Strengths, weaknesses and future developments

078

3.6. Strengths, weaknesses

079 Another important issue will concern the execution

time to carry out the evaluation. The study has alre-ady estimated times for a competent operator with all the necessary information to assign the right functionality levels. A potential solution to facilita-te the evaluation process could be the use of “Bu-ilding Information Models” or the establishment of standardized labels to be applied to “SmartReady”

products.

(26th march stakeholder meeting)

Many of the reflections reported are the result of a bibliographical analysis, but also a reflection of what emerged during the discussion from the first sta-keholder of the second technical study on the 26th of March 2019. During the meeting, the progress of the study of the indicator was presented, reminding the outcomes of the first study. The next steps in the policymaking process, in view of the adoption of the SRI legal acts by mid-2020 have been explained. In conclusion, the stakeholders took part in a discus-sion about the SRI value proposition and implemen-tation pathways and the consolidation of the SRI calculation methodology.

(COST-BENEFITS IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

The technical study elaborates also an impact as-sessment in order to analyse the cost and benefits due to Smart ready technologies in buildings spread inside the European Union.

The first part of this analysis consists of modelling the European building stock in the five geographi-cal areas (defined by the new EPBD). Two scenarios were taken from this survey to represent the

pos-sible paths of the building sector, the first is called

“Agreed Amendments” and corresponds to an ap-plication of the EPBD without additional measures, while the second is “Agreed Amendments + Ambi-tious Implementation” which considers a more am-bitious implementation EPBD. The second part of the impact assessment is based on evaluating the effects that the spread of smart ready technologies (SRT) and SRI would bring.

The analysis is conducted in three ways depending on weather and the building system (heating, coo-ling or both) and three different scenarios are taken into consideration:

• SRT_BAU: No implementation of SRI, there are only incentives for

smart technologies, or rather the autonomous evo-lution that can be observed in the current market.

• SRT_Moderate implementation: Voluntary imple-mentation of the SRI, measures of moderate accom-paniment and mid-level introduction in member states.

• SRT_High implementation: involuntary implemen-tation of SRI, measures of strong accompaniment and high introduction in member states.

The working hypothesis is based on the following assumptions: SRI will bring a classification system common in the European Union in such a way that smart technology or service providers they could position themselves according to the SRI level they offer. This will create a common structure that will be encouraged the adoption and dissemination of these technologies.

080

Fig.22 Final thermal energy savings SRT scenarios (SRI project)

The rate of adoption of smart services and their connection with the SRI will be strongly influenced by the adoption and support policies that member countries will decide to have. The impact will also be time-dependent, the more the use of the indicator will become consolidated over time, the market will become familiar to it.

For this evaluation, it’s used a model with SRI di-vided into 4 levels (I to IV) where the value higher corresponds to a building with more improvements translated into CO₂ emission savings.

An annual growth rate of smart ready technologies is determined for each scenario. For each one, it’s also determined (for example from I to II) the relative potential savings in terms of thermal and electrical energy as a percentage compared to real

demand and the investment cost per m² of the sur-face.

The combination of the development rate with the potential improvement of the SRI results in overall savings and cost investment (CAPEX) implementa-tion in the construcimplementa-tion sector.

As regards CO₂ emissions, a 61% reduction is esti-mated from current levels by 2050 under the condi-tion of “Agreed Amendments” and 67% in “Agreed Amendments + Ambitious Implementation ”.

While taking into consideration the different scena-rios obtained by the spread of smart ready techno-logies, as regards energy saving, a saving of around 150 TWh / a is considered in 2050 in the SRT_BAU scenario, while for the SRT_Medium and SRT_High scenarios they consider the implementation of the SRI and of the regulatory measures associated

081 with it savings is respectively of approximately 350

TWh/a and 420 TWh/a (see Figure 22).

The average economic return of smart ready tech-nologies considering annual investments and pre-viously cited savings is between 2 and 6 years.

(SRI RATING vs EPC RATING)

There is a potential synergy between the SRI and the “Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)” (in Italy known as “Attestato di Prestazione Energetica (APE)”) which includes the future possibility of a sin-gle assessment process for both, in order to reduce significantly the costs and to stimulate more inter-vention on the updating of the building’s capacities and functions or the possibility of a communication platform between the two so that potentially useful information is accessible from one to the other.

The distinction that remains clear between the two is that the SRI has a voluntary nature while the EPC is mandatory and also the services and functionali-ties can be significantly different both in the defini-tion and in the invasiveness of the updating inter-ventions.

The clear relationship between the two could be the goal of a subsequent investigation, an evaluation would be necessary that clearly clarifies the overlap as regards methodology and wealth of information, coming to establish the criteria with which to build eventual communication platforms or the possible sharing of assessment methods.