Building Control (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.30 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Buildings account for around 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions and more than a third of our electricity consumption. Hence, there is much that the built environment sector can do to contribute to our drive towards sustainability.

Our journey to green our built environment began about two decades ago in 2005, with the introduction of the Green Mark scheme. It was the first green building certification scheme that catered specifically for buildings in the tropical climate.

The scheme formed the backbone of the first Singapore Green Building Masterplan, or SGBMP, which was launched in 2006. Since then, we have continually refreshed the SGBMP to expand the reach and impact of our green building efforts.

The fourth and most recent edition of the SGBMP was launched in 2021. As reflected in its title "Building our Green Future Together", this edition of the SGBMP was co-developed with over 5,000 individuals across the built environment value chain as well as the wider community. It sets out three ambitious targets, or "80-80-80 in 2030".

The first target is to green 80% of our buildings by gross floor area, or GFA, by 2030. Buildings are considered green when they meet minimum environmental sustainability standards which are set out in our regulations. The second target is for 80% of new developments to be certified as Super Low Energy, or SLE buildings, a much higher sustainability standard, from 2030. The third target is for our best-in-class buildings to achieve 80% improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 levels by 2030.

We have employed a wide range of strategies over the years to achieve our targets. They include raising minimum sustainability standards to ensure that new buildings are designed to be sustainable from the onset and existing buildings are upgraded to meet prevailing standards when they undergo extensive works.

We have also set higher Green Mark standards for new building projects in key strategic areas, such as Marina South and Jurong Lake District, as well as for public sector buildings.

To encourage and support developers and building owners to meet higher sustainability standards, we introduced two incentive schemes in 2021 and 2022 – the Built Environment Transformation Gross Floor Area incentive scheme and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 for new and existing buildings respectively.

We have also enhanced our investment in the Green Building Innovation Cluster 2.0 programme to advance research, development and demonstration of cutting-edge green building technologies.

Our strategies thus far have been aimed at uplifting sustainability standards for new buildings and buildings undergoing major upgrades, as well as supporting developers and building owners who want to pursue much higher standards.

Notwithstanding the significant progress that we have made, there is still room to do more. In particular, there are still existing buildings that are highly energy-intensive but are not required to improve their energy efficiency. This is because they do not undergo major retrofitting works or energy use change.

These buildings may not have been designed with sustainability in mind or may not be operated or maintained efficiently. As a result, there is significant energy wastage, sometimes amounting to more than a quarter of the buildings' overall energy use. This translates to unnecessary emissions and avoidable costs that building owners incur over the lifetime of their buildings.

It is in this context that we are proposing amendments to the Building Control Act to further enhance energy efficiency measures for existing buildings. Alongside other existing efforts, this enhancement will contribute towards meeting the first target of greening 80% of our buildings by GFA by 2030. As of July this year, we have greened close to 60% of our buildings by GFA.

To tackle the emissions arising from this group of existing energy-intensive buildings, this Bill will introduce the Mandatory Energy Improvement, or MEI regime planned for the third quarter of 2025. In gist, the MEI regime requires owners of energy-intensive buildings to engage a professional to carry out an energy audit of the building's energy consuming systems. Thereafter, building owners are required to implement improvement measures to reduce the building's energy consumption and to maintain the improved building energy performance over a period of time.

Sir, allow me to now go through the key amendments to the Building Control Act to enact the MEI regime. These amendments are consolidated under clause 5 of the Bill, which expands Part 3B of the Building Control Act on Environmental Sustainability Measures for Existing Buildings.

First, under the new section 22FF on periodic reporting, we will introduce the requirement for owners of buildings that may be subject to the MEI regime to submit information on their building's energy use. This information is necessary for the Commissioner of Building Control (CBC) to assess if a building is energy-intensive and should be subject to the MEI regime.

For a start, the MEI regime will apply to commercial buildings, healthcare institutions, institutional buildings, as well as sports and recreation buildings that have a GFA of 5,000 square metres (sqm) and above.

Today, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) already collects building energy consumption data from these buildings annually by way of a written notice. This data is used by BCA to establish national building energy benchmarks, which are published in BCA’s annual Building Energy Benchmarking Report, or BEBR. The publication of such data allows building owners to compare their electricity consumption patterns against the national average for their specific building typology, which in turn nudges them to proactively improve their buildings' energy performance. Therefore, in practice, the addition of the new section 22FF will not impose new reporting requirements on these building owners.

Second, the new section 22FJ on the issuance of the MEI audit notice requires the CBC to issue a notice to owners of energy-intensive buildings. Energy-intensive buildings are defined as buildings that have exceeded the prescribed Energy Use Intensity, or EUI threshold for three consecutive years. EUI is a measure of the building's energy consumption normalised by its GFA. The EUI thresholds will be set out in subsidiary legislation for each building sub-typology. This considers the fact that different sub-typologies will have different energy use profiles.

For a start, the EUI threshold will be pegged at roughly the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each of the sub-typologies. In other words, the buildings that will be subject to the MEI regime are those that are consistently in the top 25% of their building sub-typology in terms of energy consumption.

The new sections 22FJ and 22FK also provide for the CBC not to issue or cancel the MEI audit notice under certain conditions, for example, if a building is scheduled for redevelopment in the near future, or if the building is currently undergoing major retrofitting works or energy use change. These will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis.

Third, the new sections 22FL to 22FU prescribe the duties of the owner whose building is subject to an MEI audit notice, as well as the specified individual appointed to carry out the energy audit.

Upon being issued an MEI audit notice, the building owner is to appoint a specified individual within 90 days to carry out an energy audit of the building's major energy consuming systems, such as the building’s chiller and hot water systems. This specified individual can either be a Professional Engineer registered in the discipline of mechanical engineering, or an energy auditor registered with BCA.

With the findings of the energy audit, the specified individual is to develop an Energy Efficiency Improvement Plan, or EEIP with proposed measures to reduce the building's EUI by 10% from pre-audit levels. Depending on the building’s existing condition and energy performance, these measures can range from simple, low-cost measures, such as the replacement of faulty parts and sensors, or the insulation of hot water systems, to more extensive retrofitting works, such as the replacement of the building's chiller systems.

The building owner is then required to submit the audit report, which includes the EEIP, to BCA within one year from the issuance of the MEI audit notice and implement the measures in the EEIP within three years from the submission of the audit report.

Thereafter, the building owner is to ensure that the required improvement in EUI achieved by the measures in the EEIP is maintained for the period of one year.

Sir, the MEI regime is an important and necessary addition to our suite of strategies to accelerate the decarbonisation of our built environment. It signals our commitment to bring all buildings, including the most energy-intensive ones, onto this journey of sustainable development. It also recognises that no effort is too small to make a difference.

BCA has engaged extensively on the MEI regime over the last two years, conducting around 10 engagement sessions with over 500 stakeholders across the built environment value chain.

I am pleased to share that building owners, energy auditors, consultants and key industry champions, such as the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore, the Institution of Engineers Singapore, the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore and the Singapore International Facilities Management Association, are supportive of the regime.

That said, we recognise that upfront cost may be a concern to building owners whose buildings are subject to the MEI regime. This is a legitimate concern, so let me share how the design of our policies will help mitigate some of these concerns.

First, beyond the environmental case for implementing energy efficiency improvement measures, we need to recognise that there is also a strong business case for doing so, as building owners can stand to reap significant cost savings over the building's lifecycle.

As such, building owners should think of these energy efficiency improvement measures as long-term investments that will pay for themselves in the years to come. This is achieved through the energy cost savings, as well as downstream maintenance and manpower savings. Let me share the example of Thong Chai Building, a 10-storey office building at Chin Swee Road.

The Thong Chai Building was completed in 1976 and is 48 years old. In 2022, the building owner completed energy efficiency retrofitting works to improve the building's energy performance. This was one of the projects supported under BCA's previous Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings and Premises.

The retrofitting works included the upgrading of the existing chiller plant to a more efficient one, the redesign of the air-distribution system to better cater to the building's cooling demand, as well as the implementation of an energy management system with intelligent controls to more effectively monitor the performance of building systems. These measures have resulted in a significant reduction of the building's energy consumption by around 40%, which translates to a reduction in its annual electricity bills by the same extent.

I am pleased to learn that with these energy efficiency improvement measures, the Thong Chai Building has outperformed the average energy consumption for office buildings and has been awarded BCA's Green Mark Platinum certification.

Beyond this case example, extensive retrofitting works, such as those implemented by the Thong Chai Building, generally have an average payback period of around six years. This means that building owners should be able to offset the upfront cost of the retrofit through downstream cost savings within an average of six years. After this six-year period, owners will still continue to reap further savings over the rest of the building's lifetime.

This House would also be aware that Singapore's carbon tax will be further raised from $25 per tonne of emissions today to $45 in 2026, with a view to reaching between $50 and $80 by 2030. The carbon tax today is imposed on power generation companies and this is in turn reflected in higher electricity prices. Ahead of the subsequent increases in the coming years, it would be wise for owners of energy-intensive buildings to re-evaluate their electricity consumption and implement measures to reduce it and the MEI regime encourages them do just this.

Let me also share about we have designed our policies to help building owners cope with the upfront cost of such measures.

First, we have designed the MEI regime to be outcome-based. In other words, we do not stipulate the types of improvement measures that building owners need to undertake. Building owners have the autonomy to decide the measures to implement that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the required reduction is achieved.

If assessed to be adequate, building owners can implement simple measures as mentioned earlier or other behavioural changes such as increasing their set temperature of their air conditioning by 1°C, which could result in about a 0.5% reduction in energy consumption. The upfront cost to implement these simple measures and behavioural changes is expected to be lower than the cost to implement more significant retrofitting works, which also means a shorter payback period.

Next, owners who wish to undertake more significant retrofitting works to meet even higher sustainability standards can also tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0. Under this incentive scheme, building owners can receive up to 50% co-funding support to implement energy efficiency retrofits at various caps, depending on the level of Green Mark certification standard achieved.

Third, building owners are given up to three years to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures from the submission of the audit report. This would give building owners sufficient time to plan and implement the measures to manage their costs.

Ahead of today's Second and Third Readings, we have also taken extensive efforts to engage building owners who will likely be subject to the MEI regime when it is first implemented next year. BCA will continue to help these building owners prepare for and comply with the requirements of the new regime.

In addition to the MEI regime, the Bill will also make a further amendment to the Building Control Act pertaining to the Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) regime.

The PFI regime was introduced in 2022 to enhance the safety of building facades by facilitating early detection of facade deterioration and ensuring that defects are rectified in a timely manner. Under the PFI regime, the building owner is to appoint a Competent Person (CP) to conduct the facade inspection. The CP may in turn appoint a facade inspector (FI) to assist in carrying out the facade inspections under his or her direction and supervision.

Presently, while there are prerequisites that an individual must satisfy to become an FI, there are no statutory duties imposed on the FI in respect of the inspections conducted. This means that only CPs are held legally liable if inspections do not comply with regulatory requirements even though an FI's work could have a significant impact on the CP's final assessment of the condition of the facade.

To address this, clause 14 of the Bill amends section 49(2) of the Building Control Act to enable the Minister to make regulations pertaining to FIs. The regulations will set out the statutory duties for FIs to: (a) exercise due diligence in carrying facade inspections in accordance with the CP's instructions and directions; (b) personally supervise in full-time any other person or inspection company engaged by the CP to conduct the inspection; and (c) notify the CP immediately of any unsafe facade. BCA has consulted CPs and FIs involved in the PFI regime and they are supportive of the move to prescribe statutory duties for FIs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, this Bill is necessary to further our efforts in tackling climate change and enhancing the safety of our built environment. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.49 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): This Bill expands our framework for environmental sustainability in buildings by identifying energy-intensive buildings and requiring their owners to improve their energy efficiency. I support this Bill, which will advance goals set out in our Green Building Masterplan.

We have been making good progress. BCA reports that the overall energy use intensity of our buildings has dropped by 29% between 2008 and 2023. I commend BCA for their efforts and commitments in constantly improving our built environment.

I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the classification of energy-intensive buildings that the new regime under Part 3B is intended to cover. The new regime involves identifying energy-intensive buildings to require owners of these buildings to improve their energy efficiency. Can the Senior Minister of State share the criteria that will be used to identify energy-intensive buildings? Can the Senior Minister of State also share how often BCA will review this criteria and whether there are plans to progressively strengthen this criteria?

As buildings age and technology improves, we should actively push building owners to meet the latest standards in environmental sustainability. I hope that we will eventually work towards having as many buildings be super low energy or net-zero as possible.

My second point is on the provisions relating to energy audits. Section 22FB provides that a mechanical engineer, an energy auditor or any prescribed class of individuals may be appointed to carry out an energy audit. This is consistent with BCA's Energy Auditor Scheme, which provides that professional mechanical engineers need not register as an energy auditor. However, it is not clear if both groups go through the same standard of continuing professional development to keep their skills relevant.

BCA requires energy auditors to participate in continuing professional development activities relating to green building and energy management. Can the Senior Minister of State share if it has verified that professional engineers undergo sufficient continuing professional development courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date? Can the Senior Minister of State share how BCA ensures that professional engineers are also equipped with relevant skills for performing energy audits?

Next, under section 22FB(3), the specified individual may include in the audit report any finding that it is impracticable for any Type 1 building to meet the specified reduction in energy use intensity. Can the Senior Minister of State share examples of situations that might be considered impracticable for meeting the specified reduction in energy use intensity? For instance, would financial cost be potentially a situation as to why meeting the specified reduction is impracticable? If so, what is the extent of the financial burden required to meet the standard of impracticability?

If a finding of the energy audit is that the specified reduction is impracticable, can the Ministry clarify what steps will be taken to identify a more achievable interim reduction goal, with a roadmap for eventually reaching the specified reduction?

My third and final point is on the support for and collaboration with building owners and businesses to green our built environment. We must not forget that these new regulations will come with an increased business cost for building owners and businesses. The Government previously had Green Mark Incentive Schemes to help improve the environmental standards of buildings. Can the Senior Minister of State provide an update on the utilisation of these schemes and consider refreshing them in light of the new regulations? If not, what other support will we be providing to building owners to help them comply?

Besides financial support, we also need innovation to drive disruptive change to the energy usage of our built environment.

In 2022, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) launched the Green Economy Regulatory Initiative (GERI) to consolidate sandbox efforts by Government agencies. The one-stop platform is aimed at businesses with solutions in sustainability that face regulatory impediments or lack of clarity around existing regulations. Can the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry of National Development has worked with entrepreneurs to trial green products or services relevant to the energy efficiency of buildings through this initiative? If so, what has been the outcome of these trials?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

6.53 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to tighten the energy efficiency regulations for our buildings, especially those with high energy consumption, ensuring that Singapore remains a global leader in sustainability. Sir, I support the Bill, but I would like to offer some clarifications and recommendations.

First, while the Bill outlines robust measures to improve energy efficiency, we must acknowledge the potential financial strain it may place on building owners, particularly those managing older buildings or small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

To address the financial burden that many building owners, particularly smaller enterprises, may face in complying with the requirements of this Bill, can the Government consider leveraging and expanding the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme? These schemes already support sustainability projects, making them ideal vehicles for funding the energy efficiency upgrades mandated by the Bill.

First, the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, which is designed to support sustainability projects, currently applies to enterprises, defined as business entities with a presence in Singapore and at least 30% local equity. These criteria would exclude certain building owners such as those in strata-titled buildings where the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) serves as the collective manager. Ironically, many of these strata-titled buildings tend to be older and in greater need of energy efficiency improvements. Can the Government consider expanding the scheme's eligibility to include non-enterprise owners such that they receive the necessary support to retrofit their properties and meet the new energy standards? If not this scheme, what other schemes can they tap on?

Second, when considering assistance for building retrofits, it is important to look beyond large enterprises. The current Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 is applicable to privately owned existing buildings with a GFA of at least 5,000 sqm and specific building types. Can this be expanded to include smaller buildings, particularly strata-titled properties and older developments?

Third, I would like to ask about the Government's plans to expand the Energy Efficiency Grant to include construction, process, maritime and data centres and their users by the end of this year as well as other sectors which are also energy consumers. Expanding this grant could provide crucial support to help more companies across diverse sectors meet the Bill's energy efficiency standards.

Beyond financial assistance, knowledge and capability support will be essential for older buildings and strata-titled properties. Many facilities managers lack the technical expertise to handle complex retrofits. As the demand for sustainability consultants and green building experts rises, we can expect their services to become more expensive.

A similar risk applies to energy auditors as the Bill mandates that audits be conducted by certified energy auditors or mechanical engineers. If demand for audits surges, as anticipated, we could face a shortage of qualified professionals, which may drive up costs and delay compliance efforts.

We have already seen this happen in other countries. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act in the United States, a shortage of energy auditors led to significant delays in compliance, creating a backlog that undermined the overall efficiency of the law.

I recommend that the Government work with institutes of higher learning, industry bodies and agencies to increase the training and certification of both sustainability professionals and energy auditors. Only by doing so, we can meet the growing demand, maintain reasonable costs and ensure the timely implementation of the Bill.

This Bill will also have impact on particularly those with high energy consumption such as data centres and manufacturing facilities like semiconductor plants. These facilities are expected to fall under Type 1 buildings due to their high electricity usage.

I would like to seek clarification on whether the Bill's EUI thresholds focus solely on the building's energy consumption for cooling, lighting and infrastructure or if they also encompass operational usage such as the electricity consumed by machines and equipment during production. Machines in these facilities often require cooling and it is important to clarify whether cooling specifically for operational equipment is excluded from the building's overall EUI calculation.

Including operational energy, particularly relating to production, could require extensive modifications not just to building systems, but also to industrial equipment – a challenging and costly proposition.

Moreover, as operations become more efficient, energy use per square meter might increase due to higher utilisation of space, which could inadvertently worsen the EUI. For industries like manufacturing, alternative metrics, such as energy use per hour worked or per unit of production, might provide a more accurate reflection of efficiency gains.

Understanding this distinction is crucial. Including operational energy in the EUI would expand the scope of compliance, potentially creating additional burdens on sectors that rely on energy-intensive operations.

Additionally, with the growing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), how will EV charging stations, particularly in malls and office car parks, will be factored into a building's EUI. Since EV chargers are essential for reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels, it would be reasonable to exclude EV chargers from EUI calculations to avoid penalising efforts aimed at reducing overall carbon footprints.

Older buildings, particularly those constructed with outdated materials or systems, may require substantial retrofitting. The Bill addresses this by setting clear standards for energy use, but we must ensure that these standards are realistic for buildings with inherent structural limitations. Particularly, for heritage or historically significant buildings, can the Government consider flexibility clauses, allowing building owners to apply for extensions or exemptions where retrofitting would compromise the building's integrity or where the technology for upgrades is not yet feasible.

To further encourage compliance with the Bill's energy efficiency goals, we should provide incentives for early adopters and innovative solutions. Early movers often face higher costs, but their leadership can set a powerful example for others.

Denmark introduced an Energy Savings Obligation that required energy companies to help their customers improve energy efficiency. To incentivise early adoption, the government provided financial rewards to companies that implemented energy-saving measures ahead of schedule. This spurred innovation and created a competitive environment for energy efficiency solutions.

I propose the introduction of incentive programmes for building owners who comply early with the Bill's requirements. These incentives could include financial rewards, recognition or priority access to Government grants.

Finally, Government agencies will play a pivotal role in facilitating green retrofits and supporting the future deployment of green systems, such as battery energy storage systems. As part of the Bill's implementation, strong inter-agency coordination will be essential to ensure that no single agency, such as those involved in perhaps rooftop solar installations or future green technologies, applies overly conservative risk assessments.

Together with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, as co-chair of the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness by MTI and SBF, we have received valuable feedback from industry stakeholders on these challenges. Current regulations can sometimes make the installation of solar panels and emerging green technologies overly complex or restrictive, which limits progress towards achieving our energy efficiency goals.

Based on this feedback, we recommend streamlining processes and ensuring alignment across agencies to support not only green retrofits but also the future deployment of green systems, like battery energy storage systems. This coordinated effort will be crucial for the smooth implementation of the Bill and for achieving our long-term sustainability objectives.

Sir, the Building Control (Amendment) Bill is a significant and necessary step towards making Singapore's built environment more energy-efficient and sustainable. With whole-of-Government coordination, strong inter-agency alignment and collaboration, together, working closely with the business community, I am confident that we will achieve the Bill's objectives and continue to lead in sustainability efforts. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I express my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

7.04 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. In particular, I am supportive of the introduction of the MEI regime, which I will focus on in my speech today.

As one of the early countries to ratify the Paris Agreement in 2016, our Government is committed to mitigate the effects of climate change and play our part as responsible global citizens. Presently, buildings account for around 20% of Singapore carbon emissions and more than a third of Singapore's electricity consumption.

As of December 2023, current efforts have greened about 58% of our buildings by GFA. However, there are still some gaps in our journey to achieve our goal of 80%. Today, a stock of older buildings, which were not designed with sustainable features in mind, are energy inefficient. It is crucial to include these buildings and journey with them through our country's efforts to green the nation.

The introduction of this regime is also similar to other ones, such as in the EU and the United Kingdom. For example, the Energy White Paper released by the UK Parliament in 2020 shared similar goals to eliminate emissions from domestic and commercial buildings and achieve net-zero by 2050. The government laid out several plans to achieve this goal. One of which is the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme, a mandatory energy assessment scheme for organisations in the UK to meet particular qualification criteria. Through this scheme, organisations must calculate the total energy consumed by themselves, the building, industrial processes and transport systems. Thereafter, organisations will identify areas for improvements and ensure that plans are fulfilled.

I have three clarifications.

Firstly, buildings with multiple tenants. The energy consumption of a building comprises both central system for common areas, but also usage by individual tenants. The targeted building typologies for the introduction of the MEI regime may house various stakeholders under one roof. In particular, I note in the BCA Building Energy Benchmarking Report 2023 that commercial buildings consume significantly more electricity than the other building types targeted for the MEI regime. Commercial buildings, such as office and retail spaces, are made up of multiple tenants with varying levels of energy consumption.

While building owners can take proactive steps and implement measures for central systems, such as installing light sensors and replacing faulty appliances, the situation can vary as it involves the spaces of their tenants. On this, I would like to clarify how the Government can support building owners in relaying the requirements of the MEI regime and mandating tenants to implement energy-efficient measures within their leased units.

Further, in a situation where some of these older buildings may not be able to accurately capture the energy consumption by different stakeholders and consumption levels have not gone down after implementing measures laid out in their EEIP, how can building owners be supported to stay on track? Are there interim check-ins within the three years or so after the submission of the audit report and the one year after the implementation of the EEIP? Although BCA has introduced a Green Lease toolkit aimed at encouraging sustainable initiatives, I would like to inquire on the awareness and uptake of Green Leases in the past one year.

Secondly, further support. As discussed in the Super Low Energy Building Technology Roadmap by BCA, possible sources of electrical consumption in a building can be attributed to functions of cooling, ventilation, lights, lifts, among others. The cost of implementing sustainable solutions is understandably a concern to building owners who will be subject to the MEI regime. While building owners will be required to appoint a qualified person to conduct an energy audit and develop an EEIP for their building, and I note the Ministry will not prescribe the specific actions, it is critical that building owners, themselves, are educated on what would actually be effective and buy in to the EEIP, while considering also longer-term maintenance plans, costs and whether some element of the cost should be factored into tenants' leases.

On this, I would like to clarify if BCA plans to make available a list of qualified contractors or approved works to support building owners exploring available pathways to achieve their EEIP. Will the longer-term cost savings be explained to building owners and, on average, for the different sub-typologies, how long will it take for such cost savings to be recognised?

Further, I note that the co-funding of the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 is available for owners looking to undertake more significant retrofitting works. How much has been disbursed under this scheme and to what impact since it was first introduced in 2022 and does the Government foresee an increased take-up with the introduction of the MEI regime? I would like to ask if there are other sources of funding and incentive available for owners looking at perhaps a smaller scale of retrofitting, but may not have the necessary funds to do so.

Finally, while the initial focus is to tackle, I understand, the top 25% of building typology in terms of energy consumption over a period of up to three years, to reduce their energy use intensity by the predetermined threshold for prescribed period, is there a roadmap to encourage this group of buildings to progressively go beyond the pre-determined threshold reduction towards perhaps achieving a fixed level of energy consumption in absolute value, depending on the type of building? How ambitious will this pre-determined threshold be and how often will it be reviewed to ensure that we are keeping with our national targets?

Finally, some technical clarifications. In particular, for section 22FK, which specifies that the CBC must cancel an MEI audit notice issued in relation to a Type 1 building if he or she is satisfied, whether or not through further information provided, that the Type 1 building is not an energy-intensive building. I would like to clarify, what would be considered satisfactory for the cancellation of an MEI audit notice?

Secondly, on the maintenance period under section 22FT. After building owners have implemented their measures in the EEIP, I note that the owner of the building must maintain the specified reduction or approve reduction in energy use intensity in relation to that building for a prescribed maintenance period. I would like to ask what is the prescribed maintenance period we are looking at and what would happen after this period?

While the BCA's preliminary estimation looks at not that many buildings involved in the introduction of the MEI regime and I note that these building owners will receive an advanced audit notice, I would like to ask what is the Ministry projected timeline for the introduction and progressive rollout of MEI for all older buildings? As a whole, how would these processes and timelines be communicated to building owners?

In conclusion, Sir, with the implementation of the MEI regime, buildings of different ages are progressively on board our green journey. Some people joke that our national bird is the crane, with the amount of new buildings and constructions that we see. But we should also safeguard older buildings and their memories and ensure that they are running sustainably.

Beyond this Bill, I recall a point I made in the 2022 Motion on "Towards a Low-Carbon Society" moved by the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and the Environment. Then, I called for individuals, society and Government to remain bold and demonstrate our national commitment to support businesses and our people in the green and blue economies and to hold ourselves to high standards, so that together, our collective actions are impact-oriented. I am glad that progress has been made since. With the introduction of the MEI regime, I hope that we can close the gaps steadily and fulfil our commitment to green 80% of our buildings by 2030.

Finally, I hope that the Government will continue to prioritise and be ambitious to reach our net-zero goals by 2050, while working with and supporting industries and individuals to manage costs and take action. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.

7.13 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, buildings are spaces where we live and work in. How we design and use these spaces shape the flow of everyday activities and impacts the quality of life for many.

Against this backdrop, I support the Bill. In particular, a sustainability strategy that the Bill will set in motion, that is the expansion of regime in Part 3B of the Building Control Act relating to environmental sustainability measures for existing buildings. I understand that when the Bill comes into effect, owners of existing buildings must, on an enduring basis, run energy-efficient building systems that meet the prescribed standards underpinned by the Environmental Sustainability score.

In this regard, I wish to seek clarification in three areas.

The new sections 22FM and 22FN of the Bill would empower the CBC to require owners of identified energy-intensive buildings to appoint a specified individual to carry out an audit on the energy use of the building as well as provide the building owner with an energy efficiency improvement plan. However, under the new section 22FO, the same building owner can apply to reduce the energy use intensity of the building by a lower percentage than the approved reduction and/or amend the proposed energy efficiency improvement plan.

Mr Speaker, my first clarification relates to the parameters for approval. On what basis would approval be given to a building owner seeking to amend the specified reduction in energy use intensity and/or the proposed energy efficiency improvement plan? I note that under the new sections 22F T, U and V, the building owner is required to maintain the achieved energy use intensity for a prescribed maintenance period. Should the building owner fail to do so, the CBC is empowered to direct the building owner to comply in the absence of reasonable excuse. Nonetheless, the CBC can also modify or waive any requirement relating to the implementation of an energy efficiency improvement plan or the maintenance of the reduction in energy use intensity.

My second clarification relates to the prescribed maintenance period. How long is the prescribed maintenance period and does a common prescribed maintenance period apply to all buildings under the updated regime? What are expectations of building owners when the prescribed maintenance period expires?

My third clarification relates to the likelihood for modification or waiver of requirement. To ensure that building owners set aside adequate resources to follow through with both the implementation of the energy efficiency improvement plan and the maintenance of specified reduction in energy use intensity for the prescribed period, what measures might the Ministry consider implementing?

We tend to make poorer long-term decisions through a short-term lens. The Bill widens our lens and shifts the perspective of success for stakeholders to the longer term because it does take time for energy efficiency measures to take root and for us to reap the desired environmental gains and economic savings.

Buildings are spaces where we live and work in. We can shape how we design and use buildings to achieve a better quality of life. Climate change is an existential threat that can upend life as we know it. There is urgency for action and the Bill is a push for environmental sustainability. Building owners can make a bigger push for sustainability, for instance, by embracing the car-lite movement and facilitating parking and passage routes within the building and its premises to convenience delivery riders and other mobility device users. While the Bill can set in motion the momentum for environmental sustainability, sustaining this momentum would rest upon building owners and building users like us to make sustainable living a way of life.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

7.18 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed changes to the Building Control Act. These changes provide measurable and practical ways forward to reduce the energy consumption of buildings and these are welcomed amendments that chart an actionable path to achieve our intentions of more sustainable buildings.

Buildings are energy hungry. Tangible initiatives like the MEI regime are steps in the right direction to shift us from merely talking about it to doing something about it.

I am heartened that the top quarter of all building typologies in energy consumption will be placed on MEI. They will be required to reduce their energy use intensity by 10% and maintain it, which is a very specific goal. It is not merely a suggestion to say, "Hey, please, try to use less power" but a requirement that reduces in measurable kilowatts per hour per metre square.

I echo all my Parliamentary colleagues' call to make this process as painless as possible for building owners so that we can increase our chances of actually being successful in it.

This Bill is a timely opportunity to remind ourselves that reducing energy consumption, such as what MEI seeks to achieve, is mission-critical if we want to ensure Singapore’s continued thriving in an uncertain energy future.

However, energy efficiency is often conflated with consumption reduction, which are different. Energy efficiency can, indeed, result in energy reduction as less can be used to do more. It could, however, also inadvertently result in more energy being used collectively because energy efficiency results in lower energy cost to individuals. Individuals could, therefore, consume more energy since it becomes cheaper for them to use it.

This observation, called the Jevons Paradox, is not new. It was first identified in 1865 by the English economist William Stanley Jevons. While there are debates over the specific extent improved energy efficiency impacts overall energy reduction, we can observe some elements of this paradox in Singapore.

Our use of air-conditioning is a good example. Its use has become significantly more widespread because improved cooling technology over the years is now cheaper to run. I recall when there were both air-conditioned and non-airconditioned public buses – I think it was service No 5, where we had those windows that you could adjust up and down – student fares were 25% cheaper – 35 cents versus 45 cents – for non-airconditioned buses than those of airconditioned ones. Now, all our public buses are air-conditioned, presumably because the running cost of operating air-conditioned buses has fallen significantly. Yet, air-conditioning makes up 20% of a public bus’ energy consumption, which perhaps could be saved.

Admittedly, we cannot ignore how rising passenger expectations of comfort have also motivated this shift. We see this expectation, too, in buildings. We have come to expect relief from Singapore’s tropical heat in our daily lives and air-conditioning is now our go-to solution to achieve this. According to CNA, Singapore tops the region in the number of air-conditioners per capita. Household and building use of air-conditioning alone constitutes 19% of Singapore’s carbon emissions, making it the second highest source of emissions in Singapore after the industrial sector, which accounts for 60%.

More energy-efficient air-conditioners merely mask the fact that we are not actually reducing our overall energy consumption. Furthermore, air-conditioned buildings contribute to the heat island effect, which counter-productively increases our reliance on air-conditioners to lower ambient temperatures within buildings. This is an obvious vicious cycle.

Over the past three decades since Singapore became more affluent, we have been converting our naturally ventilated buildings to those dependent on air-conditioning. To ensure we are resilient in a worst-case scenario where energy supply may decline to the point where it will have to be reserved for essential services, or become too expensive for Singapore to procure, we need to do two things: one, reverse this process and convert over the next few decades buildings that are currently fully air-conditioned to hybrid buildings with more natural ventilation; and two, make natural ventilation the default norm for new buildings, starting from now into the future.

As anyone who has attempted to mend a garment before, sometimes mending something is much harder than making a whole new garment. So, we should start looking into a different strategy for our new buildings starting from the present.

It may sound wildly ambitious, but it is entirely doable, as we see in the successful examples from the National University of Singapore School of Design and Environment (SDE). They successfully revamped their SDE buildings 1 and 3, by "reinventing the legacy of a 1970s institutional building...by accommodating net-zero energy and creating a high-comfort academic environment of the future”. They also created SDE 4, the first Zero-Energy Certified building in Southeast Asia, and won in 2020 the International Living Future Institute Award as well as the Global Human Settlements Model of Building Category Award in 2018.

To get from "doable" to "norm", we can incentivise architectural solutions to create more naturally ventilated spaces and set quantitative targets for the built sector in Singapore to achieve them. This can be an intentional effort to routinise natural ventilation as the way forward to build from the present into the future. This could include hybrid approaches that incorporate both air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation that consume only 60% of the total energy of a typical commercial building.

There are several public spaces in Nee Soon South where I find residents like to hang out to read newspapers, sometimes they watch their dramas on their phones, even take a nap, while taking advantage of a natural wind column that comes through. I have also encountered residents who bring their meals to void decks and common stairwells just outside their flats to enjoy amidst a cool breeze the scenic view of Lower Seletar Reservoir or other community scenery. These are smart residents who know how to live in harmony and integration with nature and save on electricity bills.

Let us bring back the pleasurable experience of enjoying a cool breeze on a hot day – an experience that older generations may recall in nostalgia, and what younger generations who are "digital natives" and what I suppose are also "aircon natives" may not have had that many opportunities to experience.

Whilst increasing natural ventilation is now an intentional component of HDB’s design process for public housing and spaces, I hope this can be mandated in progressive phases for commercial buildings as well.

Many fully air-conditioned buildings are strata-titled properties, such as shopping centres. Similar to the Land Acquisition Act which enabled the Government to acquire land for the construction of public infrastructure, the Government may want to consider a similar legal mechanism for strata units to be acquired, or supported, where necessary, so that parts of a fully air-conditioned building can be opened up to achieve natural light and ventilation. This can be done step by step with helpful doses of grants and support from the Government over the next 20 years or so.

One of the things that COVID-19 has shown us is that open ventilation spaces also help to reduce risks of transmission in the event of virus outbreaks. If the global energy emergency does not seem imminent enough to shift us onto this path, let the more recent lessons of COVID-19 be an additional impetus for this important policy move to strengthen Singapore's resilience for the future. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

7.27 pm

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Jean See, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Nadia Samdin for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the issues they have raised.

First, on buildings that are subject to the MEI regime. Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria used to define energy-intensive buildings and if there are plans to review and progressively strengthen these criteria. As mentioned in the opening speech, energy-intensive buildings are those that have consistently exceeded the EUI threshold in the last three years. The EUI threshold is pegged at the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each building sub-typology and will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The EUI threshold will be fixed for a period of five years from 2025. This is to give certainty to building owners. As the MEI regime is aimed at reducing the EUI of such energy-intensive buildings, we can expect the 75th percentile EUI for each building sub-typology to come down over time. BCA will monitor the outcomes of the MEI regime and review the threshold in five years’ time.

Mr Mark Lee asked if the assessment of a building’s EUI and its EUI threshold will include high energy uses, such as manufacturing, data centres and EV chargers. To clarify, the MEI regime applies only to four broad building typologies, namely, commercial buildings, healthcare facilities, institutional buildings and sports and recreation buildings.

It will not apply to buildings for industrial use, such as manufacturing, which are largely regulated under the Energy Conservation Act by the National Environment Agency (NEA). It will also not apply to standalone data centres which are managed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Economic Development Board.

The MEI regime will, however, apply to buildings of the four broad building typologies, parts of which may house high energy consuming uses, such as data centre operations and laboratories. The EUI threshold for such buildings will be pro-rated based on the space distribution of such uses. And this approach of pro-rating the EUI threshold is to ensure a like-for-like comparison as far as possible. So, I hope that addresses Mr Mark Lee's concern.

I thank him too for his suggestion to exclude the energy consumption from EV chargers when assessing a building's EUI. Given that EV chargers are a relatively recent addition to many buildings, we will need to collect more data to better understand the contribution of EV charging to our buildings' energy consumption. As EV adoption becomes more widespread in years to come, our data will become more robust and we would be better able to derive appropriate EUI thresholds that take into account the energy consumed for charging EVs. We will take this into consideration as we implement and refine the MEI regime in the coming years.

Ms Nadia asked about our projected timeline to introduce the MEI regime and the plans after it is first introduced. In my opening speech, I shared that we intend to issue the first batch of MEI audit notices in the third quarter of 2025. We expect that there will be fewer than 100 energy-intensive buildings in this first batch. MEI audit notices will subsequently be issued on a yearly basis.

Next, Members had also raised some clarifications and concerns regarding the professionals who may conduct the energy audits under the MEI regime.

Mr Louis Ng had asked if Professional Engineers (PEs) registered in the field of Mechanical Engineering, or Mechanical PEs are equipped with the skills to perform energy audits and if we verify that they attend sufficient courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date.

Sir, mechanical PEs have the necessary skillsets and expertise to conduct energy audits by virtue of the educational qualification, training and experience that they have attained in order to be registered.

The Professional Engineers Board also prescribes the number of Professional Development Units that PEs must obtain every year, through partaking in continuing professional development initiatives. The selection of specific continuing professional development activities is left to individual PEs on account that the scope of practice for each PE is different and unique. As such, the PE is in the best position to decide on the specific training that would best advance their professional development.

Mechanical PEs can continually sharpen their skillsets in areas relating to green buildings and energy audits by selecting relevant continuing professional development activities, such as through specialised training under the Singapore Certified Energy Manager programme, Green Mark certification courses, practical experience and self-directed learning.

The energy audit requirements under the MEI regime are also similar to the requirements of the existing Periodic Energy Audit regime for cooling systems, which has been around since 2014. The skillsets required of Mechanical PEs and energy auditors under the MEI regime are therefore neither niche nor new and we do not expect that there will be any competency issues.

Mr Mark Lee had also raised concerns about industry capacity to cope with the demands of the MEI regime and potential increases in service prices. Today, there are about 500 Mechanical PEs, BCA-registered energy auditors and NEA-accredited Energy Services Companies, or ESCOs that can provide energy audit services. We have assessed this to be sufficient. Given that the number of buildings that would be subject to the MEI regime is expected to be fewer than 100, we do not expect a surge in demand that would cause service prices to increase.

Next, let me address clarifications on the measures that building owners could implement to achieve the 10% EUI reduction and the maintenance period.

Ms Nadia has rightfully pointed out that a building's energy consumption will include the share of energy used by individual tenants, beyond centralised systems. It would be the building owner's responsibility to work with their tenants to achieve the building's overall energy reduction goals. Building owners play an important role in influencing the energy consumption practices of tenants. They may consider implementing energy-saving policies or sustainability programmes to foster greater collaboration and cooperation from tenants.

To Ms Nadia's query about the uptake of green leases in the past year, BCA does not collect such data.

Ms Nadia also asked if BCA plans to share a list of approved works that buildings owners can implement and their estimated costs, as well as a list of contractors for such works. To clarify, the MEI regime is outcome-based. There is no prescribed list of approved works that building owners can or must undertake. The PEs or energy auditors are to recommend the suite of measures to achieve the 10% EUI reduction.

That said, BCA has also engaged owners whose buildings may be subject to the MEI regime. They have shared about the possible types of measures that building owners can implement, as well as their estimated costs and typical payback periods.

On contractors, BCA is not able to provide such a list as the types of works that can be implemented are wide-ranging. Building owners may work with their PEs or energy auditors to engage suitable contractors to carry out the works.

Ms Jean See asked about the length of the prescribed maintenance period and if there are any further expectations of building owner when this period expires. As mentioned earlier, building owners are to maintain the improved EUI reduction for a year after the completion of the energy efficiency improvement measures. This one-year period will be applied consistently to all buildings under the MEI regime. Upon expiry of this maintenance period, building owners are considered to have fulfilled requirements under the MEI audit notice. That said, it is in the interest of building owners to continue monitoring the energy performance of their buildings and ensure that the improvements made continue to be effective in reducing their building's energy consumption.

To Ms Nadia and Ms See's query about efforts that BCA will take to ensure that building owners remain on track to fulfil the requirements of the MEI regime, building owners will be required to submit their building's energy performance data annually. This will allow BCA to track their progress. The CBC may also issue a written direction to building owners to submit progress reports.

Specific to Ms See's query about ensuring that building owners set aside adequate resources to comply with the regime, as mentioned, we have conducted engagements with building owners who are likely to be affected by the regime. The early engagements give them time to plan for resources needed before the regime comes into effect in the third quarter next year. Building owners are also given three years from the submission of the audit report to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures. This should provide sufficient time for building owners to stage the resourcing needed to implement their plans.

Ms Nadia also asked if there may be plans to prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure instead of the 10% reduction in the future. We have gone with a percentage reduction as the EUI of buildings can differ quite significantly, even if they are of the same building typology and in the 75th percentile. Given that a percentage reduction is fairer than an absolute figure reduction, we do not foresee that we might prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure in the future.

Moving on, let me address the clarifications around the topic of waivers and exemptions.

Ms Nadia asked about the grounds on which an MEI audit notice that has been issued may be cancelled under the new section 22FK. The CBC may cancel the MEI audit notice if he or she assesses that it would not be reasonable to require the building owner to comply with the regime. Examples include if the building is scheduled for redevelopment or will be vacated in the immediate future. Building owners will need to provide the necessary evidence of such plans to the CBC.

The CBC may also cancel the MEI audit notice if an energy-intensive building has already applied to carry out major retrofitting works or major energy use change. In such cases, these buildings will be subject to minimum environmental sustainability standards and there is no need to impose an additional regulatory regime on them to improve their energy performance. The merits of each request for cancellation will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Mark Lee raised a valid point about existing buildings that may be structurally difficult to retrofit and suggested flexibility clauses to cater to such buildings. To reiterate, the MEI regime is outcome-based. It does not prescribe that building owners must undertake retrofits in order to meet the 10% EUI reduction. Building owners have the autonomy and flexibility to implement measures that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the 10% EUI reduction is met. Nonetheless, we agree with Mr Lee on the importance of providing sufficient flexibility in our regulations to cater for exceptional cases. As such, we have built in various flexibility clauses into the Act.

One such flexibility clause is on the 10% EUI reduction requirement. Mr Ng and Ms See asked about examples where it may be considered impracticable for the building owner to meet the 10% EUI reduction and the grounds on which BCA may accede to lowering the EUI reduction percentage.

One example is if the efficiencies of existing energy consuming systems are already high and optimised, such that there is limited scope for further improvement. In such scenarios, BCA may assess that it is reasonable to impose a lower EUI reduction percentage. Such applications to meet a lower EUI reduction percentage will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis. Building owners must, however, demonstrate that they have made good attempt to meet the 10% EUI reduction but encounter genuine difficulties in doing so.

To address Mr Ng's question if financial constraints would constitute a basis for the EUI building to be deemed as impracticable to meet the 10% EUI reduction, the short answer is no. Building owners who are unable to afford the cost of energy efficiency improvement measures on their own can explore various financing options or business models. For example, there are existing green financing options from financial institutions that provide upfront financing for energy efficiency projects.

Building owners may also consider engaging in energy performance contracting models with energy services companies. Some of such energy performance contracting models include an agreement where the energy services companies or third-party financing firm finances the retrofits, which is subsequently repaid through the resulting energy savings.

On this note, let me address the clarifications and suggestions that Members have raised regarding support to affected building owners to comply with the MEI regime. While funding will not be directly provided to building owners to meet the requirements under the MEI regime, as mentioned earlier, building owners who choose to undertake more significant retrofitting works can tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0. In fact, building owners would have been able to tap on the GMIS-EB 2.0 to undertake energy efficiency retrofits to improve their energy performance and avoid being identified for the MEI regime since we first announced it at Committee of Supply 2023.

Mr Ng and Ms Nadia asked about the utilisation of the GMIS-EB 2.0 and if there are plans to refresh the scheme. Since its launch in 2022, we have approved 11 applications and committed about $1.3 million in funding support to building owners. We expect the utilisation to increase with the implementation of the MEI regime. We are also undertaking a mid-term review of the scheme to consider ways to enhance support to building owners.

Mr Mark Lee had suggested for us to consider expanding the GMIS-EB 2.0 to support building owners of smaller buildings, given that the scheme is currently only applicable to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above. We had scoped the support scheme to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above to align with the coverage of our minimum sustainability requirements, which only apply to buildings of this kind. This is to reduce regulatory burden and compliance costs for smaller buildings.

Given that our intent is to further encourage these existing buildings that are required to meet minimum sustainability standards to go above and beyond to achieve even higher standards, we have pegged the GMIS-EB 2.0 eligibility criteria to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above.

Mr Mark Lee had also asked to consider expanding Enterprise Singapore's (ESG's) Enterprise Financing Scheme-Green, or EFS-Green, to non-enterprise owners so that building owners, such as MCSTs can benefit. The EFS-Green is meant to support our local businesses to develop capabilities, build track record and tap on growth opportunities in the green economy by enabling access to financing. Non-enterprise owners intending to retrofit their buildings, such as MCSTs can tap on the GMIS-EB 2.0 to do so.

Mr Lee had also asked for an update on the expansion of the Energy Efficiency Grant, or EEG. With the expansion, the EEG will be eligible to local companies in sectors such as retail, food services and data centres, as well as their users. Such companies and users, who may be tenants of energy-intensive buildings, will be able to tap on the EEG to co-fund energy efficiency equipment. This will contribute to their buildings' efforts to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the EEG will be expanded to the construction industry and will provide co-funding support to construction firms to adopt energy-efficient construction equipment.

While the GMIS-EB 2.0 and the EEG for the construction industry both seek to drive greater sustainability within the built environment sector, unlike the GMIS-EB 2.0 which is aimed at reducing emissions at the building operations phase, the EEG targets emissions at the construction phase.

Since the announcement, our agencies have been consulting industry stakeholders and experts to identify key construction equipment that would be most impactful to greening the construction process. Some examples include eligible Battery Energy Storage Systems, electric excavators, wheel loaders and crawler cranes that are more energy-efficient than their diesel equivalents. Interested construction firms may apply for EEG on the Business Grants Portal from the end of this year.

We also share Mr Lee's sentiments on the importance of ensuring that our grant application and regulatory processes are duly streamlined. In fact, it is in our interest to ensure that this is the case so that more will benefit from our schemes and our policies can be implemented more smoothly and effectively, too.

Finally, Sir, I would like to address the clarifications and comments relating to innovations in the green building space.

Mr Louis Ng asked if we have worked with entrepreneurs to trial green building products and services through the GERI. As Mr Louis Ng mentioned, the regulatory sandboxes under GERI cover areas, such as carbon services, EVs, energy and sustainable aviation and maritime. Although the buildings sector is not one of the areas under GERI, there are existing programmes by BCA that drive innovation and support the test-bedding of new green building solutions.

One such programme is the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster 2.0 (GBIC 2.0), a programme which supports the research, development and demonstration of building energy efficiency technologies and innovations. Some examples of innovative solutions that are being developed and test-bedded under GBIC 2.0 include alternative cooling technologies as well as AI or machine learning solutions that help to optimise building systems.

Just last week, at the International Built Environment Week, we announced an exciting demonstration project by South Beach Tower Office under GBIC 2.0. They will be receiving up to $1.6 million of funding support to implement novel solutions to enhance the energy efficiency of the tower's air-conditioning systems, with the goal of achieving 75% energy efficiency improvement from 2005 levels.

On this topic of green building solutions, Ms Carrie Tan also raised the suggestion of incentivising the development of more naturally ventilated buildings. A key thrust of BCA's Green Mark Scheme is to encourage the adoption of passive design strategies that reduce heat gain into buildings and improve natural ventilation. GMIS-EB 2.0 also provides co-funding support to existing building owners who wish to redesign existing air-conditioned spaces to naturally ventilated spaces. I am heartened to see more project teams adopting such passive design strategies in their buildings. We are seeing this not only in new buildings, but also in existing buildings that have undergone renovations.

An example is DBS Newton Green, one of Singapore's few net-zero commercial buildings. One of the key design strategies employed was to convert 10% of the floor area that was previously air-conditioned into naturally ventilated spaces. The building facade is also designed with bamboo slats, which provide shade while allowing for the cool natural breeze to flow through the building. Like Ms Carrie Tan, I encourage developers and building owners to embrace such design solutions to reduce energy consumption.

Sir, to conclude, I thank Members for sharing their views and for their support towards the amendments to the Building Control Act. These amendments will enhance our decarbonisation efforts in the buildings sector and strengthen our building control regulatory framework. With this, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

7.50 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sim Ann.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.