未来资源研究所-建立绩效标准：碳政策的教训（英文）-2020.10-27页_1mb

Building Performance Standards: Lessons from Carbon Policy

Core Content

This document explores the design and implementation of Building Performance Standards (BPS) programs, drawing lessons from three decades of experience with carbon and environmental markets. It highlights how BPS programs can be influenced by the principles and mechanisms used in carbon policy, such as price formation, target setting, and flexibility provisions, to effectively reduce building-related emissions.

Key Authors

• Véronique Bugnion: PhD in Climate Physics, MSc in Technology and Policy from MIT, CEO of ClearlyEnergy, which provides energy and climate data solutions to the real-estate and finance industries.
• Karen Palmer: Senior Fellow and Director of the Future of Power Initiative at Resources for the Future (RFF), specializing in environmental and energy regulation, particularly in the electricity sector.

Key Information

• Building Emissions: Buildings account for 50 to 80 percent of urban energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In Tokyo, 64 percent of emissions come from buildings; in New York, 66 percent; in Boston, 72 percent.
• BPS Programs: These programs aim to reduce building energy and emissions by setting performance standards. They differ from traditional building code compliance by focusing on post-construction performance.
• BPS Design Elements: These include setting targets, defining scope (by size or emissions), and incorporating flexibility mechanisms like banking, offsets, and trading.

Main Points

1. Scope of BPS Programs

• Entity Coverage: BPS programs typically cover buildings based on size or emissions. Tokyo uses an emissions-based threshold (1,500,000 liters of oil equivalent), while New York uses a size-based threshold (25,000 sq.ft.).
• Data Importance: High-quality historical data is essential for accurate baseline setting and program calibration.
• Trade-offs:
  • Size-based thresholds may include more buildings but risk higher leakage.
  • Emissions-based thresholds target the largest emitters and reduce management costs.
  • Compliance Risk: Both approaches can lead to leakage if compliance costs are significant and tenants are sensitive to cost increases.

2. Price Formation

• Compliance Costs: These can be expressed as cost per unit of emissions or energy consumption reduced.
• Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Curve: A tool to evaluate cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures.
• Trading Dynamics: In tradable markets, building owners can optimize investments by using market prices to guide efficiency improvements.
• Example: In a hypothetical BPS program, the average cost per square foot for compliance is $0.08 with trading, compared to $3.90 without trading, showing a significant cost savings.

3. Targets and Timetables

• Short-term vs. Long-term Targets: Short-term targets may not incentivize long-term investments, while long-term targets face political uncertainty.
• Tokyo: Sets five-year compliance targets and has a long-term goal of 30% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by the future.
• DC: Requires a 20% efficiency improvement every five years for buildings not meeting initial ENERGY STAR targets.
• NYC: Sets targets through 2034 and will define 2050+ objectives by 2023.
• Target Types:
  • Absolute Targets: Require all entities to reduce emissions from historical levels. Can be unfair to already efficient buildings.
  • Benchmark (or Intensity) Targets: Set efficiency goals based on emissions or consumption per unit of output. Used in DC and NYC.

4. Flexibility Mechanisms

• Banking: Excess compliance can be banked for future use.
• Offsets: Buildings can use low-carbon energy sources or purchase credits from entities that overcomply.
• Linking: BPS programs can be linked to broader carbon markets to increase efficiency and participation.
• Alternative Compliance: Allows for prescriptive pathways, such as the "bubble" approach, where building owners can optimize across their portfolios.

5. Interactions with Existing Policies

• Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS): State-level policies that require a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources.
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): A regional cap-and-trade program that BPS programs can interact with.
• Electricity Markets: BPS programs can influence electricity demand and thus impact the broader energy market.
• Transport Electrification: As buildings become more efficient, their energy demand may decrease, indirectly affecting transport electrification efforts.

Conclusion

The design of BPS programs should incorporate elements from carbon policy, such as clear targets, flexible compliance mechanisms, and market-based incentives. These programs must balance the need for effective emissions reduction with the practical challenges of implementation and compliance. The success of BPS programs will depend on their ability to interact with existing climate regulations and to create a robust, transparent, and efficient market for building performance improvements.