With the upcoming release of new standards for green buildings, in addition to the release and implementation of new standards for green buildings, the localization of standards (especially the process of formulating local standards for existing national standards) has once again become a hot issue. Some people feel very sorry that local standards are useless and will soon be revised; Some people are complacent about when to start the revision of local standards for green buildings, while others are puzzled about the relationship between the new standards for green buildings and local standards. In recent years, local standards have increasingly become a major feature of China's standards use and market management, which has had a profound and meticulous impact on the development of industries covered by standards. First, the past life of local standards Speaking of local standards, we have to review its historical background and development process. China's standards are defined as national standards, departmental standards (including industry standards) and enterprise standards in the Regulations on Standardization Management in People's Republic of China (PRC) issued by the State Council on July 3 1979. At that time, the discussion was whether to set local standards. It is considered that in order to solve the problem of production capacity under scarce economic conditions, standards should not be graded too much, but should be strongly harmonized and play a unified role. Therefore, the classification of local standards is not clearly defined in the final document. However, in the publicity outline of the Regulations, it is mentioned that some industrial and agricultural products sold in real estate can be formulated by the local authorities as the standards of enterprises in the region. This arrangement, in the minutes of the symposium on agricultural standardization in some provinces and regions in June 1982, evolved into the demand of "according to the strong regional characteristics of agricultural production, it is suggested to add a local standard on the basis of the current three-level standard", and in March 1985, the National Bureau of Standards issued "Several Issues on Reforming Agricultural Standardization". 1988, the standardization law of People's Republic of China (PRC) was formally established as a legal document. From the birth to the formulation of the above-mentioned local standards, we can clearly see the original intention of formulating local standards, that is, to solve the problems of regional industrial and agricultural products. In the history corresponding to the above years, 1978 is the first year of China's great practice of reform and opening up. Although an independent and complete industrial system has been established, the technology is backward and the people live in poverty. As a traditional agricultural production, it is still primitive and inefficient. Therefore, agriculture has become the pioneering field of reform. Accordingly, how to guide agricultural production to improve efficiency and quality has become the focus of management, and establishing local standards in the agricultural field will help to quickly eliminate backward and inferior agricultural products according to local conditions and popularize advanced agricultural production methods. By 1986, the wind of reform has blown to the business community, and the reform of enterprises owned by the whole people has begun, which has greatly promoted the development of industry and light industry. 1988 Comrade proposed that "science and technology are the primary productive forces" when meeting with Czechoslovak President Hu Sake, which reflected the practice and pursuit of science and technology in the areas where reform was first carried out. This understanding will undoubtedly be reflected in the legalization of local standards. In order to avoid the proliferation of local standards and form local protection, Article 6 of Chapter II of the Standardization Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "local standards may be formulated for the safety and hygiene requirements of industrial products that need to be unified in provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government. Local standards shall be formulated by the standardization administrative departments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, and reported to the standardization administrative departments of the State Council and the relevant administrative departments of the State Council for the record. After the publication of national standards or industry standards, local standards shall be abolished. " Article 2 of the Measures for the Administration of Local Standards promulgated and implemented by the State Bureau of Technical Supervision 1990 further clarifies the scope of local standards: safety and hygiene requirements for industrial products; Requirements stipulated by laws and regulations on drugs, veterinary drugs, food hygiene, environmental protection, energy saving, seeds, etc. ; Conditions stipulated by other laws and regulations. However, in reality, the formulation and implementation process of some local standards obviously violates the provisions of Article 6 of Chapter II of the Standards Law. It is only after the introduction of national standards that local standards are formulated. However, the Measures for the Administration of Local Standards clearly limits the scope of local standards. Under the national policy of energy conservation and environmental protection, many contents can be relied on in the past. As a result, national, local, industry and enterprise standards contend, and even there is an understanding that local and enterprise standards are higher than (legal status) and stricter than (technical difficulty) national standards. But is this really the case? II. Local standards in the field of building energy efficiency As far as the field of building energy efficiency in the construction industry is concerned, there was no local standard for building energy efficiency in China until the Ministry of Construction issued the first Design Standard for Civil Building Energy Efficiency (Heating and Residential Building) (revised by JGJ 26-86, 1995), and the Design Standard for Residential Building Energy Efficiency in Hot Summer and Cold Winter Areas was issued by the Ministry of Construction in 200 1. With the promulgation of the following series of energy-saving standards, such as the Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings in Hot Summer and Warm Winter Areas (JGJ75-2003) issued in 2003 and the Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Public Buildings issued in 2005, a large number of local standards for building energy efficiency were formulated and implemented around 2006, and local standards based on ministerial standards (the above series of JGJ standards) were also issued one after another. Taking Beijing and Shanghai, the two most economically developed cities, as examples, Beijing can be regarded as a province and city that started the localization of departmental standards earlier. As early as the release of "Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Civil Buildings (Heating Residential Buildings)" (JGJ26-95), Beijing municipal construction authorities formulated local standards based on it, and in 2006, issued "Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings" (DBJ0 1-606). As far as the available information is concerned, the Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings in Shanghai was published in 2008 (standard number DG/TJ08-205-2008) and revised at 20 1 1. Most local standards for building energy efficiency in other provinces and cities were also completed during this period. So, what is the quality of standard localization? The level of technology has always been a matter of different opinions, especially in combination with the local situation of "adapting to local conditions", which is basically an unclear topic. Therefore, starting with the content differences between local standards and ministerial standards, we analyze the changes of local standards on the basis of ministerial standards. When compiling the series of building energy-saving standards, two energy-saving design methods were determined. One is the prescriptive index judgment method, that is, the energy-saving design parameters (limits) of each building envelope are given. If all the thermal parameters of the designed building envelope are less than the limit value, the building is judged to meet the standard. If one of the thermal parameters of the envelope is not up to standard, the second method, the performance judgment method, is needed, that is, the annual hourly heating and air conditioning energy consumption of the design building is calculated by software. If the energy consumption limit specified in the standard is reached, it can still be judged that the building meets the standard. These two methods, regardless of region and building type, can be chosen by architects according to architectural characteristics. Most local energy-saving standards are compiled by the above two energy-saving design judgment methods, but they are modified in form, design parameters and limit values. Taking Shanghai local energy-saving standard (2005 edition) as an example, the ministerial standard "Energy-saving design standard for residential buildings in hot summer and cold winter areas" (JJ134-2001) stipulates that the shape coefficient of strip buildings should not exceed 0.35, and that of point buildings should not exceed 0.4. In Shanghai local energy conservation standards, this requirement is revised as: local standards for green buildings and analysis of industry development. Note: the performance judgment method is also revised from the energy consumption limit judgment method to the reference comparison method, that is, the annual hourly energy consumption of the reference building (defined as the shape, size and orientation of the building are exactly the same as that of the design building, but the thermal index of the envelope takes the specified limit) and the design building are calculated at the same time. If the energy consumption of the designed building is less than that of the reference building, it is judged to be up to standard. As far as the above changes are concerned, it is hard to say whether the requirements of local energy-saving standards have been improved or relaxed. There are two reasons: (1) The changes of local energy-saving standards relative to the existing contents of the Ministry standard are not all-round, but high and low. According to the law of normal distribution, the results are bound to be high and low. In probability, more than 75% of the local energy-saving standards may be higher than the Ministry standards, but in reality, the remaining 25% may be lower than the Ministry standards. (2) Expand the scope of energy-saving design, and the demonstration basis is insufficient. When formulating ministerial standards, the focus of building energy-saving design standards is building envelope. On the one hand, there is another standard agreement for building equipment. On the other hand, the design of building envelope is something that is difficult for building users to change, and it is also convenient for unified implementation. For example, lighting and household appliances are closely related to the choice and lifestyle of building users, and can be guided, but it is not convenient to be bound. The breakthrough of "goodwill" in local energy conservation standards may not necessarily raise the requirements for energy conservation. On the contrary, it may be precisely because of the addition of these difficult-to-quantify parts that the requirements for building energy efficiency are diluted when calculating the overall energy consumption of the building. The difference between local energy-saving standards and departmental standards directly leads to the ineffectiveness of departmental standards. Only when local energy-saving standards are inconvenient to operate can they be moved out of departmental standards for implementation. Objectively, the appearance of local energy-saving standards broke the purpose of "unified measurement standard" issued by the Ministry, and formed a situation of regional monopoly in local energy-saving judgment. Energy-saving building materials and building components attached to or extended to energy-saving standards can be properly managed. For example, the appraisal of scientific and technological achievements made by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development is not recognized by some local construction authorities and still needs to be re-appraised. These have undoubtedly increased the cost of promoting the development of the industry and increased the burden on all parties in the industry. Third, the local standard in the field of green building, green building and building energy conservation come down in one continuous line. The evolution process of building energy efficiency standards is also repeated in the field of green buildings. In 2006, before the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development issued the Evaluation Standard for Green Buildings (GB/T 50378-2006), there was no evaluation standard for local green buildings in China. The compilation of local green building standards with access to public information began in 2007, that is, Zhejiang Province took the lead in issuing local green building evaluation standards, but it has not been used and popularized since then. By 2009, Jiangsu, Shenzhen, Guangxi, Chongqing and other places have successively issued evaluation standards for local green buildings, which opened the prelude to local green building landmarks. Comparing the differences between these four local standards and the national standards, we can find that: (1) Jiangsu green building evaluation standards are basically consistent with the national standards in style, evaluation methods and contents, and the changes or additions focus on solar hot water system, the proportion of fine decoration of houses, adjustable air conditioning terminals and intelligent buildings as control items, while vertical greening, solar building integration, ready-mixed mortar and adjustable external shading are superior options; (2) The evaluation standard of Shenzhen green building is quite different from the national standard in evaluation method and content. In terms of style, it still follows the six categories of the national standard, but the evaluation method is changed to the scoring method, and the scores are divided into four grades, namely, copper (23-28), silver (29-38), gold (39-50) and platinum (565438). In terms of content, the requirements for scoring items such as overhead building design, whole-unit balcony, energy-saving elevator and recycling rate of construction waste have been added, and innovative requirements such as utilization rate of non-traditional water resources not less than 50%, factory prefabrication rate not less than 50% and lower energy consumption of air conditioning have been added. (3) The evaluation standard of green buildings in Guangxi province is consistent with the national standard in style and evaluation method, but a large number of local regulations have been added in the evaluation content requirements. Taking the residence as an example, the control items are increased by 2 items, the general items are increased by 16 items, and the preference items are increased by 2 items. The added contents include: roof greening, vertical greening, ground overhead, building orientation, natural lighting, thermal insulation measures, collection of high-quality miscellaneous drainage by special pipes, use of ready-mixed mortar or dry-mixed mortar for mortar, self-insulation of external walls, factory prefabricated components, new wall materials, open space, energy efficiency ratio of split air conditioners, green behavior, regular maintenance of building equipment, water quality monitoring of artificial water system and water quality safety of reclaimed water. Except for a few items, some of these contents have been included in national standards or related standards cited by national standards, and the difference is only general or specific. (4) The evaluation standard of green buildings in Chongqing is basically consistent with the national standard, but in style, the minimum number of qualified projects is set for general projects, and the corresponding stars are renamed as silver, gold and platinum (in essence, they are still three grades of one star, two stars and three stars); In terms of content, local regulations have been greatly increased, including 2 control categories, 22 general categories and 4 preferred categories. The added contents are mainly reflected in the further improvement of the legality of planning and construction procedures, mountainous terrain characteristics, building density, green rate and per capita green area, the change of roof planting and sunshine adjustment from control items to general items, and the further refinement of the requirements for the integration of civil engineering and decoration. The above four local standards basically represent the revision direction and characteristics of local green building evaluation standards in other regions. Objectively speaking, the above-mentioned local standards did reflect some local characteristics when they were formulated. For example, Jiangsu forced to promote the integrated application of solar energy buildings, so solar energy was emphasized in local green labels; The climate in Shenzhen and Guangxi is sultry, and the architectural design emphasizes the overhead of the ground floor; Chongqing is mountainous, emphasizing the characteristics of mountainous terrain and relaxing the sunshine. But if you think about it carefully, you will find that no matter what the above landmarks emphasize, what they emphasize is already mandatory or natural in daily life. For example, in the integration of solar energy buildings in Jiangsu, even if green buildings are not built, buildings below 12 floors need to be designed. For example, projects in Chongqing, even if green buildings are not built, will relax the sunshine requirements relative to national standards. As for the mountainous terrain, it is the design background that daily projects must deal with. Some people may question, don't the provisions in the national standard also stipulate what is already being implemented? That's true, but the content of the national standard has fully considered avoiding the repetition rate of the same or similar content, such as the overhead design on the ground floor, and has been listed as "the wind environment in residential areas is conducive to outdoor walking comfort in winter and natural ventilation in summer in transition season." Another example is the integration of solar buildings, which also includes "making full use of renewable energy such as solar energy and geothermal energy according to local climate and natural resources conditions". The use of renewable energy accounts for more than 5% of the total energy consumption of buildings. "Therefore, it can be seen that some new local green label clauses fully reflect local characteristics, but also expand the base of landmark scoring or measurement. Whether the compilation method of the above landmarks is correct will not be discussed for the time being. An objective fact is that the content difference between local green building evaluation standards and national green building evaluation standards directly leads to different evaluation results of the project. When some projects declare the same star, the national standard can't pass, but the landmarks can pass, or conversely, the landmarks can't pass, but the national standard can pass. If we consider that the local authorities only authorize the use of landmarks to evaluate one-and two-star projects, and three-star projects must use national standards, then the error of evaluation results will be even greater. Then, apart from the difference in technical content between local green building evaluation standards and national green building evaluation standards, what will be the performance in promoting the overall development of the (regional) industry? Figure 1 shows the number of green building projects obtained by provinces, cities and regions since the launch of the green building evaluation logo in 2008. Due to the heavy statistical workload, there is no distinction between whether to use local green building evaluation standards. Analysis Chart of Local Standards and Industry Development of Green Building1Number of Green Building Certification Projects Obtained by Provinces, Cities and Regions from 2008 to 20 13 Figure 2 shows the number of green building certification projects in various places from 2008 to 20 13 according to the year when the local green building evaluation standards were issued and implemented. Figure 2 Zhejiang Province issued the evaluation standard of green buildings in Zhejiang Province in 2007, which was the earliest among all provinces, cities and regions in China. Six provinces and autonomous regions such as Anhui and Xinjiang have not yet issued local standards. Regardless of the number of green buildings in Jiangsu Province, which is far ahead in the figure, we can easily find that the release order of local green building evaluation standards has no obvious promotion effect on the growth of local green building projects. Analysis of local standards and industry development of green buildings Figure 2 Number of green building certification projects obtained by provinces, cities and regions in 2008-2013 (classified by the year when local green building evaluation standards were issued) In fact, Zhejiang, Jiangsu and other places cancelled the use of landmarks shortly after the release of local green building evaluation standards. Jiangsu Province, in particular, after realizing that green building is not only the development direction of the construction industry, but also an important promoter of the upgrading of related industries, quickly shifted the focus of green building work to how to guide and promote the development of green buildings in cities, districts and counties throughout the province, forming a development situation with Suzhou as the benchmark and all cities, districts and counties blooming in an all-round way, and kept the number of green building certification projects in a single province first in the country for many years. Comparing the leading provinces and cities of green building projects in Figure 2, such as Hebei, Guangdong, Shandong, Shanghai and Tianjin (mainly Sino-Singapore Eco-city), they basically accept and implement the national green building standards in the specific evaluation and management of green building signs, and strive to create supporting conditions such as policy guidance and incentives for green building implementation units on the basis of creating unified reporting and evaluation principles. Fourth, the development of construction industry standards is undeniable. Local standards have played an important role in China's economic development and promoted the rapid development of regional economy. But at the same time, we should also see that with China's entry into WTO and the improvement of marketization, it is increasingly impossible to complete economic development in a closed region. More often, the government or enterprises need to allocate, guide and coordinate market resources to get the maximum benefit at the lowest cost. The regional monopoly objectively formed by local standards obviously runs counter to this original intention. Moreover, the development of market economy is changing with each passing day. Local standards are often formed and popularized many years after the introduction of national standards, and the release basically lags behind the overall development of the industry. Although China's current standard system determines four levels: national, local, industry and enterprise, it does not mean that every industry needs to establish local standards corresponding to national standards one by one. The development of modern architectural design and construction technology, as well as the wide market circulation range of building materials, have already broken the strong local characteristics of regional buildings. Modern new buildings, east and west, north and south, seem to have little difference. As the development trend of the construction industry, green building advocates saving resources (energy, land, water and materials), protecting the environment and reducing pollution, no matter which thermal partition (climate partition). The same benchmark is conducive to the large-scale operation of enterprises (such as Wanda), and it is more conducive to reducing the resource allocation cost of the government and industry management institutions. The comprehensive deepening of market-oriented reforms in various fields is undoubtedly lucky for the green building industry, which has a certain development foundation, and for everyone involved in this industry. I believe that it is our common expectation to further emancipate our minds, be pragmatic, improve efficiency, strictly control quality and promote the healthy development of the industry.
For more information about project/service/procurement bidding, and to improve the winning rate, please click on the bottom of official website Customer Service for free consultation:/#/? source=bdzd