programme plenary session - smart readiness indicator · 10/9/2019 · sri 2 stakeholder meeting 9...

SRI 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 9 OCTOBER 2019 - BRUSSELS

Programme plenary session

14:00 – 14:10 Welcome– Paula Rey García (EC DG ENER)

14-10 – 14:25 Overview of the aims, status and the planning of the project– Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)

14:25 – 14:50 Steps taken towards the definition of the SRI calculation methodology– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)

14:50 – 15:20 Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)

15:20 – 15:40 Provisional impact assessment of the SRI– Paul Waide (WSEE)

15:40 – 16:00 Initial feedback from the testing phase– Dorien Aerts (VITO/EnergyVille)

16:00 – 16:30 Open group discussion

16:30 – 16:50 Next steps towards legal acts– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER)

16:50 – 17:00 Closing words– Sylvain Robert (EC DG ENER) & Stijn Verbeke (VITO/EnergyVille)


Welcome

Paula Rey García EC DG ENERGY


Overview of the aims, status and planning of the project

Stijn VerbekeVITO/EnergyVille


Smart technologies in buildings

A greater uptake of smart technologies isexpected to result in significant energysavings in a cost-effective way, whilehelping to improve comfort and occupantsatisfaction and enabling buildings to play akey role in smart energy systems.

There is a perceived need to:

▪ Increase the uptake of smart, energy-efficient technologies in the building sectoracross Europe

▪ Provide trustworthy insights and a common vocabulary to all stakeholdersinvolved: occupants, investors, engineers, manufacturers, etc.


Smart Readiness Indicator in the EPBD

The revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) (19 June 2018) requires the development of an optional Common Union scheme for rating the smart readiness of buildings: the “Smart Readiness Indicator” (SRI).

The indicator is intended to raise awareness about the benefits of smart technologies and ICT in buildings (from an energy perspective, in particular), motivate consumers to accelerate investments in smart building technologies and support the uptake of technology innovation in the building sector.


“Smart readiness” aspects considered in EPBD

The ability to adapt its operation mode in response to the needs of the occupant paying due attention to the availability of user-friendliness, maintaining healthy indoor climate conditions and ability to report on energy use

e.g. use of CO2 sensors to decide when to increase

ventilation

e.g. Dashboards displaying current and historical

energy consumption

1


The ability to maintain energy efficiency

performance and operation of the building

through the adaptation of energy

consumption for example through use of energy from renewable sources

e.g. Management of heating and lighting system

based on occupancy sensors

e.g. Load-shifting to increase self-consumption of

local generated renewable energy

2



The flexibility of a building's overall electricity

demand, including its ability to enable

participation in active and passive as well as

implicit and explicit demand-response, in

relation to the grid, for example through

flexibility and load shifting capacities.

e.g. Reduce power consumption when grid demand

is high

3



https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/

Aim Provide technical inputs to feed the establishment of the SRI of buildings by

the European Commission and the related proposals for delegated and

implementing acts, in accordance with the provisions of the revised EPBD.

Timeline Dec 2018 – June 2020

Consortium

Website

2nd technical support study for the SRI establishment

ENER/C3/2018-447

"Support to the establishment of a common European

scheme for rating the smart readiness of buildings“

https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/


Main expected outcomes

• Consolidation of the definition and the calculation methodology of the SRI

• Investigation of SRI implementation pathways and of the format of the SRI

• Guidance for effective SRI implementation

• Quantitative modelling and analysis of the impact of the SRI at EU Level

Technical inputs to feed the establishment of a common EU SRI scheme:

In close collaboration with the stakeholder community


Timeline

Dec

2018

Mar

2019

1st stakeholder

meeting

End of

project

June

2020

Aug

2019

Interim

report

Oct

2019

2nd stakeholder

meeting

Until 30 Nov: feedback interim report

Unit 15 Nov: public testing


Brief recap of the calculation methodology proposed by the first technical support study

Stijn VerbekeVITO/EnergyVille


Smart ready services

• Services are enabled by (a combination of) smart ready technologies, but are defined in a technology neutral way, e.g. ‘provision of temperature control in a room’.

• services are structured within domainsDOMAINS as proposed by first technical support study

OU

TCO

MES

1ST

TEC

HN

ICA

L SU

PP

OR

T ST

UD

Y


FUNCTIONALITY LEVELS

• For each of the services, 2 to 5 functionality levels are defined. A higher functionality level reflects a “smarter” implementation of the service, which generally provides more beneficial impacts to building users or to the grid

ServiceFunctionality level 0 (as non-smart default)

Functionality level 1 Functionality level 2 Functionality level 3 Functionality level 4

Heat emission controlNo automatic control

Central automatic control (e.g. central thermostat)

Individual room control (e.g. thermostatic valves, or electronic controller)

Individual room control with communication between controllers and to BACS

Individual room control with communication and presence control

EXAMPLE SERVICE:

OU

TCO

MES

1ST

TEC

HN

ICA

L SU

PP

OR

T ST

UD

Y


IMPACTS

• For each of the functionality levels of each of the services, the impacts are defined according to impact categories

IMPACT CATEGORIES as proposed by first technical support study

OU

TCO

MES

1ST

TEC

HN

ICA

L SU

PP

OR

T ST

UD

Y


Proposed SRI methodology: outcome 1st technical study

OU

TCO

MES

1ST

TEC

HN

ICA

L SU

PP

OR

T ST

UD

Y

• STEP 1: Which smart ready services are relevant for this building?

e.g. if there is no DHW, there is no need to inspect how this is controlled

• STEP 2: Inspection: assess the functionality level of each relevant service

• STEP 3: Lookup impact scores

• STEP 4: Calculate weighted overall score

through multi-criteria assessment method

• STEP 5: Derive normalised SRI score

compared to maximum obtainable score for specific building


Steps taken towards the consolidation of the SRI calculation methodology

Dorien AertsVITO/EnergyVille


SRI calculation methodology

A. DOMAIN AND IMPACT WEIGHTING FACTORS


Energy savings

and operationRespond to

user needs

Respond to

needs of the grid

Energy savingsComfort

Information to

occupantFlexibility to grid

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Dynamic Envelope

On-site renewable energy generation

Demand Side Management

Electric vehicles

Convenience

Monitoring & Control

Self generation

Proposed SRI methodology: changes to domains and impact criteria

Maintenance &

fault prediction

Health &

Wellbeing

Original proposal


Energy savings


user needs

Respond to

needs of the grid


Information to

occupantFlexibility to grid

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Dynamic Envelope


Electric vehicles

Convenience


Self generationMaintenance &

fault prediction

Health &

Wellbeing

Electricity

1. “On-site renewable energy production” becomes “electricity”: include storage & focus on electricity



Energy savings


user needs

Energy flexibility

Energy

Flexibility

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity


Electric vehicles


Self. generationEnergy savingsComfort

Information to

occupantConvenienceMaintenance &

fault prediction

Health &

Wellbeing

2. “Self-generation” is omitted:- Advantages to the grid are covered in

“energy flexibility”- Benefits of autonomy are covered in

“convenience”



Energy savings


user needs

Energy flexibility

Energy

Flexibility

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity


Electric vehicles


Self. generationEnergy savingsComfort

Information to

occupantConvenienceMaintenance &

fault prediction

Health &

Wellbeing

3. Services in the “DSM” domain are redistributed to other domains



Energy savings

and operationRespond to user

needs

Energy flexibility

Energy

savings ComfortInformation to

occupant

Maintenance &

fault predictionEnergy

Flexibility

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Convenience


Health &

Wellbeing

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity

Electric vehicles

Proposed SRI methodologyResulting domain and impact matrix


(1) correction if no services

Proposed SRI methodology: domain weightings

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity

Energy savings


needs

Energy Flexibility

Energy

savingsComfort

Information to

occupant

Maintenance &

fault prediction

Energy

Flexibility

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting

Convenience


Health &

Wellbeing

Energy Balance

Method

Sum = 70% Equal weighting (1)

Sum = 80%

Electric vehicles

Fixed weight 20%

Fixed weight 5%

Energy

Balance

Method

Sum =

70%

Fixed 5%

Fixed weight 5% Fixed 5%

I. Use weightings from energy balance whenever possible

II. Use estimated impact weightings for the remaining energy-related impacts

III. Use equal weighting for user-related impact criteria


Dynamic Envelope

Electricity


Energy

savings

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting


Electric vehicles

North West South North-East South-East

30% 35% 32% 31% 22%

9% 7% 10% 14% 6%

0% 2% 7% 0% 15%

19% 19% 9% 19% 11%

4% 1% 3% 1% 1%

13% 11% 14% 10% 20%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Tentative default weightings for RESIDENTIAL buildings

Energy balance

Fixed



North West South North-East South-East

31% 28% 31% 30% 29%

5% 8% 10% 9% 11%

9% 12% 11% 8% 8%

20% 14% 9% 19% 15%

8% 10% 12% 7% 9%

2% 3% 2% 2% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity

Energy

savings

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting


Electric vehicles

Energy balance

Fixed

Tentative default weightings for NON-RESIDENTIAL buildings



All climate zones

13%

13%

13%

13%

13%

0%

0%

13%

20%

Dynamic Envelope

Electricity

Heating

Domestic hot water

Cooling

Ventilation

Lighting


Electric vehicles

Equal weighting

Fixed

Tentative default weightings (RESIDENTIAL & NON-RESIDENTIAL)

Comfort


=16,7% =16,7% =8,3% =8,3% =8,3% =8,3% =33,3%

Energy savings


needs

Energy Flexibility


Information to

occupant

Maintenance &

fault prediction

Energy FlexibilityConvenience

Health &

Wellbeing

1/3 1/3 1/3

1/2 1/2 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/1

Proposed SRI methodology: weightings for impact criteria



B. TRIAGE AND ABSENT SERVICES


NORMALISATION and TRIAGE

• Normalisation: triage process affects the ‘maximum obtainable score’, as it would be unfair to penalise a building for not providing services that are not relevant

• Triage: identify the relevant services for a specific building

• Relevant because they are present

• Relevant because they should be present (policy perspective)


Proposed SRI methodology: absent services

What if a service or domain is not present?

• Some services only have to be evaluated in case the relevant technical building systems are present (hence: “smart ready”). This approach is appropriate when assessors cannot unambiguously determine the relevance of the domain.

e.g. automated shading devices

• Some services might be absent but nonetheless desirable from a policy perspective (hence: “smart possible”). This approach may provide stimuli for upgrading existing buildings with additional (smart) services.

e.g. controlled ventilation

• As a guiding principle, it could be considered that all services that are mandatory in a Member State’s building code are mandatory in the SRI.



C. INTEREPERABILITY AND CYBERSECURITY


Potential approaches to consider interoperability within the SRI

• Implicit approachDefine services that require interoperability, without defining the required standards or protocols needed to enable such interoperability.

For example, if a service for "avoiding simultaneous heating and cooling" is present, implicitly these systems will inherently have to be interoperable (either directly or through other gateways).

• Explicit approachExplicitly assess and rate the interoperability.

A higher SRI score could be granted if systems adhere to a list of specific standards and protocols.

• Informative approachProvide information the level of interoperability of services but don’t calculate a score.

e.g. a structured overview of information on standards and protocols for the different technical building systems on the SRI and its accompanying documents. This can provide a valuable source for building owners when planning to upgrade their building systems.


Potential approaches to consider interoperability within the SRI

• Currently implemented approach = implicit evaluation of interoperability

• Under investigation: potential shift to a blended approach:

• Add supplementary information on interoperability?

e.g. through external labelling schemes? Idem for cybersecurity

• vs potentially adding supplementary services, domains or impacts to explicitly assess interoperability aspects

• In consultation with topical group B

• Evaluate feasibility of alternative approaches

e.g. in terms of assessor competence and efforts required)

e.g. in terms of technical characteristics: list of open protocols or solely ethernet IP, evaluate data availability for external tools as well?,…



D. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK


Simplified online quick-scan

Expert SRI assessment

A BIn-use smart building

performance

C

Checklist approach with limited, simplified services list

Self-assessment (or contractor,…)

15 minutes

Checklist approach, covering catalogue of smart services cf. 1st

study outcomes

Third-party qualified expert

Few hours

residential buildings and small non-residential

Non-residential + Residential

Online On-site inspection

Measured / metered data(potentially restricted set of domains)

TBS self-reporting their actual performance

Gather data over a long period (e.g. 1 year)

Residential and non-residential Restricted to occupied buildings

(not in design phase)

In-use buildings, metered dataPart of the commissioning?

Example application set-up: Example application set-up: Example application set-up:


Method B: default approach

• In line with the 1st study outcomes

• Would require an on-site inspection by a third-party qualified expert. The assessment could take between 1 hour and 2 days.

• This approach would mainly target non-residential buildings, but residential buildings could be envisioned as well.

• Review of catalogue and weighting mechanisms ongoing

Expert SRI assessment

Checklist approach, covering catalogue of smart services cf. 1st

study outcomes

Third-party qualified expert

1 hour – max 2 days

Non-residential: offices and education (+ others later on?)

+ Residential as well

B

On-site inspection


Method A: simplified service catalogue

• Aim: to lower the threshold for application of the SRI by providing basic insights on the smartness of a building based on easy-to-answer questions.

• Potentially limited to residential buildings, and potentially small non-residential buildings

• Given the lack of controllability, this method would not issue a formal certification.

• Possible approaches:

• asking simpler questions (change of terminology)

• proposing a product database with pre-defined functionality levels (change of input data),

• a combination of both

Simplified online quick-scan

Simplified services list

Self-assessment (or contractor,…)

15 minutes

A

Restricted to residential buildings

Online


Suggested approach: simplified method A

Structure services in each domain by these 3 topics:

• Controllability of Performance: services that enable to control the performance (energy efficiency, indoor air quality,…)

• Storage & Connectivity: services that enable storage of energy and/or connectivity to other actors (other TBS, BACS, grid)

• Reporting Functionalities: services that provide reporting of current status, performance and benchmarking

Limited number of services to be assessed: 27 instead of 54 services.


Method C: potential future development

• Quantifies the actual performance of in-use buildings

• Requires benchmarking to assess how much savings, flexibility, comfort improvements, etc. are delivered

• Method C is currently considered to be a potential future evolution of a certification approach for a commissioned building. Many practical and legal implications would hamper a fast roll-out. Therefore, it will not be treated in detail in this technical study.

In-use smart buildingperformance

Measured / metered data(potentially restricted set of

domains)

TBS self-reporting their actual performance

Gather data over a long period (e.g. 1 year)

Residential and non-residential Restricted to occupied buildings

(not in design phase)

C

In-use buildings, metered dataPart of the commissioning?


new topical expert group C: explore future SRI developments

• Investigate requirements and feasibility an SRI assessment “method C”• Methodological requirements: approach for benchmarking

• Technological requirements: monitoring infrastructure

• Other requirements, including privacy and cybersecurity

• Define a process for updating method A and B

• Self-managed working group• Members report to study team and Commission services

• Study team can facilitate meetings (e.g. skype meetings, sharepoint platform)

• CALL FOR EXPERTS: new topical expert group C • Interested in joining the topical group?

• Interested in chairing (some sessions of) the topical group?

• Let us know on [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Steps taken towards implementation and formatting of the SRI

Paul Waide WSEE


Implementation pathways – some considerations

• The pathways considered need to encompass a broad range of possibilities

• Potential pathways can be differentiated by:

o the type of buildings addressed

o the type of actors addressed

o the synergies with opportunities to conduct assessments

• The scheme will need a common kernel of characteristics e.g. the calculation methodology, logo/format, etc. which will mean that from the service offer perspective it should be as uniform as possible


Sa

les

Increasing Efficiency

Before Labelling

Start of Labelling

Some years of Labelling

The SRI is likely to work from two directions• By the “market pull”

impact of SRI assessments on properties encouraging the adoption of SRTs

• By the “market push” impact of SRTs and services self-organizing service offers in line with the SRI criteria – e.g. “our service X attains SRI functionality level 4” etc.


Factors which need to be considered with SRI linkages

• Scope – distinctiveness versus potential overlaps

• Leverage

• Implementation pathways/factors

• The lessons that can be learned from the other schemes

• Complementarity


Linkages to other schemes – considerations

Formal linkage should only be sought if it will bring clear beneficial synergies. Those synergies would include:

o shared assessment costs thereby reducing overall assessment costs

o potential to mutually reinforce the value proposition

o ability to reinforce the scale of reach i.e. that through the establishment of such linkages the number of the target audience reached by the schemes is increased

o compatibility in terms of objectives

o compatibility in terms of governance

o compatibility with regard to the target audiences to be addressed


Potential SRI implementation pathways will be sensitive to trigger points

Trigger points are moments when an event occurs for a building that an SRI assessment (the pull effect) could link to synergistically. They include:

o inspections,

o assessments,

o new or replacement installations,

o renovations,

o new build,

o design stages,

o commissioning

Trigger points can also link to SRT/smart service deployment e.g. the push effect


Potential SRI implementation pathways include:A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory way) so an assessment

would be offered each time an EPC is conducted

B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each time a new build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement

C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it

D. As option C. but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures

E. Linkage to the TBS/BACS deployment trigger points in Articles 8, 14 & 15 in the EPBD

F. Linkage to smart meter deployment

G. A mosaic of the aboves


EU (or EU-supported) initiatives

• Level(s) – environmental aspects

• Building Renovation Passports (EU supporting studies)

• Cyber-security certificate – under development

• Broadband ready label

• Digital logbook – exploratory phase

• Support schemes for BIM


Other initiatives

• Voluntary environmental certification schemes (e.g. BREEAM, LEED, HQE, DGNB)

• Voluntary smart building initiatives (SBA (FR), SmartHome (DE), FEE (BE), Active House – international)

• Building Renovation Passports (DE, FL, FR trials)

• Building Information Modelling (BIM) – private sector

• Other cybersecurity initiatives

• National/regional smart metering deployment schemes

• And doubtlessly many others


Potential implementation pathways – differentiation by the party managing the building’s energy services

The nature of implementation could also be differentiated by the nature of the party responsible for managing energy services: e.g.

• self assessment for owner-occupiers

• or 3rd party assessment for facility managed buildings


Potential implementation roll-out pathways include:

The SRI roll-out could occur differentially by market segmentation e.g. by:

1. type of building stock (SFH, MFH, small non-residential, medium/large non-residential),

2. the nature of building management (e.g. professionally managed buildings, non-professionally managed buildings)

3. geography (region A or city X followed by…)

4. or simultaneously for all building types/building management/geographies


Formatting of the SRI

Paul Waide WSEE


The decisions regarding the SRI format need to resolve the following:

• How should the scope of the scheme be communicated in a transparent manner?

• How should intrinsic concepts embedded within the SRI be clarified?

• What information is to be communicated?

• Which information will be presented to which audiences?

• How will the information be presented visually?

• What media will be used to present the information?

• Should the scheme be branded and if so how?

• How should its format be conditional on interactions with other schemes?


Process being followed to resolve these questions

• Extensive consultations

• Discussion with Topical Group A

• Preparation of trial design concepts with graphic designer

• Focus groups – first held in Madrid, next planned for Budapest

• Survey of facility managers - planned

• Stakeholder feedback


Issues to consider – information and its structure

• What information is to be conveyed? SRI scores, guidance on improvement options, both?

• Previously stakeholders indicated a strong preference to present both an overall SRI score and SRI sub-scores – but should the SRI sub-scores be presented for each impact criteria (e.g. energy, flexibility, etc.), each domain (heating, cooling, etc.) or both?


Tentative conclusions following consultation with Topical group A and others

Preferences for:

• reporting sub-scores (certainly) and total score (less universally)

• targeted advice on improvement options

• flexibility in reporting implies on-line reporting where layers of information can be accessed in a hierarchy according to the user’s needs/preferences

• this could be complemented by a certificate/logo/mnemonic

Issues to resolve:

• branding (could it require a common logo/mnemonic across EU?)

• communication of SRI’s constrained scope

• feedback from consumer/user research

• linkage to existing schemes


Issues to consider – mnemonics

• Mnemonics are used to simplify the processing and retention of information

• The most famous example in the energy sector is the energy label that ranks appliance efficiency from A to G and is reinforced by colour coding (Green to Red)

• Other examples of mnemonics used to simplify rankings are the number of stars e.g. a 5 star hotel


Findings from first focus group

• Consumers are interested in the smartness of buildings and an indicator to help represent and understand it

• They intuitively recognise it is a complex subject with multiple ways of viewing it

• They prefer a mnemonic logo with grades to logos without such information

• They want this to have a top-level indicator of the smartness score and a class on a transparent grading scale

• They also want sub-scores – especially the table of scores – but this needs to come after the top-level score as additional information


Findings from first focus group

• It is not yet clear whether they would prefer the single or tri-partite approach to presenting the top-level score

• They expressed a preference for independent assessment not related to the commercial interests of those involved in the building sector

• They said they would take such information into account when considering real-estate and equipment transactions

• They are aware of the EPC and do not see a conflict or contradiction between the SRI and EPC

• They would like the information via various media – certificates/report, on-line, accessible via QR codes

• They would like a person to be able to explain the assessment to them


Provisional impact assessment of the SRI

Paul Waide WSEE


Elements of the impact assessment

• As a supporting element in the development of the SRI the Commission is preparing a formal impact assessment of the scheme

• This entails quantifying the costs and benefits of implementing SRI in the EU building sector for the horizons of 2030, 2040, 2050

• The impacts are being assessed for the different implementation pathways proposed in Task 2 of this project

• The benefits and effects along the selected criteria are being quantified (primarily in monetary, energy and emission units) on a yearly and cumulative basis and subject to a sensitivity analysis


What impact effects is the SRI expected to have?

The SRI impact will be due to a blend of the following effects:

• the strength of the market SRT/service offer organisational “push” effect

• the strength of the stimulus to adopt smarter SRTs from the certificate/information/label “pull” effect

• the building FA coverage of the assessments (certificate/information/label) - the strength of the pull effect will linearly scale to this

• complementary stimulus measures – e.g. incentives for SRT adoption or SRI assessment; or mandatory SRT functionality requirements


Linkage to implementation pathways

However, the strength of each of the previous effects is driven by the implementation pathway choices, where:

• mandatory trigger events drive SRI deployment in a predictable way

• voluntary ones have less certain deployment scalar impacts

• the impact of the “pull” effect per SRI issued could be estimated independently but will also be a function of any associated incentives/minimum requirements

• the total “pull” effect would be the above multiplied by the coverage scalar


The market SRT/service-offer organisational “push” effectwill depend upon:

• the degree to which industry/building services sector makes use of the SRI to classify their products/services functionality and publicise it in their market offers

• which, in turn, will probably have a feedback from how actively the “pull” effect part is implemented

• potentially, publication of the functionality of SRTs could also be addressed via Ecodesign information requirements and in principle this could be put directly onto products themselves

However, the SRI functionality of services will also often depend on how products are assembled into a system by a designer/installer and so cannot necessarily be determined prior to a product leaving the factory gate


The SRI certification/assessment “pull” effect

This will depend upon:

• the degree to which procurers of SRTs/SRI services are motivated by the information provided by an SRI assessment

• the proportion of the building stock subject to an assessment

• the extent to which incentives or mandatory requirements are implemented and linked to SRI assessments


Analysis is supported by a bespoke modelling tool

The overall methodology comprises the following four sub-activities:

• Activity 1: determining the building-level impact of smart technologies and services

• Activity 2: definition of impact scenarios reflecting policy options

• Activity 3: aggregation of individual variants and calculation scenarios

• Activity 4: sensitivity analysis

Activity 1 is addressed through detailed simulations and application of standards such as EN15232

The inputs from this are then treated in an aggregate scenario simulation tool designed explicitly for this analysis


Building level impacts

To determine the building-level impact of SRTs, six performance criteria have been defined:

• energy use

• greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

• self-consumption of renewable energy

• energy security

• material circularity

• comfort and well-being


Illustration – specific annual cost savings from upgrading SRTs in Northern EU single family houses


Impact scenarios considered (thus far)

• A. Linkage of the SRI to the EPC (potentially in a mandatory way) so an assessment would be offered each time an EPC is conducted

• B. Linkage of the SRI to new buildings and major renovations so that each time a new build/or renovation is undertaken it would be a requirement

• C. A market-based voluntary scheme where self-assessment is supported by on-line tools and 3rd party certified assessment is offered to those willing to pay for it

• D. As option C, but with 3rd party assessments supported, or subsidized, by the state and/or utilities seeking to roll out flexibility, energy efficiency, electromobility and self-generation measures

• E. Linkage to the BACS/TBS deployment trigger points in Articles 14 & 15, and 8 of the EPBD

• F. Linkage to smart meter deployment.


Impact scenarios considered (thus far)

Sub-options are considered for scenarios A, E and F depending on whether, the implementation is:

• Mandatory (Sub-option 1)

• Voluntary (Sub-option 2)

• voluntary but subsidised/incentivised (Sub-option 3)


SRI deployment as a function of the scenario


Evolution in buildings that undergo an improvement of one level of smartness


Evolution in buildings that undergo at an improvement to smartness level A


Cumulative investment in SRTs


Evolution of EU28 building stock final energy use


Annual final energy savings compared to the BAU scenario


Annual energy bill savings compared to the BAU scenario


Annual avoided CO2 emissions compared to the BAU scenario


Next steps

• Process stakeholder comments and add sophistication

• Include the analysis of co-impacts e.g. employment, economy, etc.

• Finalise analysis per final set of scenarios

• Provide input to the formal impact analysis


Initial feedback from the testing phase

Dorien Aerts

VITO/EnergyVille


SRI public bèta testing

• Objective: The aim of these intermediate deliverables is to receive targeted feedback on the feasibility of the approach, allowing the study team to fine-tune methodological framework

• Activities (August – November 2019)

1. Dry-run testing by Topical Group members

2. Public bèta testing by Stakeholders

• Timeline

Dry Run testing

August 2019

Public bèta testing

15 September 2019 –

15 November 2019



• Information Package: • Guidance document

• Calculation sheets for methods A and B

• Disclaimer: • These are draft deliverables of the technical support

study which explores the development and implementation pathways of the SRI.

• The methodology and look and feel of the SRI which might eventually be implemented by the EU Member States might still differ significantly from the current draft deliverables of the technical support study



• Phase 1: Dry-run testing

• 11 participants from topical groups A and B

• Bugs and calculation errors

• Terminology, wording and typos

• Methodological feedback on triage process and service catalogue



• Phase 2: Public bèta testing

• Current status: 360 buildings, located in 22 countries, signed up for the test

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Single-familyresidential

Multi-familyresidential

Offices Educational Healthcare Other non-residential

SRI public bèta testing: pre-registration



• Initial results from the public bèta testing

• Office building

• Single-Family Home, Multi-Family Home, Office building

• Office building

• Single-Family Home, Educational building, Retail building



• Initial results from the public bèta testing

Typology Country Size Age

SCORE

Method B Method A

SFH Greece 200-500 1990-2010 14% 11%

MFH Greece 1.000-10.000 1990-2010 renovated 13% 21%

SFH Finland 1960-1990 14%

Office UK 1.000-10.000 1990-2010 15%

Office Italy 500-1.000 1960-1990 renovated 34%

Office Greece 1.000-10.000 <1960 renovated 18% 21%

Educational Finland >25.000 >2010 67%

Retail Finland >25.000 1990-2010 91%

RE

SID

EN

TIA

LN

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L



• Non-Residential buildings (method B)

90% 87%

98%91%

100%

85%92%

Energysavings on

site

Flexibility forthe grid and

storage

Comfort Convenience Wellbeingand health

Maintenance& fault

prediction

informationto occupants

FI: 91%

37%

-9%

34%

18% 21%

0% 3%

Energysavings on

site


storage


Maintenance& fault

prediction


GR: 18%

14%

4%

23% 22%

33%

22%

9%

Energy savingson site


storage

Comfort Convenience Wellbeing andhealth

Maintenance& fault

prediction

information tooccupants

UK: 15%

50%

8%

58%

39%

14%22% 23%

Energy savingson site


storage

Comfort Convenience Wellbeing andhealth

Maintenance& fault

prediction

information tooccupants

IT: 34%



• Residential buildings (methods A & B)

27%

3%

23%13%

0% 0% 3%

Energysavings on

site


storage


Maintenance& fault

prediction


GR SFH:

Method B

14%

16% 12%

25%

11%

0% 0% 0%

Energysavings on

site


storage


Maintenance& fault

prediction

Informationto occupants

GR SFH:

Method A

11%

24%

0%

23%

8%0%

9%3%

Energysavings on

site


storage


Maintenance& fault

prediction


GR MFH:

Method B

13%

34%

12%

39%

10%

0%

17%

6%

Energysavings on

site


storage


Maintenance& fault

prediction

Informationto occupants

GR MFH:

Method A

21%



• General feedback

• Despite (generally) low scores, most assessors indicate that the results are in line with their expectations.

• The assessors needed a few minutes to a few hours for the assessment. It should be noted that most of them were very familiar with the building.

• Most assessors indicated no major issues regarding the feasibility of the assessment, although additional guidance is needed for more complex systems that combine multiple TBS.



• Specific feedback:

• Alignment between methods A and B

• Ventilation: what about buildings with natural ventilation and an intelligent information system regarding indoor air quality and suggestions to (manually) open the windows?



• Participation to public testing still possible!

• Please register on https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri

https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri


Open discussion


Next steps towards legal acts

Sylvain Robert

EC DG ENER


Wrap-up and closing of the meeting


Recap of further interaction opportunities

• Participate in public bèta testing until 15 Novhttps://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri

• Provide feedback on public beta testing until 15 Nov

• Provide feedback on interim report until 30 Novhttps://smartreadinessindicator.eu/milestones-and-documents

• 3rds Stakeholder meeting date tbd

https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/testing-sri

https://smartreadinessindicator.eu/milestones-and-documents

programme plenary session - smart readiness indicator · 10/9/2019 · sri 2 stakeholder meeting 9...

Documents