Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

Can building codes deliver

energy efficiency?
Defining a best practice approach
A report for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
by the Building Research Establishment
June 2008

Research www.rics.org
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
 Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Defining a best practice approach
ISBN 978-1-84219-413-3

© RICS June 2008

RICS
12 Great George Street
London SW1P 3AD
United Kingdom
www.rics.org

This report was written by Roger Hitchin of the Building Research

Establishment to support the work of RICS in exploring ways
in which we can move towards a low carbon built environment.
The views expressed and recommendations put forward are those
of the author and are intended to stimulate discussion and debate
on the way forward. They do not constitute RICS policy and the
recommendations 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 fellow at the Welsh School
of Architecture. In recent years, much of his time has been occupied with
supporting various aspects of the implementation the Energy Performance
of Buildings Directive. Previously he worked in the natural gas industry in
a variety of roles dealing with technical and business research, including a
study of the US energy regulation system. He has also worked as a building
services design consultant and a university researcher.

Building Research Establishment

BRE, Bucknalls Lane, Watford WD25 9XX
United Kingdom
www.bre.co.uk
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Contents
Executive Summary and Recommendations 9
Recommendation 1: Basic Calculation Structure 10
Recommendation 2: Specific Calculation Structure 10
Recommendation 3: Calculation Procedure 11
Recommendation 4: Staged Implementation 11
Recommendation 5: Enforcement 12
Recommendation 6: Required Performance Levels 12
Recommendation 7: Complementary fiscal action 13
Recommendation 8: Complementary demonstration action 13

1 What are we trying to achieve? 14

2 Building energy regulations as policy instruments 16

2.1 Building energy codes and regulatory policy 16
2.2 Energy policy and building energy regulations 17
2.3 Building energy codes and other instruments 17
2.4 Scope of building energy codes and regulations 18

3 Options for structures of building energy codes and regulations 20

3.1 Prescriptive and performance-based codes 20
3.2 Advantages and disadvantages of elemental and integrated methods 21

4 Setting compliance levels for minimum performance 24

5 Enforcement 26
5.1 Options for enforcement routes 26
5.2 Building control structures: administrative procedures in Europe 26
5.3 Quality of enforcement 28
5.4 Characteristics of different enforcement routes 28

6 Overview of building codes around the world 32

European Union 33
Rest of Europe and Central Asia 34
Middle East 35
Africa 36
South Asia 37
China and Mongolia 38
South East Asia 39
Australasia 40
North America 41
Caribbean 42
Central and South America 43

References 44
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Foreword
The UK government recently issued a consultation document on
the ‘Future of Building Control’ in England and Wales. It identified
that the building control system in England and Wales is ‘…not
broken, (but) it has some significant weaknesses that must be
tackled if we are to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in today’s
world and in the future’.
During the consultation period and the non-compliance, self regulation and
following months there will be views energy performance.
put forward from various quarters in
It must also be noted that some
respect of the work that needs to be
credit for improvements to the energy
done many of which will focus upon
performance of buildings over the last
particular elements of the system
20 to 30 years has been due to the
The intention of this report from the work of Chartered Building Control
Building Research Establishment Surveyors in the UK. This has resulted
(BRE) to RICS is to initiate debate in the energy performance of 2008
on some of those areas of work that buildings being vastly superior to their
need development and reinforcement. 1970s counterparts – when building
The recommendations highlighted are regulations on energy conservation first
in the nature of being from BRE to came into force.
RICS rather than an RICS viewpoint.
RICS recognises the need for change
With this in mind, RICS welcomes the
and hopes that through debate and
recommendations being proposed and
communication within the construction
will be considering them further to see
industry we can offer viable solutions
how they can be further developed
to the problems faced by the built
The RICS Building Control Faculty environment.
takes note of this report and welcomes
the debate especially in the context
of the recent report published by
the Building Control Alliance (BCA)
entitled, ‘A Building Control System
for the 21st Century’.

The BCA report contains several

recommendations that are relevant to David McCullogh
this research that will help stimulate Policy Lead for Building Control Faculty
further debate on the future of building and RICS Representative on Building
control, including issues relating to Control Alliance
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

‘What are the most effective

interventions that we can make
in the overall process of the
creation, management and use
of the built environment in order

‘
to reduce carbon emissions?

Executive summary
and recommendations
Societies around the world are now
being faced with an imperative of how
to respond to the challenge of climate
change. We have now reached a point
where the focus is not so much on
wondering whether there is a need for
action but to decide on what the best
action should be. In deciding on that,
we have needed to find out just where
the carbon emissions responsible for
climate change are actually coming
from. We need to be sure that we are
putting our efforts into the right areas,
or otherwise our efforts will be wasted.
As a result of this, we are now in little
doubt that buildings and the built
environment play a crucial role, both in
creating carbon emissions and in our
efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
However, simply to say that the built
environment is responsible does not
get us much closer to knowing what
to do about it. What are the most
effective interventions that we can
make in the overall process of the
creation, management and use of
the built environment in order to
reduce carbon emissions?
Clearly, there are multiple interventions
that can be made, some technical,
some financial and some regulatory
– each has its part to play and each
needs to be investigated.
In this report, we asked Roger Hitchin
of the Building Research Establishment
(BRE) in the UK to look at the role of
building regulations, critically reviewing
the way in which building regulations
in selected countries around the world
a The International Energy Agency, for example, is producing a working paper on policy recommendations on building energy
codes as part of its work for the G8 Gleneagles Plan of Action. The European Commission Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
COM(2006)545 stresses the importance of minimum energy performance standards for buildings.
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
can contribute to achieving energy Most of the recommendations below
efficiency. The aim was to see if it is have this basis.
possible to identify possible ‘best
Implementation and enforcement
practice’ for energy-related building
has been the subject of widespread
codes and regulations in the context
comment and debate, but there seems
of both UK and world-wide conditions
as yet to be no clear consensus about
and needs.
good practice (beyond a near-universal
The specific ways in which building call for better resourcing).
regulations deal with energy efficiency
The recommendations in these areas
will inevitably differ around the world,
are therefore perhaps more contentious
depending on climatic circumstances.
and reflect the more convincing-
However, what we wanted to address
sounding proposals and analyses that
was whether there are any principles
have been discovered rather than much
underlying their formulation,
in the way of empirical evidence.
compliance and enforcement
that could be highlighted. Some weaknesses of implementation
– especially in the area of apportioning
costs – can only be addressed
What did he find
(it seems) by actions that are outside
and what does the direct scope of building energy
he recommend? codes and regulations. Two sets of
complementary actions are
There is general acceptance that
recommended in this area.
building energy codes are an important
energy policy instrument.a In many
countries, especially in Europe, more
demanding codes have resulted in the
buildings that are constructed today
being more energy-efficient than those
of twenty years ago. Since energy
policy concerns and priorities
legitimately differ from country to
country, it is very unlikely that there
can be a universally applicable building
energy code. However, the review
identified some features of code
structure that have been demonstrated
to be applicable over a range of
different situations and have been
widely recognised as representing
good practice.
Core recommendations to RICS:
these recommendations relate specifically to the structure
and implementation of building codes as they relate to
energy efficiency
1  he basic structure
T
of building regulations
The code should be performance-
based and should take the form of
an integrated energy calculation that
includes the demands generated by the
building fabric and its occupants upon
all the fixed building services, and the
performance of the systems that satisfy
those demands. It should include all
energy supplies to the building.
Reason
• T
 he wide scope and flexibility of this
structure allows changing energy
policy priorities to be reflected
without changing the basic
structure: for example by changing
the relative weights applied to
different energy supply sources
• T
 his structure provides a base on
which energy performance labelling
systems can be constructed, should
this be desired
• T
 his recommendation reflects a
general structure that has been
applied successfully in many
countries with greatly differing
traditions of building energy codes.
Comments
• W
 e make no recommendation
about the common metric into
which each consumption is
converted as this will depend
on the energy policy priorities
of the implementing government
or authority. At the moment climate
change is a key policy driver in
many countries,b but this has not
always been so and may not always
be so. Other possibilities include
primary energy, or might prioritise
electricity or imported
fuel consumption.
• A
 lthough we recommend that the
scope of services covered be all the
fixed building services, it is possible
to include or exclude some services
such as catering equipment
or kitchen ventilation without
undermining the methodology
• F
 or regulatory purposes, each
space in the building should be
assumed to have a standardised
pattern of use, including set-points,
lighting levels, minimum fresh air
supply etc. We make no specific
recommendation about how many
different standard ‘activities’ there
should be
• T
 he use of non-standard values
may be permitted as a means
of supporting design decisions
but should only be allowed for
regulatory purposes where it is
clear that these represent the
likely and continuing actual use
of the space.
See section 3 for more details on
this recommendation
b In which case the emission of greenhouse gases is an appropriate metric
2 The specific
calculation structure
The calculated integrated energy
metric should be compared to that
of a reference building of the same
size and geometry but with defined
elemental properties (such as thermal
resistance of envelope elements,
boiler efficiencies). These elemental
properties should be clearly defined
and should allow the reference building
energy metric value to be calculated
without further input.
Reason
• W
 ith this convention (and without
the use of general ‘improvement
factors’) a designer (and
regulator) knows that satisfying
all the elemental requirements will
automatically meet the calculated
target. Therefore, in practical
terms, the regulation appears to be
identical to one based on elemental
values, but retains the flexibility of
an integrated calculation.
Comments
• T
 his approach has the disadvantage
of removing incentives to use
inherently efficient geometries.
It does not prevent the use of
such design strategies, but does
not reward them
• C
 are is needed with the definition
of some elemental values for
the reference building, notably
window properties, since the
most appropriate values are often
climate-dependent
• E
 lemental values might be minimum
performance standards for
equipment set by other regulations

• O
 nce the proposed or actual
building has been defined in terms
which the calculation procedure
can use, the reference building
can be automatically calculated
• T
 his structure leads naturally into
the development of a performance
scale (for example A to G ratings
or a numerical scale) based on
the ratio of actual to reference
performance.
See section 3 for more details on
this recommendation
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
3  alculation
C
procedure 4 Staged
Implementation
There should be a single recommended This recommendation follows on
calculation procedure which should be from the recommendation 3. Building
inherently flexible but should have a Energy Codes that do not include an
user interface designed for regulatory integrated calculation procedure should
(rather than general design) purposes. be designed to be steps towards such
a structure.
Reason
Reason
• A
 single procedure ensures
consistency of calculation and • T
 he recommended integration
removes the risk of market calculation structure is only
competition for ease of compliance practicable given an adequate
between rival procedures level of understanding and training
amongst designers, builders, and
• A
 flexible procedure (in practice
those who must enforce the code.
typically based on hourly
This will not always be present,
calculations) is needed in order
and elemental codes – perhaps
to properly represent HVAC and
including provision for some
lighting systems and some building
trade-offs – may be as far as
design features
it is reasonable to go.
• G
 eneral design interfaces are
unnecessarily complicated for
Comment
regulatory purposes. Specifically-
designed interfaces should be • It is desirable to move to an
easier to check and are likely integrated calculation when
to be less prone to user error. circumstances allow and this
possibility should be borne in mind
Comment when introducing elemental codes.
In practice this will impose few
• D
 ifferent implementations and user constraints on the design of an
interfaces may be allowable, subject elemental code.
to adequate testing
• A
 typical development sequence
• T
 his recommendation aims to strike of building energy regulations is:
a balance between reliability of
1. Elemental thermal
application and the ability to handle
requirements
any building and system
2. Add trade-offs between
• A
 lternative calculation procedures
elements
may be allowed but should be
subject to extensive checking 3. Fully integrated calculations
for consistency with the
4. Extension to energy
preferred method
performance rating.
See section 3 for more details on
See sections 3 and 6 for more
this recommendation
details on this recommendation
5 Enforcement of
building regulations
Compliance with mandatory minimum
performance requirements should be
confirmed by formally certified private
assessors, who charge building owners
for their services. The process should
be audited by the authority under
which the code is issued – normally
local or central government – or by
their agents. The audit process should
have the ultimate sanction of removing
accreditation from assessors, subject to
proper appeals and review procedures.
Reason
• A
 lthough compliance enforced by
government may be theoretically
the most robust approach, there is
very widespread evidence that in
practice it is very difficult to obtain
sufficient funding for this. The
recommendation recognises this
constraint and allows government
to concentrate on the proper
operation of the process. The
possible loss of accreditation and
therefore of income provides an
incentive for assessors to maintain
proper professional standards
• B
 uilding energy regulation requires
specialist technical knowledge and
detailed knowledge of each building
which places onerous demands on
building control officers.
Comment
• Inadequate enforcement processes
are often a constraint on the
development of energy codes,
especially of the type
recommended above
• T
 his approach runs the risk of
assessors erring on the side of
leniency since their future income
may depend on repeat business
from the customer. This could be
alleviated by randomly assigning
assessors to projects
• A
 central register of assessments
is required in order to monitor
the process. This also has the
advantage of providing policy
makers with information about
the performance of buildings
• If a code is voluntary, rather than
mandatory, compliance should
be checked by a similar process
• T
 here remains a need for adequate
(and enforced) penalties for non-
compliance
• In the UK (and some other
countries) the development of
infrastructure to support building
Energy Performance Certificates
is creating an cadre of trained,
certified assessors with suitable
skills to take on this role.
See section 5 for more details on
this recommendation
6 Required
Performance Levels
As a general principle, mandatory
minimum performance levels should
reflect an assessment of the balance of
costs and benefits to society, including
external costs.
Reason
• T
 he justification for mandatory
codes is that there should be (or
at least be believed to be) a societal
benefit that would not be gained
in the absence of legislation.
Comment
• T
 he valuing of costs and, especially,
benefits is an essentially political
process (and the perceived values
will change from time to time)
and we do not set out specific
recommendations other than that
they should be done in accordance
with internationally recognised rules
and procedures
• D
 ue account should be taken
of transitional costs for the
construction industry
• V
 oluntary levels of compliance
(for example ‘green codes’) may
be justified on other bases
• S
 ince our recommended structure
enables the impact of different
measures to balanced against each
other, we see no virtue in mandatory
requirements for particular
technologies (for example,
renewables) within building energy
codes. This does not rule out
regulation to encourage the use
of new technologies – but we feel
that these should be separate from
building energy codes.
See section 4 for more details on
this recommendation
Complementary recommendations: Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
these relate to issues which are outside the direct scope
of building codes but are, nonetheless, of importance in
supporting the core recommendations
7 Fiscal action
Fiscal incentives or penalties should be
linked to building energy labels.
Reason
• T
 he market does not sufficiently
value the future benefits of good
energy performance of buildings.
This penalises the initial buyer of
a new building who cannot avoid
the extra initial cost but cannot
currently recoup it when selling.
Comment
• E
 ffectively penalising poorer
performing buildings and rewarding
better ones is a step towards
removing this imbalance
• T
 he closer market prices are to
representing lifecycle optimum
value, the lower the incentive to
construct below-quality buildings.
See section 4 for more details on
this recommendation
8 Demonstration
action
Programmes should be funded to
demonstrate (or not) the feasibility of
buildings that exceed current regulatory
minimum performance levels.
Reason
• T
 o build industry confidence that
the technical feasibility and cost
of higher levels of performance
has been properly and practically
explored in advance of them
becoming mandatory.
Comment
• A
 lthough integrated calculation
methods can alleviate the
costs of substantial changes in
requirements, it is preferable to
both demonstrate feasibility and
allow the construction industry
time to become familiar with new
demands before they become
mandatory
• T
 his will reduce the risks associated
with new techniques.
See section 4 for more details on
this recommendation
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
1 What are we trying to achieve?
Worldwide, energy use in buildings is an important element
of energy use and therefore of energy policy. Reflecting this,
energy-related building regulations and building energy codes
are widely-used national policy instruments.
Typically they have been developed
somewhat empirically in response
to particular energy policy concerns,
and grafted onto existing regulatory
mechanisms or implementation
infrastructure originally devised
for other purposes.
In looking at the way in which building
codes can contribute to energy
efficiency, we have concentrated
on principles and context.
There are a number of principles
that should frame the formulation of
building energy codes and regulations.
In an ideal world, they should:
• Be easy to apply
• B
 e applicable to all types of buildings
and systems
• B
 e sufficiently adaptable/flexible
to accept new technologies and
design approaches
• Be easy and reliable to police
• Produce reliable outcomes
• Be consistent in application
• D
 iscriminate between better and
less good buildings
• N
 ot have adverse side effects
(eg on health or safety).
Clearly some of these principles This review is centred on the core
are likely to be in conflict. What concept of mandatory minimum energy
constitutes ‘best practice’ (or even performance regulations for new
‘good practice’) can only be judged buildings. However, one aspect of good
according to context. practice is the ability to apply the same
processes more widely, for example
The context in which building energy
to energy rating or labelling of existing
codes operate includes:
or high performance buildings.
• T
 he regulatory regime within which
The review first considers the policy
codes are implemented
context within which building energy
• T
 he resource available to administer codes and regulations exist, before
the codes examining alternative structures for the
• T
 he level of understanding and codes. This is followed by discussion
education of those who must apply of the principles behind the choice of
the codes appropriate compliance levels. The
crucial issue of enforcement is next
• T
 he general policy framework considered. The final section provides
within which the code operates an overview of the review of building
• T
 he existence or otherwise of energy codes around the world on
complementary or supporting which the main text is based.
legislation.
This report briefly surveys practice,
experience and commentary from
around the world with the aim of
defining (or at least suggesting) what
might be considered good practice.
Firstly, a note of definition. ‘Building
energy codes’ and ‘energy-related
building regulations’ are overlapping
concepts with different boundaries.
Can building
Valuation
codesand
deliver
Saleenergy
Price report
efficiency?
2007
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
2 Building energy regulations
as policy instruments
This section discusses the role of building energy codes and
regulations as instruments of regulatory and energy policy.
It also considers how they overlap or interact with other policy
instruments relating to building energy. It is widely recognised
that building energy codes are a key element of energy policy –
but that they are not a panacea.
2.1 Building energy
codes and
regulatory policy
Regulations of any sort exist to
encourage or compel organisations
or individuals to take measures
which they might not otherwise
take, in order to achieve some
benefit for society or for themselves.
Building energy regulations sit at the
intersection of energy policy and
regulatory policy and are usually a
relatively recent addition to the original
health and safety objectives of building
regulations. Analysts of regulatory
systems (Visscher and Meijer, 2007)
identify building regulations generally
as being mainly concerned with
‘social regulation’ rather than
‘economic regulation’.c
‘Social regulation’ includes the health,
safety and environmental standards
that have been the traditional basis
of building regulations. The role of
building regulations in social regulation
is generally justified by referring to
externalities and information
asymmetries that are not properly
captured by the market. This type of
regulation typically has substantial
government involvement, but is often
developed in consultation with the
industries being regulated.
While it is widely recognised that there
are societal benefits from building
energy efficiency (and more generally,
from sustainable building design) and
that these are not properly reflected
by the market, this is not a universal
view. This review identifies a number
of states that have only voluntary
codes, or choose not to have codes
at all. Sometimes such voluntary codes
reflect a lack of an implementation
infrastructure but at times seem to
reflect a fundamental view that the
market will properly value the costs
and benefits – or, if it does not, that
it is not the role of energy codes to
address this.
‘Economic regulation’ refers to the
way in which companies or other
organisations do business. It includes
issues relating to the way in which
products are traded. For construction
c The principle that building regulations are essentially a form of social regulation has been most explicitly stated by
groups examining and developing performance-based regulation, for whom the starting point is the identification
of an explicit societal goal which the regulation is intended to achieve.
d If the key policy driver is to restrict growth in electricity demand, appliance performance standards may take priority
over building codes.
products the most important legislation
in Europe is the Construction Products
Directive. This includes ‘energy
economy’ and ‘heat retention’ amongst
the requirements on which products
may be subject to regulation. The
Energy-using Products Directive is
likely to extend the use of minimum
performance standards for energy-
using products in Europe – as is
already common elsewhere.
Building energy codes and regulations
are, in effect, product regulations where
the product is the building or part of the
building. There is therefore an indistinct
boundary between building regulations
and product regulation applying to such
items of equipment as boilers or lamps.
A common boundary distinction is
whether or not the product in question
can easily be removed from a building
and used elsewhere but this is difficult
to apply rigorously since the
performance of many items of building
services equipment – such as lamps
– depends on the circumstances in
which they are used, and the systems
of which they form part.d

While there are series-produced
buildings, most buildings are one-off
designs, so the type-approval process
applied to most appliances is not
appropriate for building regulations.
However the definition of a
comprehensive performance metric
for a building (and its energy systems)
must include the performance of the
individual components.
2.2 Energy policy and
building energy
regulations
Energy policy priorities differ between
countries and change with time,
in response to political events and
concerns. Building energy regulations
have usually developed empirically in
this way.
In the UK, for example, building energy
regulations were introduced in the form
of insulation requirements to reduce
fossil fuel demand for heating at a time
of oil supply crisis. (As energy efficiency
was not within the legal scope of the
regulations the ostensible – and not
unreasonable – justification was to
reduce condensation risk). Later, the
cost of energy became the focus and
a cost-based index for housing based
on annual consumption was introduced.
The growing political importance of
climate change resulted firstly in
carbon-based trade-offs and recently
in integrated carbon emissions targets.
This is not an untypical sequence for
Europe and North America and raises
the question ‘if we could start with a
clean sheet now, would we have the
same regulations?’
This incremental process does not
necessarily result in a structure that
is sufficiently flexible to accommodate
future changes. We discuss alternative
structures in later sections.
e However, we exclude energy ratings based on measured consumption
The most common concerns of energy
policy today – at least in developed
economies – are security of supply,
environmental impact and affordability
of energy. Different countries (and the
same countries at different times)
interpret each of these differently
and place different degrees of
emphasis on each of them.
Thus security of supply concerns
might relate to the political security
of imported fuel sources; year to year
variability of hydro-electricity supply;
the technical reliability of energy supply
infrastructure or the investment
requirements to meet growing demand.
Environmental impact may relate to
climate change; outdoor air quality
or health impacts of energy-related
impacts on indoor air quality.
Affordability may relate to ‘fuel poverty’
or to the foreign exchange impact of
energy imports.
Other things being equal, building
energy codes and other measures that
reduce energy consumption have the
effect of decreasing environmental
impacts, and reducing the stresses
on the energy supply infrastructure
(in energy exporting countries they
release production for export). They
do not directly improve supply security,
but do reduce the scale of exposure
to supply risks. If suitably framed, they
can encourage the use of fuels that are
less environmentally harmful or less at
risk of supply interruption.
There are non-energy benefits from
building energy codes but these are
not usually the principal drivers for the
codes. However one of South Africa’s
policy drivers for housing energy codes
is to improve the health of people who
currently experience poor indoor air
quality (through the use of biomass).
Although rarely expressed in building
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
energy codes this is an important
issue for many other countries with
populations without easy access
to developed energy supply
infrastructures. Other, often implicit,
non-energy objectives can be to
promote the use of new technology,
or to produce health service savings
by reducing the exposure of vulnerable
people to excessive heat or cold.
2.3 Building energy
codes and other
instruments
A not untypical objective for building
energy regulations is that of Sri Lanka:
to ‘reduce energy use without
constraining building functions, comfort,
health or productivity of the occupants’
and ‘with appropriate regard for
economic considerations’.
The core role of building energy
regulations is usually to impose
mandatory minimum energy
performance requirements on new
buildings (or elements of buildings).
But the boundaries of the definition are
not so clear. There are building energy
codes that are not mandatory. There
are policy instruments that have the
same structures as energy codes but
which apply to existing buildings.
There are similar instruments that do
not impose minimum standards. Some
code structures have been extended
to provide energy performance labelling
information, which can itself be used
to trigger other interventions such
as financial incentives or penalties.
For brevity, we will usually use the
term building energy code to include
all these possible variations.e
Part of the answer to the question
‘what constitutes good practice for
energy-related building regulations?’
lies in the scope of regulations and
the way in which they can interact
and support other energy policy
instruments.
Policies for improving the energy
efficiency of the building stock are
a form of market transformation policy.
This requires a standard measurement
procedure to determine the
performance of a product (in this case
a building or a building component)
and a classification system or
performance scale.
Once these are in place, it becomes
possible to introduce:
• A
 minimum performance level,
which has to be satisfied by all
new products. This is a regulatory
requirement
• A
 best practice level, which describes
a level that is achievable through the
application of established good
practice. This is used to stimulate
the market by official endorsement,
voluntary use in procurement, as
a criterion for financial incentives
– but not a legal requirement
• A
 state-of-the-art level (sometime
known as ‘best available technology’)
that represents the highest
practicable level. This is an
aspirational level for leading–edge
practitioners and their clients
• A
 labelling system for existing
products. This is particularly
important for buildings which
are long-lived products that are
routinely modified.
The classic form of building energy
regulation is, in market transformation
terms, a minimum performance
standard, intended to stop the lowest
performing products from entering the
market. Extension to graduated ratings
12
as is becoming more common, They also recommended informational
especially in Europe, and represents and promotional activities to support
a move towards using codes as the substantive instruments, and that
information-providing instruments. public buildings should be required
In this form they can be applied to to be exemplars of good practice.
existing buildings to identify poor
Other instruments that can be used
(energy) quality buildings or to highlight
to support building energy efficiency
new buildings that exceed the
policy include taxation, carbon trading,
regulatory minimum standards.
utility regulation, financial incentives,
Other types of market transformation
information (including energy labelling),
instrument can then be linked to them.f
publicity and promotion. These
Frank Klinckenberg of Klinckenberg generally do not interact directly with
Consultants in the Netherlands, and building energy codes though (ideally)
Minna Sunikka of the University of they form part of a coherent energy
Cambridge (Klinckenberg and policy strategy.
Sunnikka, 2006) reviewed European
experience of different regulatory, 2.4. Scope of building
voluntary, economic, communicative and
organisational instruments, in housing,
energy codes
commercial and public buildings of and regulations
different forms of tenure. For new
Building energy codes are typically
buildings of all types and tenures, they
divided into sections dealing with
concluded that a key instrument was
envelope issues, HVAC systems,
‘mandatory performance evaluations
lighting, and hot water systems.
combined with regulatory benefits for
A comprehensive energy code should
above-standard performance’. This
include all these, though historically
phrase extends minimum performance
(and currently) many building energy
standards to include some means of
regulations only address some of them.
identifying and rewarding performance
Most regulations include heating
in excess of the minimum – in effect,
energy: few include lighting or cooling.
extended building energy regulations.
Some other services that might
They recommended that this be
reasonably be seen as integral to the
accompanied by financial incentives
building operation are often excluded
such as tax breaks and preferential
– for example, kitchen ventilation and
loans. For housing, energy audits
swimming pool heating.
and organisational support were
also suggested. By convention the energy used by
equipment and appliances (whether
For existing buildings, they
portable or fixed) is not usually included
recommended ‘energy upgrading
within regulations (although the heat
requirements’ – for example, regulatory
gains from it are included in integrated
requirements on replacement
calculations). This is perhaps inevitable
components. This is a feature of some
– at least for portable equipment –
building energy regulations already.
but it does result in some weaknesses.
Again, they recommended that this
Spaces that are not intended
be supported by general financial
(nominally) to be heated (or cooled or
incentives and audits for dwellings.
artificially lit) may in practice be heated,
fA
 s in Canada where financial incentives exist for new buildings that are 25% better than the minimum standards.
The European Commission has suggested that the impact of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive could
be increased by the introduction of supporting policies.
g Metered energy consumption will include energy used by these appliances and so is not a comparable measure
to the calculated values.
 Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

cooled or lit by portable equipment

resulting in underestimation of the
building energy use.g
Indoor environmental issues are rarely
an explicit part of energy codes, other
than to define the standardised values
that are the basis for an integrated
energy calculation. There is an implicit
assumption that these issues are best
dealt with in other legislation. But there
are exceptions. Summer overheating
risk is a common requirement either
explicitly or as a restriction on window
size. This is justified by the close
association with cooling demand –
some integrated energy codes
penalise overheating risk by including
a cooling energy consumption even
though there is currently no cooling
system installed. Lighting and
ventilation requirements are common
elements of building regulations,
though not of their energy sections.
Also by convention, building energy
codes cover energy used in the
operation of the building and not that
used in its construction or demolition.
Systems to report and grade these
figures do exist, of course, but are
considered (here and elsewhere)
as sustainability codes rather than
energy codes.
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
3 Options for structures of building
energy codes and regulations
This section examines and compares alternative structures
for building energy codes. It provides the reasoning behind
recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 4. These recommendations
reflect features that are already in use, but rarely all in the
same set of codes.
3.1 Prescriptive and
performance-based
codes
The fundamental distinction usually
drawn between types of building
codes is between prescriptive and
performance based codes. Greg
Foliente of CSIRO suggests that
‘A prescriptive approach describes
an acceptable solution while a
performance approach describes
the required performance’
(Foliente, 2000)
In countries that have lengthy histories
of building regulation interest in codes
that are performance-based, or which
contain performance-based elements,
has been growing for some time. This
is not confined to energy issues but
includes fire safety and other issues.
The move away from purely prescriptive
specifications started at least 30 years
ago when the Nordic Committee on
Building Regulations developed a
model of technical requirements for
such an approach. Subsequently CIB
has had a task group addressing the
issue (www.cibworld.nl)
There has also been concern – though ‘Nordic Five Level System’ h
less for building energy codes than for summarised below.
other regulations – that un-harmonised
Although it is possible to envisage
elemental procedures can establish
prescriptive building energy regulations
barriers to trade between countries.
that demand the use of components
Recognising this, the World Trade
from an approved list, it is debatable
Organisation has stated ‘Wherever
whether a useful building energy code
appropriate, Members shall specify
can be purely prescriptive. As a
technical regulations based on product
minimum, it would seem necessary to
requirements in terms of performance
define the energy (typically thermal)
rather than design or descriptive
performance of a building element or
characteristics’. (Clause 2.8 of
component. For energy codes a more
Agreement on Technical Barriers to
useful distinction is between elemental
Trade – full citation in Foliente, 2000).
(often labelled prescriptive) and
Performance-based frameworks integrated performance methods.
generally use a variation of the
Level Basic Heading Description
Goal The essential interests of the community at
1 large or needs of the consumer
Functional A description of an aspect or performance
Requirement feature required to achieve the goal.
2 (Several functional requirements may
contribute to meeting the goal)
Operative Requirement A specific description of the required
3 performance
4 Verification Instructions for verification
Examples of Supplementary information demonstrating
5 acceptable solutions example solutions
hT
 here are other variants, some of which are more complex and some simpler but all sharing much the same framework

An elemental method defines the
performance requirements of specific
building elements – for example, the
insulation performance of a wall, or
the efficiency of a boiler. An integrated
method, on the other hand, sets a
whole-building performance target and
provides a calculation mechanism for
evaluating whether or not a proposed
(or actual) building complies.
The compliance target for integrated
procedures can be set either using a
general consumption intensity (typically
kWh/m2 per year) for different types
of building or with a customised target
that reflects the (calculated)
consumption of a reference building
of identical size, shape and use to
the actual building. Simpler methods
assign points to different features
rather than applying an explicit
calculation. The advantages and
disadvantages of the alternatives
are further discussed below.
The two approaches are not mutually
exclusive. Regulations may have
prescriptive requirements for some
features – for example air-tightness –
and performance limits on others –
such as summer overheating. Elemental
methods often include trade-off rules
(for example to allow lower insulation
levels in some elements to be offset
by higher ones elsewhere). Integrated
methods commonly include limits on
the performance of individual elements.i
3.2 Advantages
and disadvantages
of elemental and
integrated methods
Elemental structure
An elemental structure is the easiest
to follow and is generally preferred by
i Outside the regulatory sphere design briefs are commonly a mixture of performance 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 future switch from biomass heating to fossil fuel use.
l Although this was also somewhat constrained by production limits.
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
designers and builders of relatively
small buildings.j Since the key issues
for compliance relate to the products
and construction methods, it is often
possible for manufacturers to check
and certify performance (for windows,
for example) or to have straightforward
calculation rules (for, say, insulation).
This makes compliance checking more
straightforward (though not entirely
problem-free).
Elemental minimum performance
requirements may be needed for other
purposes: to ensure that a building
remains reasonably energy-efficient
when modifiedk or to control the
performance of replacement elements
such as windows.
There are two significant problems
with the approach. Firstly, it restricts
the designer’s ability to optimise value
for money by balancing the use of
elements of higher performance (which
comply with regulations but are more
costly) against lower cost but lower
performance elements that are not
compliant. Secondly it is a barrier
to innovation. Improved or cheaper
products may be developed, yet
their use might not be allowed.
It is also difficult to set elemental
performance requirements that are
appropriate to different building types
and climates. The best choice of
window for an air-conditioned building
may well be different from that for
a one that is heated but not cooled.
Integrated methods
Integrated methods are more flexible,
but are more difficult to apply and
check. They require the use of a
calculation procedure, usually
computer-based, which may be more
or less complex depending on the
scope of the code. Often, residential
calculation procedures are relatively
simple, while those for non-residential
buildings are more complex. To take
advantage of the potential advantages,
building designers need to have a
sound understanding of building energy
issues and be comfortable with the use
of software through suitable user
interfaces (or have software integrated
into the design process). As quite large
volumes of data are needed to describe
each building, it can be time consuming
to set up the calculation and difficult to
check for accuracy. Given approved
standardised software, it is only
necessary to check the input data
and not the calculation itself. This may
be less onerous than having to check
a manual calculation step by step.
Integrated methods can easily be
adapted to generate a performance
rating scale in addition to a pass:fail
compliance test. Such a scale can
be used to show that a new building
significantly exceeds the minimum
requirements. In Canada, this process
is used to qualify for financial
incentives. The scale also provides
a mechanism for the energy labelling
of existing buildings.
For these reasons, integrated methods
are becoming more common. The
experience of Russia shows that
regulations that include an integrated
calculation give designers the flexibility
to meet demanding standards quickly
even when some parts of the supply
industry need time to adapt to changes.
Manufacturers of concrete block panels
had difficulty in quickly changing their
product line to provide higher insulation
levels. By using high-performance
windows, designers were able to
comply with new, demanding
regulations.l In time, better-insulated
panels are expected to take back
market share (and perhaps regulations
will move to levels that require both
improvements).
As stated earlier, compliance targets
for integrated methods can be set
generically or customised to the
specific building. Both are in use.
Generic targets are typically expressed
in kWh/m2 per yearm with different
target values for different building
types, such as offices, schools, and
sport halls. Ideally such targets should
be based on measured performance
of a representative sample of buildings,
though this is obviously impractical for
new buildings. They are conceptually
straightforward, but in practice it is
difficult to derive targets that are
reasonably equitable between different
buildings of apparently similar types.
For example, ‘hotels’ might be a single
classification, but different hotels
provide different facilities and serve
different markets. Put another way,
a generic target will result in different
elemental requirements for buildings
that do not precisely match the (usually
implicit) standard building configuration.
A single target value is probably
unrealistic, and even multiple classes
of, for instance, hotels will not
completely deal with the issue.
Customised targets are based on
a reference building that allows the
energy target to reflect the particular
mixture of activities within the building.
The reference building has the same
size and geometry as the actual
building but each element has a
standard level of performance. Thus,
in the reference building, U-values of
envelope elements are fixed – as are
the efficiencies of boilers. In this way,
a building containing a specific mixture
of activities is compared with one with
identical use.n The impact of some
types of data error, such as physical
dimensions, is alleviated because the
same error is applied to both the actual
and reference buildings.n This is
particularly useful when the method
is applied to existing buildings, for
which data quality is likely to be
relatively poor.p
The main drawback is that this process
removes the benefits of inherently
efficient geometries. There is no doubt
that, in some circumstances, some
geometries have inherently higher
energy efficiency, allowing either
cost savings to comply with minimum
standards or better performance
using the same construction elements.
The optimum geometry, however, is
not always clear. In purely heat loss
terms, large buildings with low
perimeter:volume ratios are best.
Typically, these are multi-storey square
plan buildings. For day-lighting and
natural ventilation however, spaces
distant from the perimeter are a
disadvantage and single-storey,
relatively shallow plan-forms are to
be preferred. In practice, plan form
is often determined largely by space
planning needs and suite constraints.
Codes using integrated procedures
commonly also impose minimum
acceptable performance values for at
least some building elements. These
can be needed to guard against future
changes, especially where the energy
performance depends heavily on one
particular measure. For example, the
use of a biomass fuel might be
consistent in regulatory terms with low
levels of envelope insulation. But this
would make the building performance
vulnerable to future fuel switching.
In order to carry out integrated
calculations, sufficient component
performance information is necessary.
mO  ften in terms of Primary Energy.
n A consequence is that the rating may change if the mixture of uses changes.
oT his approach also reduces the impact of differences between calculation methods, if 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 factor’ to the reference building .
For some building elements such
as heating and cooling systems, this
requires the component suppliers
to make the information (for example,
part-load efficiency) publicly available.
This is rarely made a formal
requirement in building or
product codes.
Combined Methods
With careful design of the process,
it is possible to combine the
advantages of both approaches.
The elemental performance levels
set for the reference building of an
integrated method comprise a set
of requirements that guarantee
compliance.q Therefore there is no
need to carry out the calculation for
a building that complies with all the
elemental requirements. Only if the
designer chooses to take advantage of
the flexibility offered by the integrated
approach is a calculation needed.
Calculation software
Calculation procedures should ideally
satisfy a number of somewhat
conflicting requirements
• C
 redibility: technical soundness,
producing realistic results
• R
 epeatability: different users should
get the same results
• T
 ransparency: both the data and the
process should be auditable
• D
 iscrimination: more efficient
systems should give better figures
• E
 ase of use, including data
availability: to reduce errors and cost.
What is important for the user is the
interface. Ideally the user should not
be asked for information that he or she
cannot obtain reliably and fairly easily.
Studies in the Netherlands by Bart
Poel (Poel, 2006) have shown that

constraining the data options is more
important for improving reproducibility
of results than adding sophistication
to calculation methods.
The possible calculation options
vary considerably in mathematical
complexity but, with a well-designed
interface, the user should not need
to be concerned with the detailed
mathematics.
In Europe, a preference for a relatively
simple, monthly heat balance
calculation seems to be emerging
(though not everywhere). Technically
this has limitations when representing
HVAC and lighting systems and some
energy features of buildings. In the US,
on the other hand, codes based on
integrated calculations usually use a
more complex but more versatile hourly
calculation method.
Any application of an integrated (or
combined) methodology has to address
the question of whether more than one
calculation procedure is acceptable.
Consistency of output is crucial since,
without it, there is a risk (perhaps even
a likelihood) of market competition
between procedures based on ease of
compliance. On the other hand, unless
one methodology is clearly superior,
restricting users to a single calculation
procedure (possibly in competing
implementations) may disadvantage
energy efficiency strategies that the
mandatory procedure does not handle
well. The best compromise appears to
be to use a flexible (and therefore
relatively complex) procedure operating
behind a well-designed user interface.
This conflict between consistency of
result and (perhaps) accuracy has been
resolved in different ways in different
countries – and sometimes within a
single country. In the UK, housing must
be assessed using SAP – of which
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.
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
‘
there are several approved
implementations. Non-domestic
buildings can be assessed using the The extension of
free-issue software SBEM, or any of energy codes to
several approved dynamic simulation
models. In California there is a allow the energy
recommended dynamic simulation labelling of existing
model, but other models may be is buildings seems
used provided that they can be shown
to produce essentially identical results
more logical, though
to it.r the benefits will
Existing buildings depend on the
reaction of the market
‘
While the focus of building codes
is traditionally on new buildings, this to the information
is commonly and logically interpreted
as including extensions (or at least
major extensions).
Having decided on this, it is a relatively
small step to apply minimum
performance regulations to building
components when they are replaced:
windows or boilers, for example.s
A more contentious extensiont is to
require ‘consequential improvements’
– that is a degree of more general
upgrading of a building when one
element is replaced. While the objective
is clear, the risk is that the cost of these
consequent improvements will mitigate
against any improvement being carried
out. Policing the improvements seems
likely to be complex too, and it seems
difficult to justify such a regulatory
requirement unless the risk is mitigated
by the availability of financial support
such as soft loans or grants.
The extension of energy codes to
allow the energy labelling of existing
buildings seems more logical, though
the benefits will depend on the reaction
of the market to the information. But
the energy rating of buildings is a
potentially powerful enabling measure
that opens the way to the use of other
instruments such as financial incentives
or mandatory energy audits.
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
4 Setting compliance levels
for minimum performance
This section discusses the basis for choosing compliance levels,
leading to recommendation 6. Recommendations 7 and 8 (for
complementary actions) arise from the related issue of where the
costs of compliance actually fall and where, ideally, they ought to.
The fundamental justification for
minimum standards is to require
people or organisations to take
steps that they might not take
voluntarily. This lack of action may
be through ignorance, or because
the benefits do not accrue to those
who have to take (and pay for)
the actions. Typically, this is
because the benefits are societal
rather than individual. For building
regulations they have historically
been principally concerned with
health and safety, and latterly
with environmental costs
and disbenefits.
From an economic perspective, the
compliance levels should reflect
best estimates of whole-life costs
and benefits to society as a whole.
Buildings have long lives and so the
costs and environmental impacts
inevitably depend on uncertain
estimates of the future. These may
be unrecognised or incompletely
recognised by the market place – and
hence form a justification for regulation.
This results in building energy codes
imposing requirements that are
significantly more demanding than are
common in the existing building stock.
Commonly, proposed regulatory
performance levels are assessed
for one or a series of buildings,
intended to be broadly representative
of the intended target buildings.
Societal costs – for example, the
social cost of carbonu – are sometimes
included in the assessment.
From an economic and social equity
perspective, measures should be paid
for by those that benefit from them.
We can distinguish – at least in
principle – between measures that
purchasers would invest in if they were
rational and well informed; and those
that result in benefits for society as
a whole beyond those that accrue to
the (rational) customer. In principle,
the latter (at least) should be funded
by society through taxation. This is
very rare in the context of building
regulations – but not unknown. In the
1980s, Sweden greatly increased
the efficiency of new housing by a
combination of subsidised loans for
the inclusion of energy efficiency
measures, combined with traditional
minimum performance building
regulations. (Geller and Nadel, 1994).
Canada provides financial incentives for
new commercial buildings with energy
performances that exceed the minimum
requirements by 25% or better.
But the prevailing model is that
the direct costs of compliance fall
u In the UK, Treasury rules exist for valuing the social cost of carbon.
v And there would be little incentive not to comply.
wT  he European Commission has suggested this approach as a means of strengthening the impact of the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive.
on builders and their immediate
customers. In principle this is ‘fair’ if the
market values the benefits accurately
– in which case the argument for
having mandatory requirements would
be greatly weakened.v In practice it
amounts to the first buyer of a
property subsidising subsequent
owners. This market failure could,
in principle, be addressed by fiscal or
other measures linked to the energy
labelling of buildings.w
Other, more restrictive tests of
‘fairness’ (in the sense of costs falling
unreasonably on some sections of
society) are possible. US energy
regulators have sometimes applied
‘no-loser’ tests that require that the
costs and benefits of proposed energy
efficiency programmes are distributed
so that no-one is worse off as a result.
In building energy regulation terms,
the equivalent requirement could be
that the required levels of performance
are cost-effective for all new buildings.
Given the variety of usage patterns to
which apparently identical buildings
are put, this is likely to lead to
undemanding requirements – in effect
a lowest common denominator level.
 Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

This approach to setting requirement expected to become agents of change

levels is not unknown in other fields – to a much greater extent than has
minimum performance standards for traditionally been the case.
equipment commonly aim to remove
Changes to compliance levels impose
from the market only the worst 10%
transition costs on suppliers and
or 20% of products, rather than
designers as they adjust their practices
all those that fall short of optimum
and products to meet the new situation.
life-cycle cost. (Although the use of
These are greatest when change is
life-cycle impact is becoming a more
rapid and unforeseen. Transition costs
common procedurex). There are also
should be included in cost-benefit

‘
examples of much more assertive
analysis – and can be obviously be
market transformation policies that
mitigated by early announcement
set demanding minimum performance
of changes. In practice this usually
levels that require manufacturers to
involves a process of discussion and
change their product design. Notable
negotiation with the construction
examples are in heating and cooling
industry. Such a consensus–based
…the use of demanding
equipment where the US and Japan
process should result in implementable overall performance
(in particular) have introduced
mandatory minimum energy
codes but might also constrain the levels for buildings
rate of development of new products.
performance levels based on or
There is experience from several
allows designers to
near ‘top of the market’ performance
countries that well-funded voluntary choose innovative
of products already on the market –
but with significant lead times
demonstration programmes (in the technologies if they
USA, typically carried out by energy
to allow manufacturers to develop
utilities as a regulatory requirement)
judge them to be an
new products.
appropriate means

‘
can show the practicability of
Encouragement of the development demanding standards and thus pave of compliance
and use of unfamiliar new (rather the way for code upgrades. (Goldstein,
than ‘best currently on the market’) 2007; Bell, 2004)
technology can, of course, be
a legitimate policy objective. It
is debatable whether explicit
requirements in building codes are
usually the most appropriate instrument
for thisy. Such requirements can
impose significant extra costs on
purchasers, at least until any benefits
of cost reductions from ‘learning by
doing’ appear. It also exposes them
to performance risk if the technology
is genuinely innovative. On the other
hand, the use of demanding overall
performance levels for buildings
allows designers to choose innovative
technologies if they judge them to be
an appropriate means of compliance.
Recent ministerial statements in the
UK (and elsewhere) on plans to require
all homes to be zero-carbon by 2016
imply that building regulations are

x For example in the assessment of priorities for the European Energy-using Products Directive.
y There are codes that require, for example, the installation of solar water heaters – but these are hardly
untried technology.
2
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
5 Enforcement
This section considers the perceived strengths and weaknesses
of different enforcement routes. There is widespread concern
about the resources actually committed to enforcement.
Recommendation 5 is based on the content of this section.
5.1 Options for
enforcement routes
The question of enforcement
obviously depends on whether codes
are mandatory or not. A nominally
mandatory code that is not enforced
becomes de facto a voluntary code
– but probably without the
exhortations that would accompany
an explicitly voluntary code.
A number of enforcement routes are
possible. The list below is developed
from options identified by the Maine
Public Utilities Commission (Maine
Public Utilities Commission, 2004).
They are not mutually exclusive and
different routes may exist in parallel.
The term ‘builder’ is used below
as shorthand for the element of
the design/construction team that
takes responsibility for guaranteeing
compliance.
Enforcement by central or local
government. Perhaps the most common
situation, with a (usually local)
government department or agency
reviewing designs and/or performing
a post-construction inspection. The
agency commonly provides guidance
and information to builders and may
oversee code development (though
code development may be a central
government responsibility as in England
and Wales).
Enforcement by private entities.
Private entities or individuals are
certified to carry out design review
and inspection. They may be employed
either by the builder or by government.
Commonly the builder or designer has
to pay for the service. Government is
responsible for managing the process
of certification, but may outsource the
process itself (in England and Wales
this model coexists with local authority
enforcement).
Self-certification by disclosure to the
building owner. The builder provides
a statement that the building complies
with the code, typically in the form of
a sticker. If the code is voluntary, he
may be required to state and explain
non-compliance.
Self-certification by disclosure to
a government agency. The builder
provides a statement to the government
agency that the building complies with
the code. The agency has the authority
to inspect and does so at its discretion.
5.2 Building
control structures:
administrative
procedures in Europe
Trends and practices in European
building regulations (generally rather
than specifically for energy-related
aspects) have been reviewed by the
Consortium of European Building
Control (CEBC), reported in a DCLG
report on ‘Achieving Building Standards
(DCLG, 2007) and by Henk Visscher
and Frits Meijer (Visscher and Meijer,
2007) The former study looked at 15
countries and the latter in more detail
at 8. Several countries were covered
by both reports.
What did these studies find? Although
the building control structures in each
country often share (or have in the past
shared) a number of features, ‘the
overall picture of ‘the’ European permit
procedure is one of variety’.
In most countries, technical
requirements are established in
building acts, which provide detailed
descriptions of minimum standards.
Most countries have official
supplementary documents to regulate
standards, approved solutions and
administrative procedures. There is a
trend towards more rather than fewer
technical requirements.
The most common features are:
• P
 lanning approval by
a building authority
• Approval of plans by
a building authority

• A
 nnouncements made to a building
authority on the start of construction
• C
 ompletion certificate provided by
a building authority.
However these are not universally
present and each may take
different forms.
Although the organisation of
procedures varies widely, all countries
require building permits before
construction work can begin. In many
countries this includes consideration
of locational issues that would be
separately considered within the
planning process in the UK. In Norway
and Sweden location-dependent and
other issues are separate parts of a
single phased permit procedure. All
countries are attempting to streamline
and accelerate their procedures. Often
this includes widening the range of
exemptions from the need for a permit,
and including a category of minor
works which must be notified but
which do not require a permit.
Looking at the stages of the
construction process, countries
approach this in different ways.
Pre-consultation
Most countries provide the facility
for informal discussion of proposed
projects between applicants and
building authorities. In Norway and
Sweden this is obligatory, but generally
it is voluntary.
Approval of plans
Approval of plans is generally required,
but not in France or Ireland.
Start of construction
In most countries start of construction
has to be notified to the building
authority. However this is not universal,
with Belgium, France, Netherlands and
z The European Commission has suggested that an Energy Performance Certificate should be a legal requirement
Poland (and possibly other countries)
apparently not requiring it,
Inspection during construction
In principle, works are inspected during
construction, though in Denmark this
has been explicitly only a sample
checking procedure. Inspection may be
by local authority or private organisation
or both according to country. According
to Visscher and Meijer, in Belgium and
France this work is carried out by
private inspection bodies only.
According to CEBC, inspections
are not required in Belgium (but the
apparent difference may be because
Belgium has three separate regions
with their own processes).
Inspection on completion
In most countries a building cannot
be brought into use until the final
certificate has been issued or the final
inspection has taken place. According
to CEBC, there is no requirement for
a completion certificate in France or
Ireland. In Poland only a declaration
by the owner, builder or architect is
needed. However, according to Visscher
and Meijer, in Netherlands and Belgium
no formal completion certificate
Public responsibility
for control
Local authority carries out control
(Netherlands, Denmark, England
and Wales)
Local authority contracts out but
remains responsible (Netherlands,
Denmark)
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
is issued. In France local authorities
have the right to inspect and issue
a certificate within two years of
completion. In Denmark and Norway
the requirement is that the applicant
must sign a declaration that the
structure complies with the regulations.
In Sweden final inspection is contracted
out to private organisations.z
Responsibility for control
Responsibility is split between the
public and private sectors in ways
that differ between countries as
can be seen in the table (based on
Visscher and Meijer). The table below
demonstrates that many countries have
more than one line of responsibility.
The responsibility for granting permits
almost always rests with local
authorities, although in England
and Wales private organisations
are qualified so to do.
Only the local authority has powers
of enforcement. Separate formal
‘competent persons’ schemes exist
for some specialised services, such
as heating and hot water.
Private responsibility
for control
Full private responsibility (Norway,
Sweden, Germany)
Local authority contracts out, private
organisation is responsible. (Germany)
Legal liability for private control based
on building regulations (France)
Private inspection because of
liability and insurance requirements
(Belgium, France)
5.3 Quality of
enforcement
Although hard evidence is very difficult
to find, there is a widespread belief that,
in practice, the enforcement of energy
requirements in building regulations is
not given high priority nor adequate
resources. (van der Heijde, 2007;
Wilkinson, 2007; IEA, 2008). While
there are estimates of rates of non-
compliance, these have not been
converted into estimates of energy
consumption.
A survey for England and Wales in
2006 by Future Energy Solutions
(Future Energy Solutions, 2006)
came to the following conclusions:
• S
 ome local authority building control
departments are not in full control
of the revenue that their work is
generating. This means that they
may be restricted in recruitment
and training of staff
• E
 nergy regulation was thought to
be one of the weaker areas with
respect to compliance. In particular,
there was a feeling that officers will
not refuse certificates or prosecute
for failures in this area. This leads to
a lack of respect for the regulations
by buildersaa
• B
 uilding regulations were perceived
to be too complex for many parts of
the building industry, which struggles
to understand the need for energy
regulations
• S
 ite inspection was perceived to
be inadequate
• T
 he existence of parallel competent
persons schemes for some services
added complexity.
One key finding was that the Scottish
system was perceived to be more
robust because:
• B
 uilding cannot commence until a The impact of cost constraints is
warrant certificate has been issued exacerbated by the level of specialist
knowledge required by those involved
• A
 ll building control officers are
in enforcement. A 1980s review of
attached to local authorities.
enforcement and administration of
China’s Ministry of Construction is building codes in the USA by the
said to have found that while 60% Business Roundtable (Business
of buildings complied on paper only Roundtable, 1982, reprinted 1989),
half that number complied in actual found that ‘a serious problem in
construction.bb building code enforcement is the
It has been reported that in the lack of qualifications of many building
Netherlands between 2003 and 2005 officials at all levels: administrators,
only 12 to 16% of municipalities plans reviewers and inspectors’.
carried out control of building permit They found that one reason for this
applications (generally – not just for was that suitable training opportunities
energy issues) and only 7 to 11% were limited.
carried out control of construction work
adequately. The main reason for this 5.4 Characteristics
was understaffing. Understaffing has
of different
also been cited as a shortcoming in
Australia. In Denmark, energy enforcement routes
performance certification is – in The table opposite (based on the Maine
principle – mandatory for dwellings, PUC analysis) describes some key
but in practice only about 50% of features of the different options
houses and 25% of flats had described earlier.
certificates five years after
implementation. Similar results have
been reported for Sweden (after site
checks became non-mandatory), and
for New York. (IEA, 2008)
Enforcement costs can be substantial
for energy codes. A Californian code
official has been quoted as estimating
that 30% of his staff’s time is used to
verify energy code compliance. It is
easy to underestimate the time required
for site visits, especially in countries
where inspectors may not have access
to cars.
It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that
enforcement of building energy codes
should be given as much attention as
enforcement for safety. Nevertheless
it seems clear that in many – perhaps
most – jurisdictions the enforcement
of building energy codes is seen as
being under-resourced.
aa A particular problem –which it is currently proposed to remedy – is that any prosecution must take place within
6 months of the completion of the offending work.
bb Other sources have suggested that compliance is much lower outside the Northern region.
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Government Private Self- Self- Civil

Agency Inspectors certification certification penalties
to owner to Agency only
Key features Government Private assessors Builder provides Builder provides No specific
department or certified by compliance compliance measures
agency wholly government statement to statement to
responsible owner government

Support Government Certification Policing of Policing of Normal legal

inspectors and policing of statements (unless compliance procedures
infrastructure inspectors left to owner to statements.
needed complain). Perhaps Perhaps
certification of certification
builder of builder

Cost to High but may be Moderate Low. Moderate Low. Moderate Low
recovered from if builders are if builders are
government builder certified certified

Cost to owner Low unless agency High Low Low High if court
charges action is
needed,
otherwise low

Information and Trained government Trained private Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable

assessors assessors. builders and builders. Some owners
Infrastructure Certification owners. Some trained assessors
needs process trained assessors to police
to police statements
statements

Non-compliance Low, provided Low. Assessors High unless Moderate. Lower High
adequate funding depend on owner places high if builders are
risk certification for value on energy certified
income (but efficiency. Lower
also on satisfied if builders are
builders) certified

While each of these enforcement

routes has inherent strengths and
weaknesses, in practice the way they
are implemented can be crucial.
If (as suggested earlier) regulation
is primarily to overcome market
imperfections for the benefit of society
as a whole, it is logical for the costs of
enforcement to be borne by the state.
Implicitly this seems to be the widely-
held perception though in practice it
seems to lead to under-resourcing of
enforcement (perhaps suggesting that
local government does not share this
view). Reflecting this, the ‘government
agency’ route is common and is –
in principle – the option with the
least inherent risk of non-compliance.
This requires substantial government
resources, which are often difficult to
obtain in competition with other calls
on funding and, in practice, is almost
always accompanied by concerns
about the levels of enforcement.cc
In general, building regulations –
and especially energy codes – have
become ever more complex. Or, to
be more accurate, the necessary
knowledge needed to apply them
(and judge compliance) correctly
has become more extensive and
specialised, as is illustrated by the
complexity of guidance. Energy
regulation, especially of calculation-
based methods, requires a considerable
degree of specialist knowledge and
submissions are difficult to check
in detail. This has a bearing on the
enforcement route: is it reasonable
to expect local government building
control staff to be experts in energy
efficiency, or should this be left to
private professionals, with local
government having a more focussed
(but still specialist) auditing function?
While the ideal might be properly
resourced government enforcement,
and specialist training for building
control staff, empirically it seems more
robust for government to concentrate
on policing a system of accredited
private assessors, who are paid by the Presumably it would be more difficult to
builder or designer. The costs of sustain if it was a government agency
enforcement would be apportioned in that assigned surveyors to projects.
the same way as the direct costs of
The general arguments above for
compliance – that is they would fall
the greater use of accredited private
mainly on the builders (and, in principle,
assessors have particular force for
be recouped by higher market value).
energy regulation. Because of the
There seems to already be a move difficulty of detailed auditing there
in this direction – while almost all need to be significant sanctions against
European countries once had a fraudulent approval. The risk of a
‘traditional’ control system based private assessor losing accreditation
on local authority building control, the and therefore income could provide
importance of private organisations in part of this. But there will inevitably
checking and controlling regulations is be pressure on the assessor to keep
increasing across the board. Visscher his customer happy. (If designers are
and Meijer also take the view that ‘the permitted to become accredited and
(building control) authorities in many to certify their own designs, this
European countries are insufficiently becomes a greater risk.) An adequate
equipped to offer the necessary auditing procedure is essential and this
inspection capacity [for energy seems a better use of the resources
performance inspection]. We foresee of local or central government agencies,
that private inspectors will supply the rather than expecting them to carry out
‘inspection need’’. In Europe, the all assessments themselves. Penalties
EPBD requirement for building on designers or builders for non-
Energy Performance certificates to be compliance are also needed and should
produced ‘in an independent manner by be significant relative to the initial cost
qualified and/or accredited experts’ is savings avoided (and obviously need
creating an infrastructure in many to be enforced). Australia and Denmark
countries (including the UK) to support are moving towards systems of fines
just such a profession. As new buildings that are related to the scale of energy
have to have certificates on completion, wastage caused by the non-
extending the role of the accredited compliance. (IEA. 2008)
experts to deal with other aspects of
energy codes for buildings seems a
logical step.dd
However, a move away from
government enforcement to the use
of private assessors in Australia is
reported to have led to ‘a reduction in
the perceived authority of the building
surveyor’ and a feeling that he ‘may
be perceived to be in the employment
of the builder even if in theory he/she
is independent’. This perception is
understandable if the surveyor is
employed directly by the builder.
cc However, there are exceptions – the city of Seattle, for example – that demonstrate that the model can be effective
(IEA, 2008)
dd Some countries, such as the UK, already allow building control staff to rely on the opinion of accredited specialists
(‘Competent Persons’) for specific technical areas of compliance.
 Can building
Valuation
codesand
deliver
Saleenergy
Price report
efficiency?
2007

‘
While the ideal might be properly
resourced government enforcement,
empirically it seems more robust
for government to concentrate
on policing a system of accredited
private assessors, who are paid

‘
by the builder or designer
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

6O
 verview of building energy codes
around the world
This section aims to provide an overview of the development of
building energy codes in different regions. It is the basis of most
of the commentary and discussion in the rest of the report.
This section summarises a much In practice the position of an individual
larger body of information which country in the sequence seems to be
has been gathered by (mainly on- primarily determined by this level of
line) information searches, (Anon) supporting infrastructure more than
augmented by direct contacts with by differences in policy drivers. Most
a number of helpful individuals. countries have taken several decades
Inevitably it will be incomplete and, to move (or not) through this sequence
as time progresses, become out and many regions of the world are
of date. still in the early stages of code
development. However some countries
From the review, we can recognise
– Russia and China being notable
several generic forms of energy code:
examples – have moved through
in order of increasing complexity:
it rapidly.
• E
 lemental envelope thermal
A number of countries’ initial steps
requirements
have been supported by GEF/UNDP
• A
 s above but allowing trade-offs projects. These (and other experiences)
between elements show that development of a code can
• Fully integrated calculations be a lengthy and time-consuming
business. Where there is no existing
• E
 xtension to labelling using the code there is a learning curve for
same basic processes. all involved. Even if a ready-made
In any particular country, this typically structure is in place, assessing what
represents a historical sequence performance levels are appropriate
that reflects changes energy policy and extending the code are
concerns: for example developing demanding tasks.
from concerns about the availability
and price of oil (and gas); towards
global environmental concerns. The
increasing complexity is only feasible
with a parallel increase in the level of
understanding amongst designers and
builders, and a well-developed and
increasingly costly infrastructure to
educate and police the regulations.
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

European Union
Building energy codes are starting to
The European Energy Performance
of Buildings Directive (EPBD)
requires that minimum performance
requirements be expressed in
terms of an integrated calculation
methodology. The Directive should
have been implemented in January
2006, although some provisions can
be delayed for up to three years.
Member states are moving towards
this at varying speeds from a range
of different starting points (Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive).
The most common pre-EPBD form of
regulations takes the form of elemental
requirements, usually for insulation
levels of envelope components and
often only for housing. Some degree
of trade-off (typically by defining
an overall heat loss coefficient for
the envelope) is often allowed. Few
Member States have regulations
that cover lighting or cooling. The
EPBD does not require that a specific
methodology should be used, and it is
clear that a variety of approaches will
be used. A few countries, notably the
Netherlands, had already moved to
whole-building performance methods.

In 2008, the European Commission

set out suggestions for strengthening
the EPBD by, amongst other things,
moving towards common frameworks
for codes, and encouraging Member
States to introduce policies that provide
more powerful incentives and penalties.
Rest of Europe
and Central Asia
Until the mid-1990s the standard
building designs used widely in Russia
and its neighbours paid little attention
to energy efficiency. The last two
decades of joint US-Russian energy
code development have resulted in
mandatory energy codes covering most
of the country. The codes have moved
rapidly through the stages of simple
elemental requirements, through the
introduction of trade-off routes and
whole-building thermal performance
criteria, to integrated primary energy-
based requirements. Targets are floor-
area based by building type rather than
being based on a reference building.
The flexibility of the integrated route
is reported to have eased compliance
problems caused by the varying
speeds of adaptation of the component
manufacturers. Ukraine is moving
towards implementing building energy
codes similar to those of Russia, and
Armenia and Moldavia have ratified
the Russian federal code as a basis
for development of national codes.
Similarly, Kazakhstan is implementing
codes based on the Russian model and
Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
have ratified the Russian federal

‘
code as a basis for development of
national codes. Enforcement is unclear.
(Matrosev et al)

The last two decades of

joint US-Russian energy
code development have
resulted in mandatory
energy codes covering

‘
most of the country
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Middle East
Building energy codes are starting to
appear in the region though, in general,
they are a new development. With
UNDP and GEF support, a number
of codes have been developed, and
these typically include both elemental
and integrated routes to compliance,
but often only dealing with building
envelope issues.
In most countries the lack of an
established regulatory infrastructure
is a significant barrier to practical
application. Kuwait developed
standards in the 1980s, but their
current status is unknown. Syria,
Jordan and the Palestine Territories
have been considering codes.
Lebanon has proposals intended to be
implemented voluntarily in 2010. Israel
introduced a code in 2005. Dubai plans
to introduce regulation early in 2008.

‘
In most countries the
lack of an established
regulatory infrastructure
is a significant barrier

‘
to practical application
 ‘
A number of North
African countries have
programmes to introduce
building energy codes, with

‘
Egypt the most advanced
Africa
A number of North African countries
have programmes to introduce building
energy codes, with Egypt the most
advanced. Their code for housing
became law in 2005. A commercial
code was expected to follow, and the
background analysis had already been
completed. The codes have elemental
and integrated routes and also include
minimum performance levels for air-
conditioners and other appliances.
A feature of the residential codes is
requirements intended to allow natural
ventilation to reduce overheating
(and thus the propensity to buy air-
conditioners). In 2005 enforcement
legislation was said to still be needed.
There is also an initiative to prepare a
common code for both residential and
commercial buildings for application
throughout the Arab League.
Morocco initiated a plan in 2005 to
develop thermal energy standards for
buildings, focusing on the health, hotel
and collective housing sectors. This
was expected to be completed in 2010.
Tunisia and Algeria also have plans
for similar codes but need to develop
supporting infrastructure and education
programmes for effective application.
South Africa is developing mandatory
building energy efficiency standards
for residential and commercial
buildings as party of its national energy
efficiency strategy. The timescale is
not entirely clear but appears to be for
implementation between 2011 and
2015 (Anon, 2005; Huang et al, 2003).
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

South Asia
Pakistan introduced a voluntary energy
efficiency code in 1992 which is
currently being reviewed. India and
Sri Lanka have recently developed
codes for larger commercial buildings,
providing both elemental and trade-off
routes to compliance. Enforcement
is unclear (Hong and Chiang, 2007;
Huang, 2006)
China and Mongolia
Since energy supply could constrain
economic development, China has a
strong motivation to improve energy
efficiency. Since the 1990s it has
had mandatory energy efficiency
codes for new buildings, though these
initially only related to heating system
in dwellings. Subsequent codes deal
with commercial buildings such as
tourist hotels. Initially these were purely
elemental standards, but integrated
methods are under development. The
supporting infrastructure is still being
developed and compliance is said to be
low, with perhaps only 20% to 30% of
buildings complying with the standards.
(www.reeep.org)
Mongolia has a building code that
covers thermal energy (heating,
hot water and envelope insulation).
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

South East Asia

There is a very mixed picture in this
region, with some countries having
no building energy codes (Brunei,

‘
Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar), others
having mandatory codes (Taiwan,
Hong Kong, Thailand, Philippines,
Singapore, South Korea) while other
have voluntary codes (Indonesia,
Malaysia). Vietnam is developing a code rapidly-growing
for commercial buildings, with support demand for electricity
from the World Bank. Japan introduced
– including for
voluntary building energy codes in
the 1970s. However official voluntary cooling and lighting
codes are well accepted – becoming – is a major energy
mandatory during 2007. In Japan, the policy issue and
tradition of very local and intermittent
heating means that appliance
minimum performance
standards are more powerful than standards for electrical
building energy codes. Enforcement appliances and
seems to be robust in Korea, Singapore
equipment are more
and Taiwan, but a recent study by
pressing than whole-

‘
the United Nations Development
Programme has suggested that building constraints
elsewhere a lack of resources has
compromised compliance (UNDP).
For many of these countries rapidly-
growing demand for electricity –
including for cooling and lighting
– is a major energy policy issue and
minimum performance standards for
electrical appliances and equipment
are more pressing than whole-building
constraints.
Australasia
Mandatory energy codes in Australia
and New Zealand are relatively limited
in scope although existing and planned
voluntary labelling schemes are more
sophisticated. In Australia, codes can
be developed at federal, state and local
level. Where there are mandatory codes
they commonly relate only to housing
and only to thermal performance
– though New Zealand also has
requirements for larger buildings that
include lighting (Australian Greenhouse
Office, 2005).
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

North America In Canada building regulations are

the responsibility of provinces and
In the USA, responsibility for building territories, but there are Model National
energy codes is at State level, with Energy Codes for housing and for other
a wide variation of approach and buildings. These contain mandatory
requirements reflecting local views of elemental minimum performance
the relative roles of the market and requirements and more demanding
regulation. More than 20% of States overall criteria with trade-offs. The
either have no standards or voluntarycc requirements often differ according
standards (though there may be to the fuel used for heating.
mandatory standards for Federally – Alternatively whole-building
and sometimes State-owned buildings). performance calculations can be
Although there are two generally- carried out. Lighting and HVAC
accepted families of codes, both are systems are included within the scope.
based on ASHRAE standards 90.1 A national incentive programme
and 90.2. These allow either elemental provides grants for buildings shown
or integrated performance-based to exceed building regulation energy
compliance routes, with the elemental requirements by at least 25%. This
approach apparently most widely used. uses integrated energy calculations
Revisions in recent years have been to demonstrate compliance.
directed towards simplifying the codes
for housing, on the basis that – for this
purpose – codes that are simple to
use and to enforce will achieve more
than more flexible but more complex
ones. California has developed its own

‘
comprehensive ‘Title 24’ document
for which compliance is possible
through either an elemental or overall
performance routes.

Revisions in recent
years have been
directed towards
simplifying the codes
for housing, on the basis
that – for this purpose
– codes that are simple
to use and to enforce
will achieve more than
more flexible but more

‘
complex ones

cc
There is an issue of nomenclature here. In some states ‘voluntary’ means that municipalities within a state are free to adopt a
code or to have no code. If they do adopt a code they may be required to use a state code. Within their jurisdictions use of the
code will normally then be mandatory.
Caribbean
An energy efficiency building code
was developed in Jamaica in 1992
with the assistance of the World Bank
and UNDP. This became a voluntary
national standard in 1996. It is
intended that the code should become
mandatory but this has been delayed
by a lack of resources to support
effective implementation.
 Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Central and Chile has had thermal insulation

South America
This region appears to be in the early
stages of developing building energy
codes, albeit with some countries more
advanced than others.
A number of countries do not appear
to have any legal framework to support
building energy codes (Bolivia, Ecuador,
Peru, Costa Rica, Cuba, Colombia
requirements for housing since 2000,
revised in 2007. The new requirements
include area restrictions on windows
according to their insulation value.
These are focused on limiting heating
demand, though the insulation
levels called for – even in cooler
areas – are not high compared to
European practice. Work is in hand, in
collaboration with Spain, to develop
software for integrated heating and

‘
[although Colombia has a proposed
cooling calculations for housing.
code], Honduras, Venezuela)
In Mexico a 2001 standard relates to
the energy efficiency of non-residential
buildings, apparently focusing on This region appears to
limiting heat gains. The country has
a substantial number of regulations
be in the early stages
and standards relating to equipment of developing building
efficiencies, which may be seen as a energy codes, albeit with
higher priority.
some countries more

‘
Brazil has decided that energy labelling advanced than others
is likely to be more effective than
minimum performance standards, and
intends to introduce a voluntary system
for larger non-residential buildings
in 2008 to be followed by a similar
system for housing. The proposed
regulation allows both a prescriptive
route (with trade-offs) and a simulation
route. Consideration will be given to
making this mandatory when there
is experience of the voluntary scheme.
Energy labelling was introduced on
a voluntary basis in 2007, to become
mandatory five years later (Lamberts
et al, 2007).
In Argentina, building energy codes
appear to be a provincial responsibility
although only Buenos Aires seems
to have legislation – requiring thermal
insulation. Paraguay is believed to have
a building energy code.
References
Anon
‘Building Energy Codes
and Standards’, www.arch.hku.hk
Anon (2005)
‘Proceeding of Regional Workshop
– Toward Energy Efficiency Thermal
Building Codes In Mediterranean
Countries’, ANME, Hammamet
Australian Greenhouse Office
‘International Survey of Building
Energy Codes’, Commonwealth
of Australia, 2000
Bazilian, M.
‘REEEP in the news’ www.reeep.org
Bell, M. (2004)
Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings:
the role of Building Regulations, RICS
COBRA conference, Leeds
The Business Roundtable (1982,
reprinted 1989)
Administration and Enforcement of
Building Codes and Regulations,
Washington DC
CIB
www.cibworld.nl
DCLG (2007)
‘Achieving Building Standards:
Final Report
Energy Performance
of Buildings Directive
www.buildingsplatform.org
Foliente, G C. (2000)
‘Developments in Performance-based
Building Codes and Standards’, Forest
Products Journal v50 (7/8)
Future Energy Solutions (2006)
‘Compliance with Part L1 of the 2002
Building Regulations’, Energy Efficiency
Partnership for Homes
Geller, H and Nadel, S. (1994)
‘Market Transformation Strategies
to Promote End-use Efficiency’, ACEEE
report E941
Goldstein, D B. (2007)
International Best Practice in Building
Energy Codes, IEA Future Building
Forum, Espoo
van der Heijden, J. (2007)
‘Enforcement of Building Regulations’,
ENHR International Conference,
Rotterdam
Huang, J. (2006)
‘International experience in building
codes’ Workshop on energy Efficiency
Codes in Buildings.’ New Delhi
Huang J et al (2003)
‘The Development of Residential
and Commercial building Energy
Standards for Egypt’, Proc Energy
Conservation Workshop in Buildings
Workshop, Kuwait
Hong, W and Chiang, M S (2007)
‘Trends in Asia’s Building Energy
Efficiency Policies’ , International
Conference on Climate Change,
Hong Kong
IEA
‘Meeting Energy Efficiency Goals
-Enhancing Compliance, Monitoring
and Evaluation’ Paris, February 2008.
Klinckenburg, F and
Sunikka, M (2006)
‘Better Buildings through Energy
Efficiency’, Eurima 2006
Lamberts, R. et al (2007)
‘Regulation for energy efficient
labelling of commercial buildings in
Brazil’ Passive and Low Energy Cooling
for the Built Environment Conference
Maine Public Utilities
Commission (2004)
‘Final Report on Building
Energy Codes’
Y. A. Matrosov et al
‘The Fruit has Ripened: Energy
Code Implementation in Russia’,
www.cenef.ru
Y.A. Matrosov et al
‘Recent Advances in Energy Codes in
Russia and Kazakhstan’, www.cenef.ru
Y.A. Matrosov et al
‘Forty-percent savings and beyond
– Recent advances in Code
Implementation in Russia and other
CIS countries’, www.cenef.ru
Visscher, H and Meijer, F (2007)
‘Dynamics of Building Regulations
in Europe’, ENHR International
Conference, Rotterdam
Poel B. (2006)
Energy Performance Assessment
for Non-Residential Buildings in
Europe. EPA-NR Workshop Budapest
UNDP
‘Compendium on Energy conservation
Legislation in Countries of the Asia
and Pacific Region’ www.unescap.org
Visscher, H and Meijer F (2007)
‘Dynamics of Building Regulations
in Europe’, ENHR International
Conference, Rotterdam
Wilkinson, S (2007)
‘Perceived deficiencies and the
policing of the building regulations:
an Australian perspective’, FIG working
week, Hong Kong
Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?
Valuation and Sale Price report 2007
 Valuation and Sale Price report 2007

Can building codes deliver energy efficiency?

Defining a best practice approach
www.rics.org

RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) is the leading

organisation of its kind in the world for professionals in property, land,
construction and related environmental issues. As part of our role we
help to set, maintain and regulate standards – as well as providing
impartial advice to Governments and policymakers. RICS has
140 000 members who operate out of 146 countries, supported by
an extensive network of regional offices located in every continent
around the world.

To ensure that our members are able to provide the quality of advice
and level of integrity required by the market, RICS qualifications
are only awarded to individuals who meet the most rigorous
requirements for both education and experience and who are prepared
to maintain high standards in the public interest. With this in mind it’s
perhaps not surprising that the letters RICS represent the mark
of property professionalism worldwide.

The Royal Institution

of Chartered Surveyors RICS Asia Pacific
12 Great George Street Suite 2104
Parliament Square Central Plaza
London SW1P 3AD 18 Harbour Road
United Kingdom Wanchai
Hong Kong
T +44 (0)870 333 1600
F +44 (0)20 7334 3811 T +852 2537 7117
contactrics@rics.org F +852 2537 2756
www.rics.org ricsasiapacific@rics.org
March 2008/print run/Research/42882/Sterling

RICS Americas RICS Oceania

The Lincoln Building Suite 2, Level 16
RICS Europe 60 East 42nd Street 1 Castlereagh Street
Rue Ducale 67 Suite 2918 Sydney
1000 Brussels New York, NY 10165 NSW 2000
Belgium USA Australia

T +32 2 733 1019 T + 1 212 847 7400 T +02 9216 2333

F +32 2 742 9748 F +1 212 847 7401 F +02 9232 5591
ricseurope@rics.org ricsamericas@rics.org info@rics.org.au