National and Provincial Governments
Local Governments
Civil Society Organizations
Owners and Managers Occupants
Developers and Builders Design &
Construction Professionals Suppliers &
Manufacturers Investors
Energy and Water Utilities
Figure 3.1 |
Stakeholders Involved in the Governance of Buildings
Source: Authors and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2009. “Transforming the Market: Energy Efficiency in Buildings.”
http://www.wbcsd.org/transformingthemarketeeb.aspx.
Strategies of Influence for Local Governments
Despite the complex systems by which urban buildings are governed, governments—and local governments in particular—still have a variety of mechanisms available to them by which to influence the efficiency of buildings in their communities.2 These mechanisms for influence can be categorized according to the general roles undertaken by local governments. A local government may act as:
▪
owner/investor;▪
convener/facilitator; and▪
regulator.3Owner/Investor
Local governments invest in, own, and manage physical infrastructure used to provide services.
This infrastructure ranges from buildings (office buildings, schools, hospitals, etc.) to water systems, outdoor lighting, and vehicle fleets. In many cases, local governments also provide some investment in assets that they may not directly own, such as social housing or transportation infrastructure. These physical assets provide an opportunity for local governments to lead by example through taking actions to improve efficiency of energy use directly under their control (see Chapter 9). Such actions, if publicly communicated, can demonstrate the value of efficiency to private market stakeholders and catalyze additional private-sector action. Addi-
tionally, institutionalizing resource efficiency as a founding principle for how the government does business—through guidelines regarding procure- ment, investment, capital asset management, and operations—can stimulate the market for efficiency products and services and, as a result, help to develop local capacity to provide them.
Convener/Facilitator
The leadership role of local governments can also be used to enable voluntary private action through convening and planning partnerships with private- sector leaders, as well as programs to address barriers to action. Local governments play a unique role in most communities as a neutral convener and arbiter among competing interests, but one that also wields the stick of potential regulation.
As place-based institutions, local governments also have a permanent stake in the community and are charged with planning for the best interest of the community over the long term. This function can be used to convene stakeholders to develop a shared vision regarding building efficiency, identify mutu- ally beneficial actions, and catalyze action.4 Such efforts to organize action can help to identify and cultivate “champions for efficiency” who can use their roles in the community to lead. Influenc- ing the practices and business models of a few building owners with large holdings as well as those of major service providers, such as construction firms and management companies, can change
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROLE
TYPICAL LEVEL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL / DIFFICULTY OF IMPLEMENTATION
Owner/investor
Convener/
facilitator
Regulator
Information Public-
sector targets
Retrofits Operations/
maintenance changes
Procurement policy
Convene Facilitate
private-sector initiatives Cultivate
champions Capacity
building/service delivery
Code adoption
Private-Sector targets Mandatory
information Voluntary
information Code
enforcement
Finance Incentives
HIGH/EASIER LOW/DIFFICULT
Table 3.1 |
Local Government Roles, Policy Actions, and Typical Ability to Implement
expectations and transform local markets. Real estate and construction markets often operate at a metropolitan scale, so improved practices in one city can have regional impacts. Local govern- ments in partnership with the private sector can also implement or improve uptake of voluntary programs. Community-driven efforts to promote energy-saving programs may increase demand for the services and lead to significantly higher partici- pation rates and levels of energy savings.5
Regulator
Local governments may have the authority to set or enforce building efficiency regulations and other policies through a combination of mandates and incentives. Although specific areas of authority vary from country to country, and even from city to city, regulation of land use and building construction and management are usually under the purview of local governments. Land-use planning and zon- ing, business and building permitting, and urban codes are among the main regulatory mechanisms
at their disposal. Specific mechanisms used to promote building efficiency include building codes;
expedited permitting incentives; financial incen- tives; programs leveraging municipal finance for private buildings; building performance targets;
and requirements for energy benchmarking, audits, retro-commissioning or equipment upgrades.6 Various actions are available in each of these roles.7 Many local governments around the world are already taking action; as of 2015, over 1,700 build- ing-related actions have been documented among 66 of the largest cities alone.8 While details vary considerably from place to place, some actions are typically under greater control of local governments than others and, therefore, are easier for them to implement successfully. Table 3.1 presents a generalized, global perspective on actions available to local governments on a spectrum from easier to more difficult to implement. Each of these policy actions is explored in more detail in subsequent chapters.
Integrating Building Efficiency into Citywide Planning
Multi-stakeholder, integrative planning is an effec- tive tool to support building-sector governance, policies, and decision-making. Planning processes can focus on building efficiency specifically, or integrate building efficiency as one component of broader urban development/climate action strate- gies to achieve citywide benefits.
Building efficiency can be integrated into plans focused on economic development, resource security, pollution reduction, sustainability, or
other topics. Such integration can help to institu- tionalize efficiency strategies across all departments of a local government as accepted mechanisms for improving city services. It also may be a good choice for smaller cities that are interested in improving buildings through efficiency strategies but are unable to devote staff specifically to build- ing efficiency. One example of a broader citywide plan that includes building efficiency but is focused beyond energy or buildings is Cape Town’s Energy and Climate Action Plan (Box 3.1), which sits under its Integrated Development Plan and is related to its Integrated Metropolitan Environmental Policy. The plan is aimed principally at reducing Cape Town’s
BOX 3.1 | CAPE TOWN’S ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Sources: City of Cape Town. 2010. Moving Mountains: Cape Town’s Action Plan for Energy and Climate Change. https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/EnvironmentalResourceManagement/
publications/Documents/Moving_Mountains_Energy+CC_booklet_2011-11.pdf.
In May 2010, the Cape Town City Council approved the Energy and Climate Action Plan with the overarching goal of achieving energy security. Energy security is of great concern to the city of Cape Town.
The city produces very little of its own electricity and depends heavily on national production, which has been highly unreliable: between 2006 and 2008, Cape Town experienced extensive load shedding, undermining the city’s social and economic
development. The plan consists of two levels of criteria and eleven separate objectives, including adapting and building resilience to climate change, enabling local economic development in the energy sector, raising awareness, and promoting behavior changes through communication and education. Building energy efficiency is integrated into actions to reduce energy consumption. The proposed projects related to buildings include:
▪
Solar water heating installations in residential houses▪
Municipal building retrofits▪
Street light and traffic light retrofits▪
City rental stock upgrades with the installation of insulated ceilings, water meters, and compact fluorescent lightsENERGY SECURITY
Low Carbon
Energy Efficiency
Local Energy Business Development
Poverty Alleviation
Public Transport
Improved Health/Quality of Life
Lower Risk Economic Development
Renewable Energy
Job Creation
Resilient City
Compact City
Better Access to Urban Goods
Localization G O A L C R I T E R I A 1 C R I T E R I A 2 VISION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
dependence on the national electric supply in South Africa, which is unreliable due to the frequent practice of load shedding.9
Some major cities in the United States, Europe, and Asia have developed citywide building efficiency plans. Such plans usually outline a city’s long-term strategy for accelerating building efficiency while providing more structure and purpose around the various policies and programs being undertaken to drive uptake of efficiency in buildings. The plan acts as an overarching framework for a compre- hensive set of building energy efficiency initiatives, sometimes also coupled with renewable energy or climate measures. Putting such a plan in place can help secure funding and staff resources for deliver- ing on building efficiency. New York and Singapore provide good examples of citywide building effi- ciency plans. The New York plan, “One City: Built to Last,” specifically links energy efficiency retrofit- ting goals to improved social equity and economic prosperity outcomes for lower-income citizens.
Singapore’s “Green Building Masterplan” (Box 3.2) combines energy, water and environmental quality, and conservation goals in order to accelerate the
“greening” of Singapore’s building stock.
BOX 3.2 | SINGAPORE’S GREEN BUILDING MASTERPLAN
In late 2014, Singapore unveiled its third Green Building Masterplan (GBM) since 2006. Through the GBMs, Singa- pore aims to increase the energy efficiency, water conserva- tion, and environmental sustainability of at least 80 percent of all buildings in the city by 2030. The first and second GBM were instrumental in helping to increase the number of green buildings in Singapore by almost 100 times, from just 17 in 2005 to about 1,700, which amounts to 21 percent of Singapore’s total gross floor area.
The first GBM required all new public-sector buildings and those undergoing major retrofits to meet minimum standards of environmental sustainability under Singapore’s Green Mark green building scheme. Under the second GBM, all larger, new public-sector buildings have to achieve the highest Green Mark rating (Green Mark Platinum), while all existing buildings owned by government agencies have to achieve Green Mark Gold by or before 2020. The third GBM places greater focus on engaging occupants and tenants, while introducing building energy benchmarking to spur action among building owners and tenants.
Sources: Singapore Building and Construction Authority. 2009. 2nd Green Building Masterplan. Singapore Building and Construction Authority. 2014. 3rd Green Building Masterplan.