experiences:lessons_from_the_new_passive_house_regions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
experiences:lessons_from_the_new_passive_house_regions [2014/07/09 13:57] – cbaumgaertner | experiences:lessons_from_the_new_passive_house_regions [2014/09/18 18:19] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== Lessons from the New Passive House Regions ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | |//The sole responsibility for the content of Passipedia lies with the authors. \\ While certain marked articles have been created with the support of the EU, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union; \\ Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.//| \\ | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Dr. Zdravko Genchev, architect and Dr. Dragomir Tzanev, PR expert | ||
+ | EnEffect Group, Bulgaria | ||
+ | ===== 1 Introduction ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This study represents a continuation of the paper “Passive House Regions: A Guide to Success” | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 2 National, Regional and Local Policies ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | As the project moves on, it becomes clearer that the choice of regional focus is very successful. Although each of the participating countries shall endeavour to transpose the EPBD into national laws, it is unlikely that the " | ||
+ | The prevailing impression is that the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 2.1 Regional political consensus ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The most successful regional and local energy efficiency policies are usually based on a sustainable political consensus, leading to a long succession of policies for energy efficiency. Thus, targeting passive house is a logical result of the penetration of these policies in most of the strategic documents for the full development of the communities (Gabrovo – since 1996, Zagreb – since 1998). In other regions, the desire to reduce energy costs and to tackle energy poverty, fuelled by the inspiration of the frontrunners, | ||
+ | In contrast to the conservative national policies, some regions set very high goals, such as switching to “energy plus” building by 2020 (Aquitaine). Since 2013, nZEB standard becomes mandatory in Antwerp for all new public buildings and for those that will be subject to complete renovation. Interest in the PH concept penetrates into policies for sustainable urban development and aims to achieve CO2 neutral city by 2050 (Antwerp) or sustainable districts with low-energy buildings (Zagreb). Most of local authorities devote considerable attention to good examples and encourage their multiplication. Increasingly high interest receives the application of the PH concept in the renovation of existing buildings (Wales). Additional positive momentum is gained by the accession of some cities to the Covenant of Mayors and subsequently developed SEAPs (Antwerp, Zagreb, Cesena, Gabrovo, Burgas).\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 2.2 Market support policies ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The condition of the existing building stock and the current national energy efficiency standards outline significant market potential for the introduction of the PH standard. In some regions, serious attention is paid to the development and promotion of a market for materials and components for passive houses, which in situation of deficits are relatively expensive. The understanding that the main obstacle to markets is insufficient knowledge of the nature and advantages of the PH concept is more or less anonymous. For example, it is proposed by the regional authorities of Wales that national government should pursue active policies on information and skills to build more confidence to PH.\\ Additionally, | ||
+ | In almost all aspiring regions involved in PassREg project, regional and local policies go ahead of national ones and become a precedent that is likely to affect national goals and policies. Some of these solutions are directly inspired by the example of front-runners, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 3 Financial and Economic Incentives ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | At the beginning of the project, the interest towards the incentives in support of passive house design and construction accessible in the FRRs almost blocked discussions on other success stories and solutions. However, it was soon realized that financial support, although highly important, could not work without other measures complementing and, in fact, potentiating the application and the positive impact of the provided incentives. The early example of Hannover underlined the role of the political will and consensus, discussed above; later on, the intensive capacity building efforts targeted to both building professionals and administrative personnel took over their deserved place in the outlay of the study. Additionally, | ||
+ | The intensive interchange of ideas and proposals, supported by the ongoing discussions at EU level related to the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, lead to the differentiation of several distinctive dimensions related to the issue:\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 3.1 National, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The different administrative structure and tradition throughout the EU unconditionally lead to different approach of the accessible financing schemes and incentives. As expected, the regional and local incentives designed in traditionally decentralized societies like Germany and Austria are not directly transferable to other, more centralized governing styles, for example in countries in Eastern Europe. However, steady interest is evidenced in solutions related to local and regional actions in the impact area of municipalities and regional administrations. In times of slow recovery from the financial crisis, direct subsidies or local financing were not to be widely expected, but support measures through urban planning favourable to passive houses (Cesena, Antwerp), demonstration public buildings (most ARs) and even whole districts (Nieuw Zuid, Antwerp) abound. Consequently, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 3.2 New passive houses and PH renovations ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Surprisingly or not, despite the recent adoption of EU directives on energy efficiency, RES and, most notably, energy performance of buildings, it seems that there is not a single region which could boast a thorough support scheme for NZEBs, encompassing both new constructions and deep energy renovations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 3.3 Subsidies, | ||
+ | |||
+ | A situation of well-developed financial system in general but with limited experience in financing of energy efficiency projects brings out an intensive debate on the most appropriate form of financial incentives. Well, there is none: each country and region has its own specifics, traditions and approach in this area; the levels of economic development and political and financial stability also enter the equation. None of the various forms of financial support should be underestimated, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 3.4 Support to whole building design vs attention to specific measures ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | A strong push towards whole building design through the EPBD means that a total redesign of support measures and incentives is needed in many EU countries. Especially important issue (but not the only one) is the right form of support of RES in buildings, which are quite often promoted by separate schemes and instruments, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 3.5 Climate change and environmental protection measures vs economic feasibility ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | A very interesting and often underestimated issue, the reasoning behind the support schemes and incentives plays a very important role for the continuity of the support measures. It is not rare that in times of economic and financial crisis climate change issues step a bit behind, which is a factor that has to be acknowledged (e.g. in Wales). The role of the experience of FRRs here is essential, showing that sustainable development and especially energy efficiency in buildings do not contradict, but on the contrary, support economic growth. Here, introduction of life-cycle cost analysis in the design of the supporting schemes is crucial, which is proved by the contributions of many of the participating regions (Wales, Aquitaine, Arnhem-Nijmegen, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 4 Professional and Administrative Capacity ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | We previously called this broad topical area “capacity for change”, and this estimation was strongly supported by the evidence gathered from the newly elaborated success models of the ARs. Most of the identified barriers for the implementation of the Passive House standard at regional level are focusing on issues along this topic, and it doesn’t come as a surprise that some of the most often mentioned solutions from FRRs are in the sphere of professional and administrative capacity building. Here, again, suggestions come in several distinctive dimensions, also corresponding to the nature of the involved stakeholders.\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 4.1 Administrative capacity ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | As clearly stated in the success model of Cesena, it is the goal (and mission) of the municipal administration to create a network of professionals able to support all stakeholders on themes like energy savings in buildings and NZEB. As evidenced by FRRs, the renowned professionals with experience and established expertise in the area of energy efficiency are usually keen to offer impartial, independent consulting services on energy consumption management, rational use of energy and promotion of RES. However, such practices should be motivated, supported and coordinated by local or regional authorities in AR (Cesena, Arnhem-Nijmegen). Additionally, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 4.2 Planning and design capacity ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Unlike the situation in FRRs, in many ARs the general professional capacity of architects and designers for implementation of passive house projects is put under a question. At some points, it is specifically described as a weak point (Zagreb, Burgas, Gabrovo) and further efforts are being planned through nearly all success models (e.g. Arnhem-Nijmegen, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 4.3 The role of the construction sector ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The above argument for the required perfection of the pilot passive buildings comes even stronger when it comes to the quality of the construction works. Even the best passive house design would be compromised by inadequate construction works, so the continuing training of the working force is crucial for the implementation of high-quality building projects. Two major solutions are clearly outlined, and namely the cooperation with the BUILD UP Skills initiative (Latvia, Bulgaria) and the support for the Certified Passive House Tradesmen courses provided by PHI-licensed institutions (e.g. Cesena). Here, the train-the-trainer courses lead by PHI specialists in the framework of the PassREg project turned out to be very special events for the involved regions. Another major issue clearly described in the models is the increasing need for strict quality control at building sites, which is a solution often residing in the impact area of the local and regional authorities.\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 5 The Lessons Learnt ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | For all experts involved in PassREg, it is already clear that empowerment of local and regional authorities and active involvement of local policy makers is crucial for the actual introduction of the PH concept and standard in the construction practices. The involvement of decision makers at the highest political level at all possible occasions should be specifically targeted, as existing political will continue to be a leading factor in sustainable energy development, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Sources ===== | ||
+ | Genchev, Zdravko; Tzanev, Dragomir: Passive House Regions: A Guide to Success. Conference proceedings. 17th International Passive House Conference, Frankfurt 2013, pp. 261-266.\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The research work is undertaken in the framework of the “Passive House Regions with Renewable Energies” (PassREg) project financed by EU IEE programme under the coordination of PHI. The “aspiring regions” (AR) are Antwerp (Belgium), Arnhem-Nijmegen (Netherlands), | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||