Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-9 (section)

===== 1. Regulatory instruments =====

<div id="h4-1-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

'''Building energy codes.''' Several scholars highlighted the key role of mandatory building energy codes and minimum energy performance requirements for buildings ( [[#Enker--2017|Enker and Morrison 2017]] ). [[#Wang--2019|Wang et al. (2019)]] finds that, ‘Building energy efficiency standards (BEES) are one of the most effective policies to reduce building energy consumption, especially in the case of the rapid urbanisation content in China’. ''Ex post'' policy evaluation shows that stringent buildings’ codes reduce energy consumption in buildings and CO 2 emissions and are cost-effective ( [[#Aroonruengsawat--2012|Aroonruengsawat 2012]] ; [[#Jacobsen--2013|Jacobsen and Kotchen 2013]] ; [[#Scott--2015|Scott et al. 2015]] ; [[#Levinson--2016|Levinson 2016]] ; [[#Kotchen--2017|Kotchen 2017]] ; Yu et al. 2017; [[#Yu--2018|Yu et al. 2018]] ; Aydin and Brounen 2019). Progressive building energy codes include requirements on efficiency improvement but also on sufficiency and share of renewables (Clune et al. 2012; Rosenberg et al., 2017) and on embodied emissions ( [[#Schwarz--2020|Schwarz et al. 2020]] ), for example the 2022 ASHRAE Standard 90.1 includes prescriptive on-site renewable energy requirements for non-residential building. Evans et al. (2017; 2018) calls for strengthen the compliance checkswith efficiency requirements or codes when buildings are in operation and highlighted the need for enforcement of building energy codes to achieve the estimate energy and carbon savings recommending actions to improve enforcements, including institutional capacity and adequate resources.

Evans et al. (2017; 2018) identified strengthening the compliance checks with codes when buildings are in operation and the need for enforcement of building energy codes in order to achieve the estimate energy and carbon savings, recommending actions to improve enforcements, including institutional capacity and adequate resources. Another important issue to be addressed by policies is the ‘Energy Performance Gap’ (EPG), that is, the gap between design and policy intent and actual outcomes. Regulatory and market support regimes are based on predictive models ( [[#Cohen--2015|Cohen and Bordass 2015]] ) with general assumptions about building types, the way they are used and are not covering all energy consumption. In the perspective of moving towards net zero carbon, it is important that policy capture and address the actual in-use performance of buildings ( [[#Gupta--2015|Gupta et al. 2015]] ; [[#Gupta--2018|Gupta and Kotopouleas 2018]] ). Outcome-based codes are increasingly important because they overcome some limitations of prescriptive building energy codes, which typically do not regulate all building energy uses or do not regulate measured operational energy use in buildings. Regulating all loads, especially plug and process loads, is important because they account for an increasingly large percentage of total energy use as building envelope and space-conditioning equipment are becoming more efficient ( [[#Denniston--2011|Denniston et al. 2011]] ; [[#Colker--2012|Colker 2012]] ; [[#Enker--2020|Enker and Morrison 2020]] ).

Building codes could also foster the usage of wood and timber as a construction in particular for multi-storey buildings and in the long term penalise carbon intensive building materials ( [[#Ludwig--2019|Ludwig 2019]] ) with policies based on environmental performance assessment of buildings and the ‘wood first’ principle ( [[#Ludwig--2019|Ludwig 2019]] ; [[#Ramage--2017|Ramage et al. 2017]] ).

Retro-commissioning is a cost-effective process to periodically check the energy performance of existing building and assure energy savings are maintained overtime ( [[#Kong--2019|Kong et al. 2019]] ; [[#Ssembatya--2021|Ssembatya et al. 2021]] ).

In countries with low rate of new construction, it is important to consider mandatory building energy codes for existing buildings, but this may also be relevant for countries with high new construction, as they will have soon a large existing building stock. The EU has requirements already in place when building undergo a major renovation ( [[#Economidou--2020|Economidou et al. 2020]] ). Countries considering mandatory regulations for existing buildings include Canada, the US (specific cities), China and Singapore. Policies include mandating energy retrofits for low performances existing buildings, when sold or rented. In countries with increasing building stock, in particular in developing countries, policies are more effective when targeting new buildings ( [[#Kamal--2019|Kamal et al. 2019]] ).

NZEBs definitions are proposed by ( [[#Marszal--2011|Marszal et al. 2011]] ; [[#Deng--2014|Deng and Wu 2014]] ; [[#Zhang--2015|Zhang and Zhou 2015]] ; [[#Williams--2016|Williams et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wells--2018|Wells et al. 2018]] ), covering different geographical areas, developing and Developed Countries, and both existing buildings and new buildings. In 2019, China issued the national standard Technical Standard for Nearly Zero Energy Building ( [[#MoHURD--2019|MoHURD, 2019]] ). California has also adopted a building energy code mandating for NZEBs for new residential buildings in 2020 and 2030 for commercial buildings ( [[#Feng--2019|Feng et al. 2019]] ). Several countries have adopted targets, roadmaps or mandatory building energy codes requiring net zero energy buildings (NZEBs) for some classes of new buildings ( [[#Feng--2019|Feng et al. 2019]] ).

'''Building labels and Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs).''' Buildings labels are an important instrument, with some limitations. [[#Li--2019b|Li et al. (2019b)]] reviewed the EU mandatory Energy Performance Certificates for buildings and proposed several measures to make the EPC more effective in driving the markets towards low consumption buildings. Some authors have indicated that the EPC based on the physical properties of the buildings (asset rating) may be misleading due to occupancy behaviour ( [[#Cohen--2015|Cohen and Bordass 2015]] ) and calculation errors ( [[#Crawley--2019|Crawley et al. 2019]] ). Control authorities can have a large impact on the quality of the label ( [[#Mallaburn--2018|Mallaburn 2018]] ). Labels can also include information on the GHG embedded in building material or be based on LCA.

US EPA Energy Star and NABERS ( [[#Gui--2020|Gui and Gou, 2020]] ) are building performance labels based on performance, not on modelled energy use. Singapore has mandatory building energy labels, as do many cities in the US, while India and Brazil have mandatory labels for public buildings.

Mandatory energy performance disclosure and benchmarking of building energy consumption is a powerful policy instrument in particular for non-residential buildings ( [[#Trencher--2016|Trencher et al. 2016]] ) and could be more accurate than energy audits. [[#Gabe--2016|Gabe (2016)]] showed that mandatory disclosure is more effective than voluntary disclosure. Some US cities (e.g., New York) have adopted Emissions Performance Standards for buildings, capping CO 2 emissions. Accurate statistics related to energy use are very important for reducing GHG in building sector. In 2015, the Republic of Korea stablished the National Building Energy Integrated Management System, where building data and energy consumption information are collected for policy development and public information.

'''Energy audits.''' Energy audits, help to overcome the information barriers to efficiency investments, in particular buildings owned or occupied by small companies ( [[#Kalantzis--2019|Kalantzis and Revoltella, 2019]] ). In the EU energy audits are mandatory for large companies under the Energy Efficiency Directive ( [[#Nabitz--2019|Nabitz and Hirzel 2019]] ), with some EU Member States having a long experience with energy audits, as part of national voluntary agreements with the private sector ( [[#Rezessy--2011|Rezessy and Bertoldi 2011]] ; [[#Cornelis--2019|Cornelis 2019]] ). Singapore has adopted mandatory audit for buildings ( [[#Shen--2016|Shen et al. 2016]] ). In the United States, several cities have adopted energy informational policies in recent years, including mandatory buildings audits ( [[#Trencher--2016|Trencher et al. 2016]] ; [[#Kontokosta--2020|Kontokosta et al. 2020]] ). The State of New York has in place a subsidised energy audit for residential building since 2010 ( [[#Boucher--2018|Boucher et al. 2018]] ). It is important to assure the training of auditors and the quality of the audit.

'''Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPSs).''' Mandatory minimum efficiency standards for building technical equipment and appliances (e.g., HVAC, appliances, ICT, lighting, etc.) is a very common, tested and successful policy in most of the OECD countries (e.g., EU, US, Canada, Australia, etc.) for improving energy efficiency ( [[#Scott--2015|Scott et al. 2015]] ; [[#Wu--2019|Wu et al. 2019]] ; [[#Sonnenschein--2019|Sonnenschein et al. 2019]] ). [[#Brucal--2019|Brucal and Roberts (2019)]] showed that efficiency standards reduce product price. [[#McNeil--2019|McNeil et al. (2019)]] highlighted how efficiency standards will help developing countries in reducing the power peak demand by a factor of two, thus reducing large investment costs in new generation, transmission, and distribution networks. Mandatory standards have been implemented also other large economies, for example, Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa, China, Ghana, Kenya and Malaysia ( [[#Salleh--2019|Salleh et al. 2019]] ), with an increase in the uptake also in developing countries, for example, Ghana, Kenya, Tunisia, and so on. In Japan, there is a successful voluntary programme the Top Runner, with similar results of mandatory efficiency standards ( [[#Inoue--2019|Inoue and Matsumoto 2019]] ).

'''Appliance energy labelling.''' Mandatory energy labelling schemes for building technical equipment and appliances are very often implemented together with minimum efficiency standards, with the mandatory standard pushing the market towards higher efficiency and the label pulling the market ( [[#Bertoldi--2019|Bertoldi, 2019]] ). OECD countries, and many developing countries (for example China, Ghana, Kenya, India, South Africa, etc.) ( [[#Chunekar--2014|Chunekar 2014]] ; [[#Diawuo--2018|Diawuo et al. 2018]] ; [[#Issock--2018|Issock et al. 2018]] ) have adopted mandatory energy labelling. Other labelling schemes are of voluntary nature, for example, the Energy Star programme in the US ( [[#Ohler--2020|Ohler et al. 2020]] ), which covers many different appliances.

'''Information campaign.''' Provision of information (e.g., public campaigns, targeted technical information, etc.) is a common policy instrument to change end-user behaviour. Many authors agree that the effect of both targeted and general advertisement and campaigns have a short lifetime and the effects tend to decrease over time ( [[#Reiss--2008|Reiss and White 2008]] ; [[#Simcock--2014|Simcock et al. 2014]] ; [[#Diffney--2013|Diffney et al. 2013]] ). The meta-analysis carried out by ( [[#Delmas--2013|Delmas et al. 2013]] ) showed that energy audits and personal information were the most effective followed by providing individuals with comparisons with their peers’ energy use including ‘non-monetary, information-based’ ( [[#Delmas--2013|Delmas et al. 2013]] ). An effective approach integrates the social norm as the basis for information and awareness measures on energy behaviour ( [[#Schultz--2007|Schultz et al. 2007]] ; [[#Gifford--2011|Gifford 2011]] ). Information is more successful when it inspires and engages people: how people feel about a given situation often has a potent influence on their decisions ( [[#Slovic--2006|Slovic and Peters 2006]] ). The message needs to be carefully selected and kept as simple as possible focusing on the following: entertain, engage, embed and educate ( [[#Dewick--2015|Dewick and Owen 2015]] ) ''.''

Energy consumption feedback with smart meters, smart billing and dedicated devices and apps is another instrument recently exploited to reduce energy consumption ( [[#Karlin--2015|Karlin et al. 2015]] ; [[#Buchanan--2018|Buchanan et al. 2018]] ; Zangheri et al. 2019) very often coupled with contest-based interventions or norm-based interventions ( [[#Bergquist--2019|Bergquist et al. 2019]] ). [[#Hargreaves--2018|Hargreaves et al. (2018)]] proposes five core types of action to reduce energy use: turn it off, use it less, use it more carefully, improve its performance, and replace it/use an alternative. According to [[#Aydin--2018|Aydin et al. (2018)]] , technology alone will not be enough to achieve the desired energy savings due to the rebound effect. The lack of interest from household occupants, confusing feedback message and difficulty to relate it to practical intervention, overemphasis on financial savings and the risks of ‘fallback effects’ where energy use returns to previous levels after a short time or rebound effects has been pointed out ( [[#Buchanan--2015|Buchanan et al. 2015]] ) as the main reasons for the failing of traditional feedback. Labanca and [[#Bertoldi--2018|Bertoldi (2018)]] highlight the current limitations of policies for energy conservation and suggests complementary policy approach based on social practices theories.

<div id="2. Market-based instruments" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="market-based-instruments"></span>