SRI indicator evaluates buildings by category A-G and it should demonstrate “how building can manage itself, how interact with its occupants, how smooth is in operation of connected energy grid”.
Brief remind how SRI is counted :
10 domains (HVAC + ) are separately evaluated by delivered services (services are listed in catalogue, number of services is depending on type of building)
Then
Services are evaluated by achieved level (0-4)
Then
Level of service is weighted by criteria A-H (services, feasibility, information etc) by points (0-100)
Then
Services are weighted by impacts
Then final result A-G
Possible risks :
Number of assessments could cause possibility for subjective results or even worse – assessment „on demand“
Case study tested time consumption of SRI methodology but didn´t take into account claims for documentation and other materials on background.
If current EPC assessment is recognized as generating performance gap, SRI provides even bigger possibility of PG.
SRI tries suggest that energy consumption is a matter of intelligent regulation of HVAC solved by another technology
There are other problematic issues precisely described as recommendations in Judith´s paper. It looks to be evident that those recommendations can be hardly fulfilled with current model of SRI.
At that case ACE position should be reserved, if not directly refusing.
One-shop-stop is proposed as an advisory point where steps of building´s renovations are advised by „somebody“ . That provision should be recognized as one of the most tricky on EPBD .
Electromobility - claims for new technical requirements as infrastructure, charging points in building.
Behalf of ACE we do not have position on that issue. Electromobility is in directive justified by „clean air“ in cities - what seems to be narrow view on environment issues. Even more there is a preambula which claims “keeping neutrality of technology”.
Electromobility is dealing with some unsolved externalities as consequences of lithium mining, sustainable handling with batteries, readiness of grid, fire protection (garages), quarantines of repaired cars etc.
(particulary claim for charging points in garages goes against not existing rules of fire protection)
Electromobility is still technology being under development and legislative support is premature.
Level (s) current EPBD has problems with missing holistic assessment of energy consumption. It is question whether levels could be that methodology as is mentioned in EPBD directive at article concerning rules for a financial support. To know it should help to raise interest for testing Levels by professionals.
Renovation passport – some improvements and standardization of as-build documentation and operational manuals are reasonable.
But RP should avoid to :
- envisage development of future technology
- not become back-door for BIM
Pavel Martinek 20.3.2019