implementing energy standards for motors and buildings in

Implementing

ABSTRACT

Energy Standards for Motors and Buildings in the Philippines

Stephen Wiel and John BuschEnvironmental Energy Technologies Division

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeley CA

Cecilia SanchezLeverage International, Inc.

Manila, The Philippines

Joe DeringerThe Deringer Group

Berkeley CA

Ed Femandez and Mima C’ompanano

Department of EnergyManila, The Philippines

The Philippines’ master plan for energy makes cornerstones of energy standards for appliances,buildings, and motors in their energy efficiency effort. Significant progress has been made inimplementing appliance standards for some products, but has lagged for others. This has been partlybecause the resources allocated have dictated a cautious deliberate approach. Products where there hasbeen a lack of information about the respective markets have received lowest priority. Motors fall inthis latter category. In their development of building codes, the Philippine government has also taken acautious deliberate approach and is just now attending to the compliance of a commercial buildingenergy performance standard that was enacted into law in 1994. This paper describes the results ofrecent new buildings and motor market assessments carried out in the Philippines, a survey of buildingenergy code implementation in other countries, and how these products are being used to furtherimplementation of energy standards in the Philippines. Lessons for other countries are drawn from thisexperience.

History of the Development of Energy Performance Standards in the Philippines

Appliance Standards

The Government of the Philippines in its energy master plan specified that the Department ofEnergy’s Fuel and Appliance Testing Laboratory (FATL) take the responsibility to develop energyperformance testing capabilities, test procedures, labels and standards for small air conditioners,refrigerators, lighting ballasts, fans, and electric motors. Activities are currently well underway atFATL for all the products except motorsl. Unlike with each of the other products, information on the

numerous suppliers of motors, data on the characteristics of the multitude of motor models imported

i An energy performance standard for air conditioners was adopted in 1996. A standard for refrigerators is scheduled to

come into effect in 1998. Development of energy performance standards for lighting ballasts and fans is underway.

Implementing Energy Standards for Motors and Buildings in the Philippines -5.339

from countries all over the world, and data on use of motors directly and within other productsassembled in the Philippines are not available. There are no motor manufacturers in the Philippines(Leverage 1998a). FATL staff, which has historically relied on the support of local manufacturers andassociations in the establishment of testing facilities and the rest of the standards program, has beenhampered in pursuing its electric motor energy efficiency labels and standards program by this lack ofbasic market information. Likewise, three electricity distribution companies initiating pilot DSMprograms oriented to increasing motor efficiency for large commercial and industrial customers say theyare unlikely to continue on to full implementation for the same lack of market characterization thatplagues FATL (Lirios 1997 and Puga 1997).

Building Code

In the late 1980s to early 1990s, the Philippines along with several other countries in SoutheastAsia adopted energy standards for commercial buildings. These standards were developed withtechnical assistance provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) undersponsorship of the US. Agency for International Development (USAID) (Deringer and Busch, 1990).The standards adopted by these countries were modeled after the American Society of Heating,Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 for non-residential buildings(ASHRAE 1989) and the standard adopted by Singapore in 1979. In each country, committeescomprised of local government officials, professionals, and other building industry representativesadapted the standard to local conditions of weather, construction practice, and desired stringency. Eachcountry adopted the standard as either voluntary or mandatory, and implemented it according to localpolitical dictates.

In the Philippines, the course of the building energy standard has evolved in a deliberate orderlymanner (Elauria, 1996). The building energy standard was initially developed between 1988 and 1989under the leadership of the Philippine Department of Energy (DOE). In 1990, a public hearing was heldto solicit input from practitioners within the buildings industry. In 1992, the Department of PublicWorks and Highways (DPWH), which holds responsibility for issuing the National Building Code(NBC), approved the building energy standard as a Referral Code. In 1993, the building energystandard was advertised in the news media for several weeks. In 1994, the Philippines issued theirbuilding energy standard, “Guidelines for Energy Conserving Design of Buildings and Utility Systems,”which covers all new buildings with at least 150 kW of installed air-conditioning electrical demand(DOE, 1993). The NBC along with all associated referral codes is mandatory. However, theGuidelines have not been enforced, and by all accounts are not being followed (Leverage 1997a). At thetime the Guidelines were issued, major changes were taking place in the way the NBC wasimplemented. Responsibility for compliance shifted to local jurisdictions under the Department ofInterior and Local Government (DILG). No special measures have been taken to incorporate theGuidelines into the duties of local officials assigned to enforce the NBC, nor were any procedures beingformally considered until discussions among the three relevant agencies began in late 1997, stimulatedby the LBNL support for DOE.

5.340- Wiel, et. al.

Motor Standards Development in the Philippines

The Electric Motor Industry in the Philippines

Our survey (Leverage 1997b) confirmed that no electric motors are manufactured in thePhilippines. It indicates that about 3 million motors are imported each year, roughly 30?40by largeusers, 20°/0 by manufacturers who install the motors in other products before selling them in the retailmarket, and 50°/0by 273 motor distributors for direct resale in the retail market. Three quarters of themotors representing half the value come from Taiwan, Korea, and China. Another 15°/0representing17% come from other neighboring countries. The US, Japan, and Germany are the primary sources ofthe larger, more efficient of the motors that are used in the Philippines. They account for about 8’?40ofthe motors by number and 29% by value.

In the absence of any local manufacturers, the lead players are the distributors who import themotors from other countries and resell them to users who are mostly manufacturing firms. Anexamination of the purchasing habits of Filipino manufacturing firms revealed a tendency to buy cheapmotors in order to minimize initial capital outlay. Companies tend to choose the least expensiveequipment that they think can do the job satisfactorily. Reliability in the form of long life and lowmaintenance and immediate availability primarily determine satisfaction. Eighty-three percent of therespondent motor users do not have efficiency purchase criteria. In the absence of concrete proof tosubstantiate claims about energy efficient products (such as longer life, better performance, and lowerutility bills) that can be translated into economic benefits and of personal experience with the moreenergy efficient product, companies are hesitant to change their purchase habits. A program totransform the motor market toward improved energy efficiency would benefit from better shelfavailability of the more efficient products, better and impartial information about them, and directexperience with them.

Filipino plant engineers who mostly run production lines are at the forefront of motorpurchasing decisions. All companies interviewed reported regular inspection of their motors, eightypercent of them using physical measurements. Usually, plant engineers recommend which motors topurchase and then their purchasing departments determine available brand, prices and deliveryschedule. Seventy-four percent of respondents favor repair if the cost is lower and the other 26°/0 favorimmediate replacement. The eight respondents who do specify motor efficiency as a purchaserequirement request information about motor horsepower, temperature rise and insulation class,maximum starting current, power factor range, and efficiency ratio. Fewer than a quarter of thecompanies surveyed have in-house laboratories to test the performance of the motors they purchase orof motors that are failing.

Forty-six motor rewinders are listed in the Metro manila phone directory, although respondentsbelieve there are over a hundred including backyard rewinding shops. Most rewinders have had formaltraining. There is no certification required or available for rewinders.

Based on our interviews, there are enough barriers to the purchase of energy efficient productsand enough passed-by opportunities for energy efficiency purchases to warrant further exploration intothe benefits of an energy performance standard for motors. There are also enough cooperative users,distributors and rewinders to allow meaningful sector representation in the process of developingtesting capability, labels and efficiency standards for motors in the Philippines.


The Forthcoming Process of Electric Motors Standard Development

This study is just one element in a series of events needed in the process of establishing energyefficiency performance standards for electric motors in the Philippines. It is intended to help formulatethe process to be followed in developing a testing capability, labels, and standards for electric motors.Other elements, such as forecasting fhture demand for motors in the Philippines and development of anend-use data base which characterizes the efficiency of the various motors used in the Philippinestoday, are also needed for preparing estimates of the savings that would result from standards of anyparticular stringency. Coupled with estimates of the total cost to the Philippine economy, suchanalyses will allow an assessment of the overall benefits from any proposed standard.

At the same time as these assessments of the efficacy of potential standards, FATL will beexploring the desirability of developing a capability in the Philippines to test the energy performance ofmotors. FATL is currently preparing for such an assessment and will pursue funds for such a facilityif the study indicates the need.

Once a testing method and protocol is determined and testing capability is assured, the processof establishing labels and standards will begin. All of this activity will be coordinated by a MotorAdvisory Committee, with FATL and the Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of ProductStandards (BPS) providing the primary effort. FATL will develop the testing capability, oversee thetechnical content of the labeling requirements, and participate in recommending the stringency of thestandard. BPS is set up to issue the proposed standards for public comment, circulate commentsreceived through appropriate committees and agencies, and publish the new standard.

Building Code Compliance in the Philippines

The Buildings Industry in the Philippines

Over 25,000 new buildings were constructed during the first three months of 1997, of which70% were classified as residential, 11YOwere non-residential and the rest(19Yo) were additions,alterations & repairs. Nearly five million square meters of buildings floor area was constructed in thePhilippines over the last four years. Of the non-residential buildings, commercial establishments (retailshops and offices) account for 50°/0 of the total number constructed, while apartments and hotelsaccount for the rest. The commercial property sector, which encompasses both business offices &shopping centers, is concentrated on the island of Luzon in the capital city of Manila (Leverage 1998b).

Six different groups in the buildings industry were targeted in a market survey in order toascertain the processes of development and design, the market for building products, and the status ofcode compliance: architectural firms & architects, engineering firms and designers, building contractors,building owners/developers, electrical contractors, and code officials. The following information isgleaned from those surveys (Leverage 1998b).

Structure of Development and Design Processes

Survey results from a sample of 20 leading architectural firms indicate that about 65’% of newcommercial building projects during the last five years were developed by owner-occupiers, 30°/0 byspeculative builders and 5°/0by the public sector. Of those developed by owner-occupiers, 5°/0areforeign owned while 25% are joint ventures between Filipinos and foreigners, and the rest are owned by

5.342- Wie~, et. al.

locals. Ofthose developed byspeculative builders,70Y0 arelocally owned,20% are foreign owned and10’%0are joint ventures.

A striking feature of the market in the capital city is the widening gap in quality of buildings.About 57’% of these buildings are more than 15 years old, while only 17’?40of office buildings areconsidered to be of Grade A quality (those with business amenities sought by translational companiesto support modern business technologies).

Survey results from fifteen leading architectural and engineering firms and contractors revealedthat between 50% and 70% of large commercial buildings were designed by local designers and the restby foreign designers. About 90% of medium and small size commercial buildings were designed bylocal designers.

Most owners of new buildings hire the services of architectural firms for the architectural designportion only. However, some developers, like Moldex Land, Inc., do some of their projects on adesign-supervise scheme (10’Yoof their projects) and design-build scheme (40V0 of their projects).

For the engineering design portion, most owner-developers carry this out as a separate contractwith an engineering design firm. However, some owners relegate the task of sub-contracting theengineering design portion to architects, as Antel Land Holdings, Inc. does for 60°/0 of its projects. Thearchitects in this situation collect the payment for both the engineering and architectural design jobs.

The fee for architectural design services varies among firms from 2 to 10 per cent of totalproject cost. The engineering design services fee is usually included in the architectural design fee.

According to the Philippine Constructors Association, most building projects are bid out byowners and developers to prospective contractors. Usually, the contractor who comes up with thelowest bid gets the contract. However, as building owners become choosy and wary, the decision onwho will get the contract becomes a protracted one with factors like contractor’s track record, image,financial capability, business practice and personal relationships with building owners taken intoconsideration before a final decision is made.

Some Filipino building owners have hired foreign design consultants in order to introduceforeign technology in the design process with a view towards constructing energy efficient and“intelligent” buildings. In these instances, translational corporations are the prime target market ofthese buildings and foreign designers are presumed to be more adept at the requirements of foreign-based tenants. On the other hand, owners of mid-rise structures who have middle-income Filipinofirms as prospective tenants are reluctant to adopt the technologies inherent in energy-efficientbuildings. They argue that however cost efficient such technologies may be in the long run, present daybudgets pose the biggest constraint. They often are not aware that an energy efficient building that isproperly designed, could be less expensive to build because extra costs for energy efficiency in somecomponents of the building are often more than offset by lower costs of smaller capacity coolingequipment.

Market for Commercial Building Equipment and Materials

Responses fi-om five leading contractors confirmed that about 30% of large buildings useimported ventilation and air-conditioning units. Most of them are sourced from the United States whilethe rest are from Europe and Japan. About 90?40of medium and small buildings use locally-made orlocally-assembled air conditioning units. Most medium-size buildings use package type units that arelocally made and assembled while small buildings use mostly split-type units which are locally made.For large buildings, Energy Management Control Systems are sourced from the United States andJapan. Small and medium rise buildings normally do not generally have such systems.


For lighting, about 80’%0of large buildings use imported lighting fixtures and controls, while45’%0.of medium and small buildings do so. For the building envelope, both large and medium sizebuildings use locally manufactured glass.

Status of Code Enforcement

Current status of building code enforcement in the country is reported to be dismal, totallyapart from the relatively new energy sections of the Code. Local government units are generally notaware of or not fully trained in the application of many sections of the Code. Moreover, a number ofbuilding officials are said to be interested mostly in the collection of building permit fees whereby theyusually ask for “extra representation expenses” to expedite processing of the necessary permits. Withadditional “representation expenses”, permits are processed instantly, fi-om 1 to 3 weeks wherenormally it takes months. Other reasons for the non-enforcement of building codes includes a shortageof inspection personnel due to budgetary constraints. Some buildings get inspected while most do not.Typically, government bureaucratic practices do not get public attention unless a disaster happens andtakes its toll.

Lessons Learned from Building Code Compliance in Other Countries

The following conclusions and recommendations, drawn from the results of a survey of 23 U.S.states and countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America and from the experiences of theauthors, address issues that are germane not only to the Philippines, but also more broadly to othercountries and jurisdictions developing or implementing energy standards for buildings.

Adopt as Mandatory

The survey results indicate that mandatory adoption is important to the success of an energystandard. In 3 of the 4 jurisdictions that have voluntary compliance with the energy standard, theenergy standard is essentially ignored. Respondents from one jurisdiction with voluntaryimplementation stated this opinion directly. In another jurisdiction, voluntary adoption is reportedlybeing treated simply as an interim condition, and the standard is intended to become mandatory as soonas possible. Of all the jurisdictions surveyed, the only indications that implementation is ineffectivecame from jurisdictions with voluntary adoption. The implication here is that the mandatory adoptionof an energy standard is essential for it to be taken seriously.

Clearly Define Roles, Responsibilities, and Authority

Survey responses and other experiences of the authors show there should be clearly definedroles, responsibilities, and unequivocal authority given to one or more organizations to carry outimplementation activities for the building energy standard. There is no one best model for how tostructure various implementation roles and responsibilities; it depends on the circumstances particularto each jurisdiction. No entity should be assigned responsibility without being given the commensurateauthority to effectively carry it out. However, a common theme emerges fi-om the survey in whichthree primary roles of compliance are carried out by different entities: administrative oversight,enforcement, and standard development and revision. Typically the administrative oversight functionis carried out at a national or regional level by an organization whose charter is buildings or energy


efficiency. The enforcement function is often carried at a local level by building code officials alreadyresponsible for health and life-safety. The standard evaluation and revision function is typically carriedout at the national level. It is not necessary, or necessarily even desirable, that the entity thatimplements the standard would be the same entity that developed the standard, or that would evaluateimplementation results or would manage the effort to revise the standard. No matter how the roles aredivided, the best successes occur when each of the entities are active in conducting their own roles inclose coordination with the others, working towards achieving common objectives.

Enforcement is Key

Experience shows that it is not enough to pass a law concerning an energy standard and toassign an agency to oversee implementation. The organization charged with responsibility forcompliance needs to demonstrate its serious intent to enforce the standard. Enforcement in this contextis generally synonymous with exercising authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. Thefollowing types of penalties are typical and particularly effective:

● stop construction● withhold an occupancy permit● levy a monetary fine

Enforcement needs to be demonstrated, for at least some buildings, both before and afterconstruction. If building designs and constructed buildings are found to not be in compliance, then theymust be cited and required to comply or respect for the mandate will be lost.

Experience also shows the benefit of adopting specific measures to encourage and to trackcompliance enforcement. One approach used is to require detailed compliance reviews for at least 10°/0of the floor area constructed or 10% of the buildings constructed (whichever is larger). Anotherapproach is to publicly document enforcement results. These compliance reviews would be publishedin the public record periodically, along with a record of the actions taken on specific building projects inthe case of non-compliance.

Several enforcement approaches encourage compliance using positive incentives. The followingincentives for compliance may prove beneficial:

. monetary awards for surpassing compliance by some amount● public notification award for surpassing compliance by some amount● award of Labels of Achievement to Buildings● subsidized technical assistance

Providing incentives for complying with the energy standard, and for surpassing the standardby 10% to 30Y0, are programs that are widely used in conjunction with energy standards. Normally,such programs have been part of electric utility incentive and rebate programs, but some programs suchas the US EPA “Energy Star Building” award and labeling program, have been accomplished bygovernment agencies.

Penalties and incentives used in combination can be especially effective, with penalties used toensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the energy standard, and, at the same time,incentives used to encourage the design and construction to go beyond those requirements.

Develop a Transparent and Easy-to-Follow Compliance Process

Survey respondents reported strongly and consistently that complexity in the complianceprocess has a very negative impact and should be avoided. Complexity does more than cause


resentment in the user and induce unnecessary compliance costs; it hinders the building designer fromfinding the most cost-effective building design to satis~ the code within his or her design criteria. It isbest to develop and disseminate a set of compliance procedures, forms, manuals, and tools that clearlydescribe what compliance documents are to be submitted, by whom, to whom, and when. Includingsubstantial participation by members of the building industry that will ultimately need to use theproducts – including architects, engineers, building owners, developers, manufacturers, and contractors– will help ensure that the compliance process is kept simple, and that the products are clear and easyto use. In prescriptive form, this experience can be stated as follows:

● Compliance procedures should be clearly defined in detail. They should be as simple aspossible and segregated by size of building, with the smallest buildings having the simplestprocedures.

● Compliance procedures and forms should be filly explained and documented in compliancemanuals.

“ All compliance procedures, forms and manuals should be field tested on one or more realbuildings under design of different sizes and types (e.g., office, retail, hotel). Members of thegroup setting compliance policies should be involved in the field tests.This can best be achieved if the standard itself is easy to understand. Simplifying compliance

with a complicated standard may be an exercise in futility. Ideally the building energy standard isconceived and developed with the compliance process in mind. ASHRAE’s Standard 90.1, for example,has included several potential alternate compliance paths that trade off compliance complexity andflexibility. This approach appears to be at least partially successful in reducing complexity. On theother hand, adequate field testing of compliance complexity by the persons developing the standardsrarely seems to occur, despite the fact that it is generally considered to be highly beneficial.

Establish an Ongoing Process of Evaluation and Revision

After implementation of the energy standard is accomplished, a review and revision cycle isneeded. The survey results show the presence of an ongoing revision process, with revisions occurringevery several years, to be a consistent characteristic of “mature” energy standards programs.

Such a routine revision cycle presents a regular opportunity to simplifi and harmonize thestandard and its compliance process. It also allows for regular increases in the standard’s stringency tokeep up with technology and building industry market trends. Both the standard and itsimplementation benefit from routine review, evaluation and revision as appropriate. In order that theagency with compliance oversight is not evaluating itself, an independent entity is needed for theevaluation task.

Effective evaluation processes include at least selective monitoring of the following impacts ofthe energy standard: energy impacts, energy cost impacts, construction cost impacts, and cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis is best conducted from both a societal economicperspective and a private building owner financial perspective.

Another potential subject for evaluative review is the assessment of the overall administrativecost of complying with and enforcing compliance with the energy standard. This would includeestimates of the time and cost of building owners and designers for complying with the requirements,plus the cost to various entities administering the program and enforcing the standard. These costswould be factored into an overall assessment of cost-effectiveness of the standard to the jurisdictioninvolved. These costs would not be consistently available until the implementation has been underwayfor some period of time

.5.346- Wiel, et. al.

Survey results identified stringency as a key implementation issue, and 3 out of 4 surveyresponses indicate that stringency enhances implementation effectiveness. No matter how effective theimplementation program is, if the building energy standard is weak, it will not save energy and will beperceived as ineffective and a waste of time and money.

Stringency levels are most effective and respected when they are based, insofar as possible, oncost effectiveness analysis, balancing the national economic perspective and the financial perspective ofthe building owner. From experience of some jurisdictions going through the revision process,stringency of the standard could substantially increase over its existing level when based on cost-effectiveness. However, stringency levels may need to be tempered by consideration of several potentbarriers to substantial increases in building energy efficiency, including: availability of energy efficientproducts in the marketplace; the desire to maintain the competitiveness of in-country manufacturers;and, the current levels of energy efficiency skill and knowledge by in-country design professionals.

Make A Government Commitment

Effective leadership is important to successful implementation. Our survey indicatesgovernment policy support as a key success factor in implementing standards. For a standard to beeffective, government must show its commitment by assigning a capable, motivated, and sufficientlysenior person to oversee the implementation program. It should also demonstrate commitment to thepolicy by earmarking budget and staff to carry out the program. Fees for energy standard permitsestablished and charged to building developers are effective in helping cover building-by-buildingenforcement costs and enhancing the image of the importance of the program. Such fees might be higherthan required just to cover local enforcement costs inn order to generate additional revenue directed tohelp support the cost of the overall program administration at the national or state/ provincial levels.This approach may bean effective way of providing program stability by assuring adequate funds toprovide implementation services when government budgets are tight.

Train and Inform Stakeholders

Training is a key component of successful implementation of all energy standards. This isparticularly true for standards imposed on the typically decentralized buildings industry. Our surveyshowed that the most common factor limiting the effective implementation of building standards isinsufficient technical and management training. Most jurisdictions understand the need to train thosestakeholders most directly affected by the standard -- designers and code officials – and they providetraining programs for them. Advertising /marketing programs for energy standards have also had thesame general focus on designers and code officials.

Less prevalent are training or advertising /marketing programs geared towards other keydecision-makers: equipment suppliers, owners and developers, bankers, real estate agents, andbuilders/contractors. Yet, each of these stakeholder groups make decisions in their daily roles that caninfluence a building’s compliance with the standard specifically, or energy efficiency generally, eithernegatively or positively. At a minimum, advertising or information programs are helpful in informingeach of these stakeholder groups about the benefits of the energy standards. The most effectiveinformation programs emphasize how changes in the decisions of each of these stakeholder groups canpositively improve energy efficiency and cost effectiveness of buildings, which in turn can benefit thedecision maker and the country as a whole. In addition, specific training programs for thosestakeholders can further shift those decisions in positive directions.

Implementing Energy Standards for Motors and Basildings in the Philippines -5.347

Encourage Participation and Support of Building Industry Suppliers

In other countries, building industry suppliers have provided valuable input to the development

and revision of energy standards. Suppliers are intimately familiar with the levels of energy efficiency

of products available and being purchased in the marketplace. They also have a very good

understanding of what will and will not work in the marketplace. Suppliers often favor energy

standards, since energy efficiency standards encourage the use of usually more expensive and

profitable, products. Suppliers can help accelerate the pace of implementation or, at least, not act as an

impediment.

A key issue to address is how to get balanced input for each major type of building equipment

and not to give advantage to one company over others via their participation as part of a standard

setting or implementing process. One way is to have key people participate via membership in

relevant trade associations. Another way is to invite participation of at least 2 key representatives

from each sector - lighting, glazing, and air-conditioning. If this is done, some effort should be made to

balance interests of large international firms and domestic firms.

Possible Approaches to Code Compliance in the Philippines

The Philippine Government now faces the challenge of designing a compliance mechanism forits commercial building code. As mentioned previously, the code is not yet enforced. There are nocompliance procedures, and responsibilities have not yet been agreed upon among the three agenciesinvolved. DOE, in accepting support from USAID in characterizing the commercial buildingconstruction and permitting process, is attempting to stimulate the development of a compliancemechanism. The LBNL/Leverage study funded by USAID has resulted in the reconvening of theBuilding Adviso~ Committee that served as advisor to the Government of the Philippines in theadoption of the building code in 1994. The Committee, at its first meeting since the code became law,reached strong consensus on a collaborative compliance process among DPWH, DILG and DOE. Therecommended process would have DILG responsible for the processing of building permits, inspectionof plans and construction, and enforcement of compliance. DOE would be responsible for monitoringcompliance of the code, evaluating the effectiveness of the code, and recommending technical updates inthe code to DPWH. DPWH would be responsible for updating the code from time to time.Discussions on this scheme have begun at the Undersecretary level among the three Ministries.

What role each of the three Ministries might agree upon and what resources each might devoteto energy performance compliance is yet to be determined. The situation is complicated by the factthat polls show the incumbent party unlikely to recapture the Presidency in a national election in June1998. If a new party takes power, there will surely be new Ministers in all three of the agenciesresponsible for code compliance. This causes great uncertainty now about how a compliance planmight turn out.

Furthermore, there are additional complexities. For example, it is unclear whether new localordinances will be required to modi~ existing building code permitting processes to add energyperformance permitting. One opinion is that there is a good possibility that this can be achieved by thenational government, but legal research is required before such an approach could be initiated. And thepolitical acceptability of such an endeavor is even more unclear. Another complication in the design ofthe compliance mechanism is the expectation that adding energy performance permitting to the existingbuilding code permitting process is unlikely to achieve high compliance. One thought is that the


educational process for all stakeholders in the building trade accompanying such an approach, coupledwith at least some level of compliance, is enough to expect and well worth the cost. Another thought isthat an alternative compliance approach should be found. Meralco, the local electricity distributioncompany for Metropolitan Manila, has informally raised the suggestion that it could effectively managethe compliance process using electrical hookup disapproval as a potential sanction.

When the time comes to develop compliance tools, additional market characterization anddetailed technical analyses of compliance cost and effectiveness will be needed. In the meantime, it ispolitical considerations that are likely to govern the selection of an approach to energy performancestandard compliance.

Conclusions

The development of energy performance standards in the Philippines, in the form of bothappliance standards and a building code, demonstrates three facts that have already been noted bymany participants and observers:

1. First, the adoption of energy standards is a slow and arduous path. The mandate for FATLto develop testing capability, energy performance labeling, and energy performance standards formotors came in 1981. It’s now 1998 and the process is effectively just starting. It will take severalmore years. Likewise, the building code that is currently law in the Philippines came from a USAIDsupported study by LBNL in 1990. It is now 1998, the code has been law for over three years and theprospect for compliance in the near future is uncertain. This is not criticism of the Philippines; theexperience is similar in most countries, including the US. Rather it is an acknowledgment that it oftentakes a decade or more to bring energy performance standards into being.

2. Second, there is a common thread across nations in the development of energy performancebuilding codes. The many common aspects of building code development and compliance described inearlier exist and provide uselid guidance to people developing building codes for the first time. Theyprovide checklists of elements to be considered and expectations of likely outcomes. They are far,however, from providing a proscriptive and mechanistic process for developing a new code. This pointis addressed further in observation 3.

3. Finally, the specific tasks which must be conducted in developing energy performancestandards, whether they be product standards or building codes, is unique for every product and typeof building in every country. The details of participant involvement, communications, types and levelof analyses, costs, rate of progress, politics, and a myriad of other aspects of standard development aredependent on the capabilities and personalities of dozens of folks involved in the process. Generalguidelines are useful. But sensitivity to others, flexibility to adapt to new and changing circumstances,creativity in finding ways to get things done when it appears the bureaucratic process is designed tohinder progress, diplomacy in mediating the reconciliation of often conflicting views, and the patienceof Job are useful traits for adapting the performance standard development process to uniquecircumstances that will for sure be encountered.

Implementing Energy Standards for Motors and Buildings in the Philippines -.5.349

References

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 1989. “EnergyEfficient Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.” ASHRAE/IESStandard 90.1 Atlanta Ga.

Deringer, Joe and John Busch 1992. “ASEAN-USAID Buildings Energy Conservation Project FinalReport: Volume I: Standards,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. 32380,June.

Elauria, Jessie C. 1996. “National Policies and Initial Experiences with Energy Efficiency Standards forCommercial Buildings in the Philippines.” Presented at Regional Seminar on Energy EfficiencyStandards for Commercial Buildings in Asia and Related Legislation, Bangkok Thailand, 4-6Nov.

Janda, Kathryn B. and John Busch 1994. “Worldwide Status of Energy Standards for Buildings.”Energy, The International Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 27-44.

Leverage International, 1997a. “Philippine New Commercial Building Market Characterization.” FinalReport, December. Manila.

Leverage International, 1997b. “Characterization of the Structure of the Philippine Electric MotorMarket.” Revised Final Report, April. Manila.

Republic of the Philippines, Department of Energy 1993. “Guidelines for Energy Conserving Design ofBuildings and Utility Systems.”


implementing energy standards for motors and buildings in

Documents