Programme plenary session - Smart Readiness Indicator · 10/9/2019 · SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9...
Transcript of Programme plenary session - Smart Readiness Indicator · 10/9/2019 · SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9...
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Programme plenary session
14:00 – 14:10 Welcome– Paula Rey García (EC DG ENER)
14-10 – 14:25 Overview of the aims, status and the planning of the project– Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:25 – 14:50 Steps taken towards the definition of the SRI calculation methodology– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:50 – 15:20 Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:20 – 15:40 Provisional impact assessment of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:40 – 16:00 Initial feedback from the testing phase– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
16:00 – 16:30 Open group discussion
16:30 – 16:50 Next steps towards legal acts– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER)
16:50 – 17:00 Closing words– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER) & Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Welcome
Paula Rey García EC DG ENERGY
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Overview of the aims, status and planning of the project
Stijn VerbekeVITO/EnergyVille
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Programme plenary session
14:00 – 14:10 Welcome– Paula Rey García (EC DG ENER)
14-10 – 14:25 Overview of the aims, status and the planning of the project– Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:25 – 14:50 Steps taken towards the definition of the SRI calculation methodology– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:50 – 15:20 Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:20 – 15:40 Provisional impact assessment of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:40 – 16:00 Initial feedback from the testing phase– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
16:00 – 16:30 Open group discussion
16:30 – 16:50 Next steps towards legal acts– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER)
16:50 – 17:00 Closing words– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER) & Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Smart technologies in buildings
A greater uptake of smart technologies isexpected to result in significant energysavings in a cost-effective way, whilehelping to improve comfort and occupantsatisfaction and enabling buildings to play akey role in smart energy systems.
There is a perceived need to:
▪ Increase the uptake of smart, energy-efficient technologies in the building sectoracross Europe
▪ Provide trustworthy insights and a common vocabulary to all stakeholdersinvolved: occupants, investors, engineers, manufacturers, etc.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Smart Readiness Indicator in the EPBD
The revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) (19 June 2018) requires the development of an optional Common Union scheme for rating the smart readiness of buildings: the “Smart Readiness Indicator” (SRI).
The indicator is intended to raise awareness about the benefits of smart technologies and ICT in buildings (from an energy perspective, in particular), motivate consumers to accelerate investments in smart building technologies and support the uptake of technology innovation in the building sector.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
“Smart readiness” aspects considered in EPBD
The ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the occupant paying due attention to the availability of user-friendliness, maintaining healthy indoor climate conditions and ability to report on energy use
e.g. use of CO2 sensors to decide when to increase
ventilation
e.g. Dashboards displaying current and historical
energy consumption
1
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
The ability to maintain energy efficiency
performance and operation of the building
through the adaptation of energy
consumption for example through use of energy from renewable sources
e.g. Management of heating and lighting system
based on occupancy sensors
e.g. Load-shifting to increase self-consumption of
local generated renewable energy
2
“Smart readiness” aspects considered in EPBD
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
The flexibility of a building's overall electricity
demand, including its ability to enable
participation in active and passive as well as
implicit and explicit demand-response, in
relation to the grid, for example through
flexibility and load shifting capacities.
e.g. Reduce power consumption when grid demand
is high
3
“Smart readiness” aspects considered in EPBD
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/
Aim Provide technical inputs to feed the establishment of the SRI of buildings by
the European Commission and the related proposals for delegated and
implementing acts, in accordance with the provisions of the revised EPBD.
Timeline Dec 2018 – June 2020
Consortium
Website
2nd technical support study for the SRI establishment
ENER/C3/2018-447
"Support to the establishment of a common European
scheme for rating the smart readiness of buildings“
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Main expected outcomes
• Consolidation of the definition and the calculation methodology of the SRI
• Investigation of SRI implementation pathways and of the format of the SRI
• Guidance for effective SRI implementation
• Quantitative modelling and analysis of the impact of the SRI at EU Level
Technical inputs to feed the establishment of a common EU SRI scheme:
In close collaboration with the stakeholder community
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Timeline
Dec
2018
Mar
2019
1st stakeholder
meeting
End of
project
June
2020
Aug
2019
Interim
report
Oct
2019
2nd stakeholder
meeting
Until 30 Nov: feedback interim report
Unit 15 Nov: public testing
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Brief recap of the calculation methodology proposed by the first technical support study
Stijn VerbekeVITO/EnergyVille
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Smart ready services
• Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready technologies, but are defined in a technology neutral way, e.g. ‘provision of temperature control in a room’.
• services are structured within domainsDOMAINS as proposed by first technical support study
OU
TCO
MES
1ST
TEC
HN
ICA
L SU
PP
OR
T ST
UD
Y
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
FUNCTIONALITY LEVELS
• For each of the services, 2 to 5 functionality levels are defined. A higher functionality level reflects a “smarter” implementation of the service, which generally provides more beneficial impacts to building users or to the grid
ServiceFunctionality level 0 (as non-smart default)
Functionality level 1 Functionality level 2 Functionality level 3 Functionality level 4
Heat emission controlNo automatic control
Central automatic control (e.g. central thermostat)
Individual room control (e.g. thermostatic valves, or electronic controller)
Individual room control with communication between controllers and to BACS
Individual room control with communication and presence control
EXAMPLE SERVICE:
OU
TCO
MES
1ST
TEC
HN
ICA
L SU
PP
OR
T ST
UD
Y
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
IMPACTS
• For each of the functionality levels of each of the services, the impacts are defined according to impact categories
IMPACT CATEGORIES as proposed by first technical support study
OU
TCO
MES
1ST
TEC
HN
ICA
L SU
PP
OR
T ST
UD
Y
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Proposed SRI methodology: outcome 1st technical study
OU
TCO
MES
1ST
TEC
HN
ICA
L SU
PP
OR
T ST
UD
Y
• STEP 1: Which smart ready services are relevant for this building?
e.g. if there is no DHW, there is no need to inspect how this is controlled
• STEP 2: Inspection: assess the functionality level of each relevant service
• STEP 3: Lookup impact scores
• STEP 4: Calculate weighted overall score
through multi-criteria assessment method
• STEP 5: Derive normalised SRI score
compared to maximum obtainable score for specific building
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Programme plenary session
14:00 – 14:10 Welcome– Paula Rey García (EC DG ENER)
14-10 – 14:25 Overview of the aims, status and the planning of the project– Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:25 – 14:50 Steps taken towards the definition of the SRI calculation methodology– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
14:50 – 15:20 Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:20 – 15:40 Provisional impact assessment of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)
15:40 – 16:00 Initial feedback from the testing phase– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)
16:00 – 16:30 Open group discussion
16:30 – 16:50 Next steps towards legal acts– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER)
16:50 – 17:00 Closing words– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER) & Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Steps taken towards the consolidation of the SRI calculation methodology
Dorien AertsVITO/EnergyVille
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI calculation methodology
A. DOMAIN AND IMPACT WEIGHTING FACTORS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Energy savings
and operationRespond to
user needs
Respond to
needs of the grid
Energy savingsComfort
Information to
occupantFlexibility to grid
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Dynamic Envelope
On-site renewable energy generation
Demand Side Management
Electric vehicles
Convenience
Monitoring & Control
Self generation
Proposed SRI methodology: changes to domains and impact criteria
Maintenance &
fault prediction
Health &
Wellbeing
Original proposal
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Energy savings
and operationRespond to
user needs
Respond to
needs of the grid
Energy savingsComfort
Information to
occupantFlexibility to grid
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Dynamic Envelope
Demand Side Management
Electric vehicles
Convenience
Monitoring & Control
Self generationMaintenance &
fault prediction
Health &
Wellbeing
Electricity
1. “On-site renewable energy production” becomes “electricity”: include storage & focus on electricity
Proposed SRI methodology: changes to domains and impact criteria
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Energy savings
and operationRespond to
user needs
Energy flexibility
Energy
Flexibility
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Demand Side Management
Electric vehicles
Monitoring & Control
Self. generationEnergy savingsComfort
Information to
occupantConvenienceMaintenance &
fault prediction
Health &
Wellbeing
2. “Self-generation” is omitted:- Advantages to the grid are covered in
“energy flexibility”- Benefits of autonomy are covered in
“convenience”
Proposed SRI methodology: changes to domains and impact criteria
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Energy savings
and operationRespond to
user needs
Energy flexibility
Energy
Flexibility
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Demand Side Management
Electric vehicles
Monitoring & Control
Self. generationEnergy savingsComfort
Information to
occupantConvenienceMaintenance &
fault prediction
Health &
Wellbeing
3. Services in the “DSM” domain are redistributed to other domains
Proposed SRI methodology: changes to domains and impact criteria
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Energy savings
and operationRespond to user
needs
Energy flexibility
Energy
savings ComfortInformation to
occupant
Maintenance &
fault predictionEnergy
Flexibility
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Convenience
Monitoring & Control
Health &
Wellbeing
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Electric vehicles
Proposed SRI methodologyResulting domain and impact matrix
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
(1) correction if no services
Proposed SRI methodology: domain weightings
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Energy savings
and operationRespond to user
needs
Energy Flexibility
Energy
savingsComfort
Information to
occupant
Maintenance &
fault prediction
Energy
Flexibility
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Convenience
Monitoring & Control
Health &
Wellbeing
Energy Balance
Method
Sum = 70% Equal weighting (1)
Sum = 80%
Electric vehicles
Fixed weight 20%
Fixed weight 5%
Energy
Balance
Method
Sum =
70%
Fixed 5%
Fixed weight 5% Fixed 5%
I. Use weightings from energy balance whenever possible
II. Use estimated impact weightings for the remaining energy-related impacts
III. Use equal weighting for user-related impact criteria
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Proposed SRI methodology: domain weightings
Energy
savings
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Monitoring & Control
Electric vehicles
North West South North-East South-East
30% 35% 32% 31% 22%
9% 7% 10% 14% 6%
0% 2% 7% 0% 15%
19% 19% 9% 19% 11%
4% 1% 3% 1% 1%
13% 11% 14% 10% 20%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Tentative default weightings for RESIDENTIAL buildings
Energy balance
Fixed
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Proposed SRI methodology: domain weightings
North West South North-East South-East
31% 28% 31% 30% 29%
5% 8% 10% 9% 11%
9% 12% 11% 8% 8%
20% 14% 9% 19% 15%
8% 10% 12% 7% 9%
2% 3% 2% 2% 3%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Energy
savings
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Monitoring & Control
Electric vehicles
Energy balance
Fixed
Tentative default weightings for NON-RESIDENTIAL buildings
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Proposed SRI methodology: domain weightings
All climate zones
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
0%
0%
13%
20%
Dynamic Envelope
Electricity
Heating
Domestic hot water
Cooling
Ventilation
Lighting
Monitoring & Control
Electric vehicles
Equal weighting
Fixed
Tentative default weightings (RESIDENTIAL & NON-RESIDENTIAL)
Comfort
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
=16,7% =16,7% =8,3% =8,3% =8,3% =8,3% =33,3%
Energy savings
and operationRespond to user
needs
Energy Flexibility
Energy savingsComfort
Information to
occupant
Maintenance &
fault prediction
Energy FlexibilityConvenience
Health &
Wellbeing
1/3 1/3 1/3
1/2 1/2 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/1
Proposed SRI methodology: weightings for impact criteria
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI calculation methodology
B. TRIAGE AND ABSENT SERVICES
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
NORMALISATION and TRIAGE
• Normalisation: triage process affects the ‘maximum obtainable score’, as it would be unfair to penalise a building for not providing services that are not relevant
• Triage: identify the relevant services for a specific building
• Relevant because they are present
• Relevant because they should be present (policy perspective)
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Proposed SRI methodology: absent services
What if a service or domain is not present?
• Some services only have to be evaluated in case the relevant technical building systems are present (hence: “smart ready”). This approach is appropriate when assessors cannot unambiguously determine the relevance of the domain.
e.g. automated shading devices
• Some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy perspective (hence: “smart possible”). This approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing buildings with additional (smart) services.
e.g. controlled ventilation
• As a guiding principle, it could be considered that all services that are mandatory in a Member State’s building code are mandatory in the SRI.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI calculation methodology
C. INTEREPERABILITY AND CYBERSECURITY
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential approaches to consider interoperability within the SRI
• Implicit approachDefine services that require interoperability, without defining the required standards or protocols needed to enable such interoperability.
For example, if a service for "avoiding simultaneous heating and cooling" is present, implicitly these systems will inherently have to be interoperable (either directly or through other gateways).
• Explicit approachExplicitly assess and rate the interoperability.
A higher SRI score could be granted if systems adhere to a list of specific standards and protocols.
• Informative approachProvide information the level of interoperability of services but don’t calculate a score.
e.g. a structured overview of information on standards and protocols for the different technical building systems on the SRI and its accompanying documents. This can provide a valuable source for building owners when planning to upgrade their building systems.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential approaches to consider interoperability within the SRI
• Currently implemented approach = implicit evaluation of interoperability
• Under investigation: potential shift to a blended approach:
• Add supplementary information on interoperability?
e.g. through external labelling schemes? Idem for cybersecurity
• vs potentially adding supplementary services, domains or impacts to explicitly assess interoperability aspects
• In consultation with topical group B
• Evaluate feasibility of alternative approaches
e.g. in terms of assessor competence and efforts required)
e.g. in terms of technical characteristics: list of open protocols or solely ethernet IP, evaluate data availability for external tools as well?,…
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI calculation methodology
D. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Simplified online quick-scan
Expert SRI assessment
A BIn-use smart building
performance
C
Checklist approach with limited, simplified services list
Self-assessment (or contractor,…)
15 minutes
Checklist approach, covering catalogue of smart services cf. 1st
study outcomes
Third-party qualified expert
Few hours
residential buildings and small non-residential
Non-residential + Residential
Online On-site inspection
Measured / metered data(potentially restricted set of domains)
TBS self-reporting their actual performance
Gather data over a long period (e.g. 1 year)
Residential and non-residential Restricted to occupied buildings
(not in design phase)
In-use buildings, metered dataPart of the commissioning?
Example application set-up: Example application set-up: Example application set-up:
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Method B: default approach
• In line with the 1st study outcomes
• Would require an on-site inspection by a third-party qualified expert. The assessment could take between 1 hour and 2 days.
• This approach would mainly target non-residential buildings, but residential buildings could be envisioned as well.
• Review of catalogue and weighting mechanisms ongoing
Expert SRI assessment
Checklist approach, covering catalogue of smart services cf. 1st
study outcomes
Third-party qualified expert
1 hour – max 2 days
Non-residential: offices and education (+ others later on?)
+ Residential as well
B
On-site inspection
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Method A: simplified service catalogue
• Aim: to lower the threshold for application of the SRI by providing basic insights on the smartness of a building based on easy-to-answer questions.
• Potentially limited to residential buildings, and potentially small non-residential buildings
• Given the lack of controllability, this method would not issue a formal certification.
• Possible approaches:
• asking simpler questions (change of terminology)
• proposing a product database with pre-defined functionality levels (change of input data),
• a combination of both
Simplified online quick-scan
Simplified services list
Self-assessment (or contractor,…)
15 minutes
A
Restricted to residential buildings
Online
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Suggested approach: simplified method A
Structure services in each domain by these 3 topics:
• Controllability of Performance: services that enable to control the performance (energy efficiency, indoor air quality,…)
• Storage & Connectivity: services that enable storage of energy and/or connectivity to other actors (other TBS, BACS, grid)
• Reporting Functionalities: services that provide reporting of current status, performance and benchmarking
Limited number of services to be assessed: 27 instead of 54 services.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Method C: potential future development
• Quantifies the actual performance of in-use buildings
• Requires benchmarking to assess how much savings, flexibility, comfort improvements, etc. are delivered
• Method C is currently considered to be a potential future evolution of a certification approach for a commissioned building. Many practical and legal implications would hamper a fast roll-out. Therefore, it will not be treated in detail in this technical study.
In-use smart buildingperformance
Measured / metered data(potentially restricted set of
domains)
TBS self-reporting their actual performance
Gather data over a long period (e.g. 1 year)
Residential and non-residential Restricted to occupied buildings
(not in design phase)
C
In-use buildings, metered dataPart of the commissioning?
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
new topical expert group C: explore future SRI developments
• Investigate requirements and feasibility an SRI assessment “method C”• Methodological requirements: approach for benchmarking
• Technological requirements: monitoring infrastructure
• Other requirements, including privacy and cybersecurity
• Define a process for updating method A and B
• Self-managed working group• Members report to study team and Commission services
• Study team can facilitate meetings (e.g. skype meetings, sharepoint platform)
• CALL FOR EXPERTS: new topical expert group C • Interested in joining the topical group?
• Interested in chairing (some sessions of) the topical group?
• Let us know on [email protected]
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI
Paul Waide WSEE
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Implementation pathways – some considerations
• The pathways considered need to encompass a broad range of possibilities
• Potential pathways can be differentiated by:
o the type of buildings addressed
o the type of actors addressed
o the synergies with opportunities to conduct assessments
• The scheme will need a common kernel of characteristics e.g. the calculation methodology, logo/format, etc. which will mean that from the service offer perspective it should be as uniform as possible
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Sa
les
Increasing Efficiency
Before Labelling
Start of Labelling
Some years of Labelling
The SRI is likely to work from two directions• By the “market pull”
impact of SRI assessments on properties encouraging the adoption of SRTs
• By the “market push” impact of SRTs and services self-organizing service offers in line with the SRI criteria – e.g. “our service X attains SRI functionality level 4” etc.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Factors which need to be considered with SRI linkages
• Scope – distinctiveness versus potential overlaps
• Leverage
• Implementation pathways/factors
• The lessons that can be learned from the other schemes
• Complementarity
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Linkages to other schemes – considerations
Formal linkage should only be sought if it will bring clear beneficial synergies. Those synergies would include:
o shared assessment costs thereby reducing overall assessment costs
o potential to mutually reinforce the value proposition
o ability to reinforce the scale of reach i.e. that through the establishment of such linkages the number of the target audience reached by the schemes is increased
o compatibility in terms of objectives
o compatibility in terms of governance
o compatibility with regard to the target audiences to be addressed
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential SRI implementation pathways will be sensitive to trigger points
Trigger points are moments when an event occurs for a building that an SRI assessment (the pull effect) could link to synergistically. They include:
o inspections,
o assessments,
o new or replacement installations,
o renovations,
o new build,
o design stages,
o commissioning
Trigger points can also link to SRT/smart service deployment e.g. the push effect
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential SRI implementation pathways include:A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory way) so an assessment
would be offered each time an EPC is conducted
B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each time a new build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement
C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it
D. As option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures
E. Linkage to the TBS/BACS deployment trigger points in Articles 8, 14 & 15 in the EPBD
F. Linkage to smart meter deployment
G. A mosaic of the aboves
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
EU (or EU-supported) initiatives
• Level(s) – environmental aspects
• Building Renovation Passports (EU supporting studies)
• Cyber-security certificate – under development
• Broadband ready label
• Digital logbook – exploratory phase
• Support schemes for BIM
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Other initiatives
• Voluntary environmental certification schemes (e.g. BREEAM, LEED, HQE, DGNB)
• Voluntary smart building initiatives (SBA (FR), SmartHome (DE), FEE (BE), Active House – international)
• Building Renovation Passports (DE, FL, FR trials)
• Building Information Modelling (BIM) – private sector
• Other cybersecurity initiatives
• National/regional smart metering deployment schemes
• And doubtlessly many others
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential implementation pathways – differentiation by the party managing the building’s energy services
The nature of implementation could also be differentiated by the nature of the party responsible for managing energy services: e.g.
• self assessment for owner-occupiers
• or 3rd party assessment for facility managed buildings
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Potential implementation roll-out pathways include:
The SRI roll-out could occur differentially by market segmentation e.g. by:
1. type of building stock (SFH, MFH, small non-residential, medium/large non-residential),
2. the nature of building management (e.g. professionally managed buildings, non-professionally managed buildings)
3. geography (region A or city X followed by…)
4. or simultaneously for all building types/building management/geographies
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Formatting of the SRI
Paul Waide WSEE
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
The decisions regarding the SRI format need to resolve the following:
• How should the scope of the scheme be communicated in a transparent manner?
• How should intrinsic concepts embedded within the SRI be clarified?
• What information is to be communicated?
• Which information will be presented to which audiences?
• How will the information be presented visually?
• What media will be used to present the information?
• Should the scheme be branded and if so how?
• How should its format be conditional on interactions with other schemes?
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Process being followed to resolve these questions
• Extensive consultations
• Discussion with Topical Group A
• Preparation of trial design concepts with graphic designer
• Focus groups – first held in Madrid, next planned for Budapest
• Survey of facility managers - planned
• Stakeholder feedback
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Issues to consider – information and its structure
• What information is to be conveyed? SRI scores, guidance on improvement options, both?
• Previously stakeholders indicated a strong preference to present both an overall SRI score and SRI sub-scores – but should the SRI sub-scores be presented for each impact criteria (e.g. energy, flexibility, etc.), each domain (heating, cooling, etc.) or both?
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Tentative conclusions following consultation with Topical group A and others
Preferences for:
• reporting sub-scores (certainly) and total score (less universally)
• targeted advice on improvement options
• flexibility in reporting implies on-line reporting where layers of information can be accessed in a hierarchy according to the user’s needs/preferences
• this could be complemented by a certificate/logo/mnemonic
Issues to resolve:
• branding (could it require a common logo/mnemonic across EU?)
• communication of SRI’s constrained scope
• feedback from consumer/user research
• linkage to existing schemes
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Issues to consider – mnemonics
• Mnemonics are used to simplify the processing and retention of information
• The most famous example in the energy sector is the energy label that ranks appliance efficiency from A to G and is reinforced by colour coding (Green to Red)
• Other examples of mnemonics used to simplify rankings are the number of stars e.g. a 5 star hotel
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Findings from first focus group
• Consumers are interested in the smartness of buildings and an indicator to help represent and understand it
• They intuitively recognise it is a complex subject with multiple ways of viewing it
• They prefer a mnemonic logo with grades to logos without such information
• They want this to have a top-level indicator of the smartness score and a class on a transparent grading scale
• They also want sub-scores – especially the table of scores – but this needs to come after the top-level score as additional information
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Findings from first focus group
• It is not yet clear whether they would prefer the single or tri-partite approach to presenting the top-level score
• They expressed a preference for independent assessment not related to the commercial interests of those involved in the building sector
• They said they would take such information into account when considering real-estate and equipment transactions
• They are aware of the EPC and do not see a conflict or contradiction between the SRI and EPC
• They would like the information via various media – certificates/report, on-line, accessible via QR codes
• They would like a person to be able to explain the assessment to them
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Provisional impact assessment of the SRI
Paul Waide WSEE
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Elements of the impact assessment
• As a supporting element in the development of the SRI the Commission is preparing a formal impact assessment of the scheme
• This entails quantifying the costs and benefits of implementing SRI in the EU building sector for the horizons of 2030, 2040, 2050
• The impacts are being assessed for the different implementation pathways proposed in Task 2 of this project
• The benefits and effects along the selected criteria are being quantified (primarily in monetary, energy and emission units) on a yearly and cumulative basis and subject to a sensitivity analysis
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
What impact effects is the SRI expected to have?
The SRI impact will be due to a blend of the following effects:
• the strength of the market SRT/service offer organisational “push” effect
• the strength of the stimulus to adopt smarter SRTs from the certificate/information/label “pull” effect
• the building FA coverage of the assessments (certificate/information/label) - the strength of the pull effect will linearly scale to this
• complementary stimulus measures – e.g. incentives for SRT adoption or SRI assessment; or mandatory SRT functionality requirements
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Linkage to implementation pathways
However, the strength of each of the previous effects is driven by the implementation pathway choices, where:
• mandatory trigger events drive SRI deployment in a predictable way
• voluntary ones have less certain deployment scalar impacts
• the impact of the “pull” effect per SRI issued could be estimated independently but will also be a function of any associated incentives/minimum requirements
• the total “pull” effect would be the above multiplied by the coverage scalar
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
The market SRT/service-offer organisational “push” effectwill depend upon:
• the degree to which industry/building services sector makes use of the SRI to classify their products/services functionality and publicise it in their market offers
• which, in turn, will probably have a feedback from how actively the “pull” effect part is implemented
• potentially, publication of the functionality of SRTs could also be addressed via Ecodesign information requirements and in principle this could be put directly onto products themselves
However, the SRI functionality of services will also often depend on how products are assembled into a system by a designer/installer and so cannot necessarily be determined prior to a product leaving the factory gate
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
The SRI certification/assessment “pull” effect
This will depend upon:
• the degree to which procurers of SRTs/SRI services are motivated by the information provided by an SRI assessment
• the proportion of the building stock subject to an assessment
• the extent to which incentives or mandatory requirements are implemented and linked to SRI assessments
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Analysis is supported by a bespoke modelling tool
The overall methodology comprises the following four sub-activities:
• Activity 1: determining the building-level impact of smart technologies and services
• Activity 2: definition of impact scenarios reflecting policy options
• Activity 3: aggregation of individual variants and calculation scenarios
• Activity 4: sensitivity analysis
Activity 1 is addressed through detailed simulations and application of standards such as EN15232
The inputs from this are then treated in an aggregate scenario simulation tool designed explicitly for this analysis
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Building level impacts
To determine the building-level impact of SRTs, six performance criteria have been defined:
• energy use
• greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
• self-consumption of renewable energy
• energy security
• material circularity
• comfort and well-being
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Illustration – specific annual cost savings from upgrading SRTs in Northern EU single family houses
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Impact scenarios considered (thus far)
• A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory way) so an assessment would be offered each time an EPC is conducted
• B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each time a new build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement
• C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it
• D. As option C, but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures
• E. Linkage to the BACS/TBS deployment trigger points in Articles 14 & 15, and 8 of the EPBD
• F. Linkage to smart meter deployment.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Impact scenarios considered (thus far)
Sub-options are considered for scenarios A, E and F depending on whether, the implementation is:
• Mandatory (Sub-option 1)
• Voluntary (Sub-option 2)
• voluntary but subsidised/incentivised (Sub-option 3)
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI deployment as a function of the scenario
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Evolution in buildings that undergo an improvement of one level of smartness
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Evolution in buildings that undergo at an improvement to smartness level A
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Cumulative investment in SRTs
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Evolution of EU28 building stock final energy use
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Annual final energy savings compared to the BAU scenario
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Annual energy bill savings compared to the BAU scenario
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Annual avoided CO2 emissions compared to the BAU scenario
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Next steps
• Process stakeholder comments and add sophistication
• Include the analysis of co-impacts e.g. employment, economy, etc.
• Finalise analysis per final set of scenarios
• Provide input to the formal impact analysis
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Initial feedback from the testing phase
Dorien Aerts
VITO/EnergyVille
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Objective: The aim of these intermediate deliverables is to receive targeted feedback on the feasibility of the approach, allowing the study team to fine-tune methodological framework
• Activities (August – November 2019)
1. Dry-run testing by Topical Group members
2. Public bèta testing by Stakeholders
• Timeline
Dry Run testing
August 2019
Public bèta testing
15 September 2019 –
15 November 2019
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Information Package: • Guidance document
• Calculation sheets for methods A and B
• Disclaimer: • These are draft deliverables of the technical support
study which explores the development and implementation pathways of the SRI.
• The methodology and look and feel of the SRI which might eventually be implemented by the EU Member States might still differ significantly from the current draft deliverables of the technical support study
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Phase 1: Dry-run testing
• 11 participants from topical groups A and B
• Bugs and calculation errors
• Terminology, wording and typos
• Methodological feedback on triage process and service catalogue
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Phase 2: Public bèta testing
• Current status: 360 buildings, located in 22 countries, signed up for the test
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Single-familyresidential
Multi-familyresidential
Offices Educational Healthcare Other non-residential
SRI public bèta testing: pre-registration
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Initial results from the public bèta testing
• Office building
• Single-Family Home, Multi-Family Home, Office building
• Office building
• Single-Family Home, Educational building, Retail building
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Initial results from the public bèta testing
Typology Country Size Age
SCORE
Method B Method A
SFH Greece 200-500 1990-2010 14% 11%
MFH Greece 1.000-10.000 1990-2010 renovated 13% 21%
SFH Finland 1960-1990 14%
Office UK 1.000-10.000 1990-2010 15%
Office Italy 500-1.000 1960-1990 renovated 34%
Office Greece 1.000-10.000 <1960 renovated 18% 21%
Educational Finland >25.000 >2010 67%
Retail Finland >25.000 1990-2010 91%
RE
SID
EN
TIA
LN
ON
-RE
SID
EN
TIA
L
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Non-Residential buildings (method B)
90% 87%
98%91%
100%
85%92%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
informationto occupants
FI: 91%
37%
-9%
34%
18% 21%
0% 3%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
informationto occupants
GR: 18%
14%
4%
23% 22%
33%
22%
9%
Energy savingson site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeing andhealth
Maintenance& fault
prediction
information tooccupants
UK: 15%
50%
8%
58%
39%
14%22% 23%
Energy savingson site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeing andhealth
Maintenance& fault
prediction
information tooccupants
IT: 34%
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Residential buildings (methods A & B)
27%
3%
23%13%
0% 0% 3%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
informationto occupants
GR SFH:
Method B
14%
16% 12%
25%
11%
0% 0% 0%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
Informationto occupants
GR SFH:
Method A
11%
24%
0%
23%
8%0%
9%3%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
informationto occupants
GR MFH:
Method B
13%
34%
12%
39%
10%
0%
17%
6%
Energysavings on
site
Flexibility forthe grid and
storage
Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health
Maintenance& fault
prediction
Informationto occupants
GR MFH:
Method A
21%
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• General feedback
• Despite (generally) low scores, most assessors indicate that the results are in line with their expectations.
• The assessors needed a few minutes to a few hours for the assessment. It should be noted that most of them were very familiar with the building.
• Most assessors indicated no major issues regarding the feasibility of the assessment, although additional guidance is needed for more complex systems that combine multiple TBS.
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Specific feedback:
• Alignment between methods A and B
• Ventilation: what about buildings with natural ventilation and an intelligent information system regarding indoor air quality and suggestions to (manually) open the windows?
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
SRI public bèta testing
• Participation to public testing still possible!
• Please register on https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Open discussion
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Next steps towards legal acts
Sylvain Robert
EC DG ENER
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Wrap-up and closing of the meeting
SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS
Recap of further interaction opportunities
• Participate in public bèta testing until 15 Novhttps://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri
• Provide feedback on public beta testing until 15 Nov
• Provide feedback on interim report until 30 Novhttps://smartreadinessindicator.eu/milestones-and-documents
• 3rds Stakeholder meeting date tbd