz et al., 2019) that is informed by other relevant studies, suggests the following six principles when designing building energy policies:

i. Keep additional burdens for building owners light

ii. Create long-term regulatory certainty

iii. Beware of technology-specific requirements

iv. Anticipate the impact of new regulations on small actors

v. Promote knowledge of innovative design

vi. Integrate building energy policies in local context

However, balancing these issues appears challenging, with policies being progressively enhanced or weakened as a consequence (Bauer and Knill, 2014) and highlighting the contested nature of policy designs and aims amid the influence of politics and government (Gurtler et al., 2019; Figure 3).

Holistic Design and BEE Focus

Various empirical works from different parts of the world agree that the inter-linked issues of carbon emissions, building energy and cost-effectiveness, and environmental protection, are significantly addressed via Building Energy Efficiency (BEE). BEE and use of renewable energy has gained prominence in the building policy due to its potential consequences for climate change (Nieboer et al., 2012). This is attested to by the review of building energy consumption and the state-of-the-art technologies for near-zero-energy buildings (nZEB) and zero-energy buildings (ZEBs), based on data from the USA, UK, the EU and China (see Xing et al., 2011; Cole and Fedoruk, 2015; Pan, 2014; Annunziata et al., 2013). The BEE approach is also central to the E.U. recast Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) and the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources Directive 2009/28/EC (EC, 2015), underpinning the nZEB & ZEB targets for new buildings by 2020. According to Cao et al. (2016), a cost-optimal nZEB has an energy need for heating and cooling less than 30 kWh/m²/annum.

In the U.S., BEE approaches are evident in a hierarchy of national, regional, and local polices: For example the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 setting a zero-energy target of 50% for new commercial buildings by 2040 (Cassidy and Schneider, 2018), and; The Executive Order 13514 requiring new builds to be net ZEB by 2030 (The President, 2009). In China the central government has shown a keen interest in BEE policies to reduce actual energy consumption and mitigate GHG emissions. In their 13th National Five-year plan 2015-2020, BEE is crucial, with stricter building codes to reduce heating loads for buildings by 45% in 2030 (McNeil et al., 2016).

BEE has also been justified based on providing a low cost solution (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2012); and energy efficiency requirements in building codes or energy standards for new buildings becoming the single most important measure for ensuring the energy efficiency of new buildings (Laustsen, 2008). In setting minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design, energy codes and policies can ensure reduced energy consumption for the life of the building (Evans et al., 2017). BEE codes that consider the life cycle of a building can help overcome the many barriers to implementation and become key instruments for GHG mitigation in the buildings sector.

Poor Leverage of LZCGT Potential

However, although energy efficiency in buildings is an important objective of energy policy and strategy among the European Union Member States (Annunziata et al., 2013; Economidou, 2011), studies have found that calculations of the contribution of LZCGT in new building energy performance was not prominently addressed (Beerepoot, 2006, 2013). While the policies often mentioned the strategic purposes of renewable sources of energy, the role of LZCGTs was often subsumed therein, and the potential for LZCGTs in their own capacity either downplayed or not optimally leveraged. This is exemplified in Scotland (Onyango et al., 2020), Sweden and Austria (Annunziata et al., 2013), where policy did not explicitly require or specify any contribution from LZCGT to the savings in GHG emission reductions.

Yet the centrality and potential of LZCGT can for example be evidenced in McDonald and Laustsen's (2013) comprehensive analysis of BEE policies for new buildings. They identified 5 themes, 15 criteria and 17 questions for analysing new building policies (Tables D.1 and D.2) which emphasise key areas where LZCGT can be directly applied: making the call for this study futuristic and welcome as it pioneers in an appropriate direction with significant potential for deeper abatements.

Other studies reveal that by 2021 LZCGTs could deliver GHG abatement at a negative economy-wide cost per tonne of CO2; with global estimates of almost 30% reduction being achieved cost-effectively by 2020 (Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2008) in stark contrast to other sectors such as power generation. The potential of LZCGT is further acknowledged in a study (IPEEC, 2015) that concluded that by delivering energy savings in buildings, GHG emissions could be curbed, human health and well-being, and prosperity, enhanced. The study states that effective implementation of energy efficiency policies has the potential to save in the range of 53 EJ per year globally by 2050 - an amount equivalent to the 2012 combined building energy use of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2012 (IEA, 2015).

Table D.1: themes and 15 sub-themes distilled from 25 state of art BEE policies, on how to assess BEE performance (source: McDonald and Laustsen, 2013). Shaded boxes show there is direct potential for LZCGT to play a key role in 8/15 (53.3%) of them.

A Holistic Approach to Buildings	A Dynamic Process	Proper Implementation	Technical Requirements	Overall Performance
Performance Based Approach	Zero Energy Target	Good Enforcement	Building Shell	On-site
All Energy Types / Uses	Revision Cycles	Certification	Technical Systems	Primary Energy
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy	Levels Beyond Minimum	Policy Packages	Renewable Energy Systems	GHG Emissions

Table D.2: In a set of criteria and sub-questions for policy assessment (source: McDonald and Laustsen, 2013), shaded boxes show there is direct potential for LZCGT to play a key role in 10/17 (58.8%) of them.

Performance	Performance including All Energy	Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Set overall performance frame for buildings?	Most consumption (i.e. heating, cooling, ventilation and dehumidification)?	Set requirements for buildings efficiency and renewable energy?
Consider primary energy use, GHG emissions?	Domestic hot water?	Strongly encourage passive heating and passive cooling?
Consider passive heating & cooling, natural ventilation, light and shading?	Lighting?	Strongly encourage natural ventilation?
Encourage integrated or bio-climatic design?	Energy consumption e.g. elevators, appliances, pumps and fans?	Encourage daylight use?
Clear definition of building performance?	Conversion and transportation losses?	Encourage shading? Encourage reduction for energy demand from renewables? Life cycle assessment?

Crucial Role of Government

Studies providing an international profile of Low and Zero Carbon homes policy agenda show a mix of policy instruments, state-led, national, mandatory and voluntary, requiring increased levels of building fabric energy efficiency (FEE) (DCLG, 2008b; Shen et al., 2016) (Table D.3). The message is a clear commitment to a performance-based regulatory approach, Beerepoot (2013), with policy that provides flexibility by specifying outcomes rather than prescribing particular technologies (DCLG, 2008a). A comparative analysis of BEE policies for new buildings, on behalf of the GBPN involving over 65 global building code experts, large international organisations and reference to 25 best practice BEE codes (McDonald and Laustsen, 2013), concluded that to achieve nZEB mandatory energy efficiency codes are a central element in achieving near zero emission savings. In this context, an increasing amount of empirical work analysing policy instruments (see Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2008; Boza-Kiss et al. 2013; Lemprière, 2016; Levinson, 2014), acknowledges the strong central role for government in setting mandatory standards and supporting their delivery (Greenwood, 2012); with supplementary role for voluntary tools and local authority discretion, albeit with risks of divergence when different instruments promote diverging roadmaps towards a policy goal (Jordan et al., 2013).

Country Level Approaches and nZEB Targets

Policies for NZEB in China (Liu et al., 2019) offer interesting lessons given that China's carbon emission share of the building sector will double (OECD, 2013) and hit 50% by 2050 (Rhodes, 2016) if current trends continue. In response, China has adopted codes for nZEB, aimed at not only reducing carbon emissions, but also at achieving affordable housing through energy efficiency strategy (Liu et al., 2019; Lin, 2008).

Researchers in China have proposed BEE regulations at levels close to ZEBs (Lovell, 2009): with a roadmap for 2016-2030 building codes upgrade asking 30% of new buildings to reach nearly zero energy by 2030, 30% of existing buildings convert to nearly zero energy by 2030, and 30% of energy consumption in the building sector to come from renewable energy sources by 2030 (APEC, 2019). China's 5-Year plan required green buildings to account for 20% of new total floor space constructed by 2015. Although it is implicit that the ZEB/nZEB targets should be covered by energy from renewable sources (Liu et al., 2019; Annunziata et al., 2013), as is practice in most jurisdictions, the proportions of contribution from LZCGT is not explicitly stated.

Sweden, which introduced detailed building energy standards in the late 1970s, highlights the tension between national building standards and those set by more ambitious local authorities (Enker and Morrison, 2017). Similar tensions were identified in Scottish experience, between the roles of planning policy and building regulations (Onyango et al., 2020). In Switzerland, CO₂ emission limits for buildings could be introduced from 2029, implying potential significant obligations for the integration of renewables (Annunziata et al., 2013) and LZCGTs.

In Switzerland, for all categories of building except newly built single-family homes, the expected energy consumption per surface area must be declared and verified. For new single-family homes and apartment blocks 38kWh/m².annum must not be exceeded; for refurbishment projects the limiting value is 60kWh/m².annum; for buildings at altitudes above 800m, the limit values are increased. New buildings must leak less than or equal to 0.9 air changes per hour at 50 Pascal.

A few countries, e.g. Bulgaria, have set a quantitative requirement for renewable energies in all new and refurbished buildings, without clarifying how this requirement will be implemented, monitored and controlled (Annunziata et al., 2013). Bulgaria's principles for nZEBs acknowledges principles such as fixing thresholds on energy demand, on renewable energy share and on associated CO2 emissions, on overall and primary energy demand. For meeting the EU's long-term climate targets, it is recommended that the buildings' CO₂ emissions linked to energy demand is below 3kgCO₂/m².annum).

Portugal and Spain define quantitative targets for the integration of renewable sources in buildings and minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment on energy performance in buildings, without specifying contributions from LZCGT (Annunziata et al., 2013). In Norway, all new buildings should be at "Passive House" level in 2015, and NZEB by 2020, with two Norwegian standards for passive houses and low-energy buildings already in place (NS 3700 for residential buildings, and NS 3701 for non-residential buildings).

Table D.3: National level policy on building performance requirements for new buildings and NZEBs (source: adapted from Hermelink et al. (2013).

Country & Policy title	Basis for building energy performance
Germany Energy Conservation Regulations (EnEV), 2013, residential, non-residential	Based on equivalent model building and measured as kWh/m2/year of primary energy Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others) - heat supply based on renewable energy 15 ~ 50% depending on type of renewable energy and building Values for new buildings: U-Value (W/m²K): roof 0.2; wall 0.28; floor 0.28; window 1.3; others 1.4. Airtightness: naturally ventilated n50 is 3.0h-1, mechanically ventilated n50 is 1.5h-1 National target: carbon free buildings by 2020; nZEB should be operating without fossil fuel; reduce primary energy demand by 80% by 2050 Efficiency improvements: with first milestone of a 20% reduction in heat demand levels by 2020 Minimum levels: Residential Low Energy Building = 60kWh/(m2/a) or (40 kWh/(m2/a)) maximum energy consumption or Passive House = KfW-40 buildings with an annual heat demand lower than 15 kWh/m2 and total consumption lower than 120 kWh/m2; Actual energy consumption target relative to 2009 level: 30%.
Austria OIB - Richtlinie 6, 2011, residential, non-residential, renovations	Code requires mandatory calculation for expected primary energy consumption with buildings undergoing renovation at 25-38% higher than new builds; allowable primary energy depending on type of building and ventilation (stricter requirement for ventilation using heat recovery); voluntary low energy classes; implementation of Passive House standards by 2015 for residential buildings Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): for new builds net floor area > 1000 m2, alternative systems (renewable sources, CHP, district and refrigeration, heat pumps, fuel cells) allowed Values for new buildings U-Value (W/m²K): roof 0.2; wall 0.35; floor 0.4; window 1.4 Airtightness: n50 is 3.0 & n50 is 1.5 (residential and non-residential). National targets: annual heating below 60-40 KWh/m2 gross area (30 % above standard performance) or Passive building (15 kWh/m2 per useful and per heated area) by 2015; nZEB 2018 public buildings, 2020 all other buildings; Energy Performance 66.00kWh
Denmark BR10, 2011 Residential and non-residential	Performance-based code with some prescriptive elements; calculation considers supplied energy; Life Cycle Assessment considered (embedded energy), partially -voluntary Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): Buildings outside district heating areas where expected hot water consumption exceeds 2000 litres per. day, solar power must be installed Values for new buildings: U-Value (W/m²K): roof 0.2; wall 0.3; floor 0.2; window 1.4; Airtightness: 1.5l/m2 @ 50 Pa; heating performance 72.12kWh National targets: set 8 years in advance; maximum energy demand 52.5 + 1650/A kWh/m2/pa (residential) and 71.3 + 1650/A kWh/m2/a (non-residential); 75% less energy to be used in buildings by 2020 Zero Energy Targets: realistic roadmap in place to CO2-emission free country by 2050; nZEB to use 75% less energy by 2020 (base year 2008); Primary Energy Performance Frame Residential: 30 kWh/m2/a + 1000/A kWh/m2/a by 2015 and 20 kWh/m2a by 2020; Primary Energy Non-Residential: 41 + 1000/A kWh/m2/a by 2015 and 25 kWh/m2/a.
Finland National Building Code of Finland 2012 – Section D3 on Energy Management in Buildings	Mandatory calculation of expected monthly final energy consumption of residential and non-residential; allowable final energy kWh/m2/a depends on type of building - ten different scales for ten different building types; Annual energy consumption calculated using monthly calculation Values for new buildings: U-Value: (W/m²K): roof 0.09; wall 0.17; floor 0.09; window 1; total window area < 50% area of external walls Airtightness: 4 m3/(h.m2) at 50 Pa; heating performance 225kWh National targets: Zero Energy Targets for 2015, 2018 and 2020; But no realistic roadmap; National Target date set for nZEB; partially-Passive house standards set for 2015, 2020.
Ireland Building Regulations: Part L Conservation of Fuel and Energy: Dwellings and Part L - Conservation of Fuel and Energy Buildings other than Dwellings. 2008	Mandatory calculation of Energy Performance Coefficient (EPC) and Carbon Performance Coefficient (CPC) in reference to notional building; primary energy calculation establishes the CO2 emissions and energy consumption associated with the 1) 'dwellings' (2011) and 2) 'buildings other than dwellings' (2008) using DEAP/NEAP software Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): reasonable proportion energy provided by renewable energy in dwellings - 10 kWh/m2/a for domestic hot water heating, space heating or cooling; or 4 kWh/m2/a of electrical energy; or a combination Values for new buildings: Minimum performance levels for ventilation, for fully pumped hot water-based central heating systems utilising oil or gas, the boiler seasonal efficiency should be not less than 90% as specified in DEAP manual Airtightness: 7 m3/hr/m2 at 50 Pa; energy performance 60kWh; national target to build nZEB by 2013; Zero Energy Targets: realistic roadmap in place.
Sweden Boverket's Building Regulations, BBR18 - (BFS 2011:26)	Codes for new builds and refurbishments based on calculated final energy and post occupancy energy measurement; must meet an overall performance frame and continuously monitor building's energy use by a method of measurement; Final Energy (kWh/m2) by area of building intended to be heated to over 10 °C - depending on location and type of heating system; Compliance by measuring actual energy use of the (occupied) completed building and showing it to be less than or equal to allowable energy frame; Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): no requirement in building regulations, but there are requirements in relation to electricity supply mix by RE certificates National targets set: 2015-2020 roadmap for nZEB Primary Energy Performance Residential: 55 -75 kWh/m2a or 30 -50 kWh/m2a, 55-75 kWh/m2a depending on climate zone (non-electric heating) and 30-50 kWh/m2a depending on climate zone (electric heating) – 2020; Primary Energy Performance Frame Non-Residential: 50-105 kWh/m2a or 30-75 kWh/m2a 50-105 kWh/m2a depending on climate zone (non-electric heating) and 30-75 kWh/m2a depending on climate zone (electric heating) - 2020.
Netherlands Bouwbesluit 2012 - Chapter 5 (NEN 7120:2011)	Mandatory code requires calculation to establish the maximum allowed Energy Performance Coefficient (EPN) for residential and non-residential buildings; energy performance requirements are expressed in terms of the EPN coefficient factor; Primary Energy and Life Cycle Assessment considered (embedded energy) Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): Partially, no specific requirement, but renewables included in EPN calculation Values for new buildings: U-Value (W/m²K): roof 0.4; wall 0.4; floor 0.4; window 1.4; overall value 0.4. Airtightness: 200dm3/s @10Pa or 200dm3/s per 500m3 @10 Pa. For residential buildings, 200 dm3/s @10Pa and for non-residential buildings 200dm3/s per 500m3 @10Pa; energy performance 100kWh; Separate policy for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in The Netherlands National targets: 2020 Zero Energy Targets: realistic roadmap in place: As of 31-12-2018 new governmental buildings EPC near 0, all other new buildings EPC near 0 as of 12-31-2020.
California (USA) California: 2008 California Code of Regulations: Title 24 (Part 6). 2010	Mandatory for all new residential, non-residential, alteration or addition to existing; All urban buildings; State-wide prescriptive Codes; Model / reference Building: Energy Budgets expressed in Btu/sf/a; performance frame: Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) - value of electricity differs depending on time-of-use (hourly, daily, seasonal), value of natural gas depends on season; Final Energy: calculation is for 'Site' energy. Life Cycle Assessment considered (embedded energy): Partially, not for individual buildings Renewable Energy (solar, PV, others): can be used for compliance; many cities have own codes with increased requirements for renewable energy; no minimum requirements. Values for new buildings (San Diego): U-Value (W/m²K): roof 0.19; wall 0.44; floor 0.3; window 2.27 State targets: Zero Energy, residential by 2020 and commercial by 2030 - (energy use to decrease by 60-70%; targets are policy at this stage, not regulation or law.

Ambition in Policy

Despite existence of a vast number of policies worldwide, results of these policies in terms of reduced energy consumption in buildings are still below target (UNEP, 2012). Commenting on the governance for BEE, Visscher et al. (2016) warn that the effectiveness of current instruments and their impact on actual CO₂ reductions have been inadequate for ensuring actual (not hypothecated) energy performance is achieved. While they admit that strict requirements are needed, they also acknowledge that to realize very ambitious energy-saving goals a radical rethink is needed. A study of building energy policies (IPEEC, 2015) concluded that ambitious building energy codes are consistently regarded as a most cost-effective approach for delivering large-scale and long-term energy savings and GHG emissions reductions. Periodic ratcheting up of targets to improve energy performance will lower operating costs in the long run.

To achieve greater results, energy efficiency policy-making must be more dynamic in terms of a continuous closed-loop process that involves and balances "policy design, implementation and evaluation" (Morvaj and Bukarica, 2010). Key to altering current trends is to prescribe mandatory, dynamic and ambitious building codes and supporting policy packages that are incorporated into long-term strategies, aimed at reducing the consumption of new buildings to zero or close to zero energy.

Whilst the dynamic and ambitious policies requires policy packages with long-term targets of achieving zero or positive energy (McDonald and Laustsen, 2013), sight must not be lost of the holistic thinking and to set the standards at a higher level, taking the total energy consumption of the building into consideration. A shift to zero energy could not take place in one single step, requiring zero energy targets to be met via a dynamic approach based on several phases of improvement of energy requirements. This avoids bottlenecks and excessive costs (McDonald and Laustsen, 2013).

Summary

In many countries, BEE and building regulations are often subject to debate and reviews as conflicting goals are evident: between minimising regulatory and administrative burden on citizens and businesses and addressing socio-economic and environmental concerns. Studies looking at worldwide policies for low and near zero carbon buildings found that cross-context learning was largely constrained because of differences in the concepts and calculating methodologies of 'zero carbon' or 'zero energy': significantly hampering benchmarking of energy performance and carbon reduction practices (Pan and Li, 2016). In the raft of the many available building energy policies, Hermelink et al. (2013) highlights a lack of attention to and a mismatch in the design (and energy demand) of new buildings and their interaction with the energy grid; Hogeling (2012) stating an assumed infinite capacity and storage in the grid as a failure to account for timing of electricity generation and use.