EPBD unpacked - Why indoor climate and energy efficiency must be addressed together
ONLINE RECORDING
Welcome to Swegon Air Academy's webinar, where we highlight one of the most critical shifts in European building policy: the integration of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) into the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).
For decades, focus has been on making buildings energy-efficient; however, buildings must also support the health, comfort and productivity of the people inside. It must be ensured that the indoor environment is inseparably linked to energy efficiency – for every person and in all buildings.
In this webinar:
- What the new EPBD means, and why indoor climate and energy performance must be addressed together.
- Experts share insights on EPBD legislative updates, the importance of the indoor environment in EPBD, and the HVAC industry's reflections and challenges at the national level, followed by a panel debate.
- How the EPBD recast is reshaping the way the industry must think about buildings, moving from an energy-efficiency focus, to understanding that they are indoor environments where people live, work and thrive.
Join in and listen to Pawel Wargocki from the Technical University of Denmark, Andrei Vladimir Lițiu from EPB/REHVA, Andreas Martinsson Björkdahl from Svensk Ventilation in Sweden and Åsa Norén Lundh from Swegon. Mikael Börjesson from Swegon will be moderating.
This session is part of the webinar series on EPBD and IEQ, hosted by Swegon Air Academy and free to attend online.
On-demand webinar recording
Questions answered
We received some great questions from audience during the webinar broadcast, and our experts took the time to answer.
What qualifies as a low-emitting building materials?
Pawel Wargocki (PAW): Standard EN16798 provides now some crude criteria. Please refer to them. Also, I would reckon all materials that underwent emission testing and received some certificate (in Denmark, it is the indoor climate label, for example, in Germany Agbb, etc.).
Andreas Martinsson Björkdahl (AMB): Agree with Pawel, with a complement to the M1 classification used in Finland.
Nowadays, we can calculate and therefore easily evaluate energy efficiency in buildings. But what about indoor climate quality – how can we monetise? How can the new building regulations, such as EPBD, assist with it?
PAW: There have been many attempts to monetise. And very successful ones. Yet, they have not been accepted by the practice. One potential reason is the lack of a metric to examine whether the monetary benefits have been reached. REHVA Guidebook 6 provides a crude framework for monetisation. Theoretically, we can show that even 1% improvement in productivity will quickly pay back the investments. In less than 1 to 2 years. Besides, increased satisfaction and improved health will also contribute to benefits. Though they are more difficult to calculate. Recently, harm intensity has been proposed and linked to exposure to pollutants. It can also be used as an approximation.
AMB: No further comments
Åsa Norén-Lundh (ÅNL): If IEQ parameters are introduced in the new Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Energy plans, there will be an incentive to invest in IEQ, as it will add value to our property. I also think that the energy planning, which includes improvement on indoor climate, will drive opportunities to reduce the number of complaints and make the correct adjustments to the system.
What are the challenges in getting data from building control systems? Are the BCS standardised? Is there legislation for the data that is shared?
PAW: Probably GDPR and data security. It is probably the decision of the EU on how to deal with this data.
AMB: There is some standardisation work going on to standardise the BACS systems. But since it's the building owner who also owns the data, and therefore decides what can and can not be shared outside their organisation.
ÅNL: I think the challenge is to find a common language so the building owner can collect data from different sources and comply with a data lake from where they can operate and find other KPI's which they need to report. Systems need to be open and work with API's most probably.
Poorer outdoor air quality requires better filtration. Better filtration creates a greater pressure drop (Pa). Fans need more power (kW).
PAW: I agree. We do not have indoor and outdoor air. We have ONE AIR. So it must be a common effort of improving air quality done both with regard to outdoor and indoor air.
AMB: Indeed, that is the balance that needs to be addressed, but at the same time, not to use good filtration with high outdoor pollution causes other problems with the quality of the air. Using filters with good energy efficiency, such as A or A+ (where possible), according to the EUROVENT rating scheme, is a good start to minimise energy consumption while maintaining high filtration.
How can we persuade all people that IEQ is as important as energy efficiency? Or a better question to all of you - personally, who do we have to convince that IEQ + energy efficiency are equals?
PAW: It is a million-dollar question. It seems the strategies used so far had some effect, but not sufficiently large. I think we must start benchmarking and monitoring to document building conditions better. Additionally, we need to change the narrative to focus on the good that improved IEQ delivers. We are also working on other arguments. Again, a million-dollar question. An important one and difficult to answer.
AMB: As stated in my presentation, to do a good IEQ/IAQ or good energy performance is a relatively easy task, but to do them both at the same time is much harder. Down the line, it's easy to monetise energy efficiency, but much harder to do it for good IAQ, see PAW's answer to the second question. But I fully agree with the question, we need to address this much more since we build buildings to stay/live in.
ÅNL: Good question. I guess we have not cracked that one yet…but one way is to make different stakeholders more aware of what IEQ means in relation to energy efficiency. Maybe it is not a “one or the other discussion” and package and simplify solutions that work. And then we need to show in the cost-benefit calculation what it gives in Return on investment, not only saving energy but having a more attractive property with happy tenants. Increase the value and save operational expenses.