New national standard on the carbon footprint of HVAC systems now open for public comment! Key technological support is set to underpin zero‑carbon industrial parks.

Against the backdrop of the deepening implementation of the “dual carbon” goals, the building sector—being a key area of energy consumption and carbon emissions—plays a pivotal role in achieving the nation’s overarching targets for peaking carbon emissions and achieving carbon neutrality. Meanwhile, HVAC systems account for more than half of a building’s total operational energy use, making them a central component of carbon‑reduction efforts in the built environment.

 

 

On January 29, the General Office of the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development released the “Quantification Requirements and Methods for Greenhouse Gas Product Carbon Footprints: HVAC and Air Purification Equipment (Draft for Public Comment)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Draft”). This standard not only fills a domestic gap in the methodology for calculating the carbon footprint of HVAC and air purification equipment but also provides critical technical guidance for the development of zero‑carbon industrial parks.

 

Scientifically Constructing a Carbon Footprint Quantification Framework for HVAC Equipment

 

 

The Draft for Comments is based on GB/T 24067-2024, “Quantification Requirements and Guidelines for the Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Gas Products” (a general standard that came into effect on October 1, 2024, filling a gap in China’s lack of a universal standard for product carbon‑footprint accounting). By taking into account the specific characteristics of the HVAC and air‑purification equipment sectors, it establishes a scientific and practical carbon‑footprint quantification framework, whose core features can be summarized as “six clarifications.”

 

1. Clear product categorization: Distinguishes between “end‑user” and “non‑end‑user” products, covering all categories.

 

The Draft for Public Comment, for the first time, explicitly categorizes HVAC and purification equipment into two distinct classes: “end‑use products” and “non‑end‑use products,” and establishes a detailed product classification framework in Appendix A. End‑use products are those that can operate independently and deliver services directly (such as electric heating radiators and clean benches), whereas non‑end‑use products must be integrated with other equipment to function (such as radiators and air filters).

 

This classification approach precisely aligns with the application scenarios of different types of equipment, laying the groundwork for defining system boundaries and conducting carbon‑footprint accounting, while also enabling zero‑carbon campuses to more clearly identify the carbon‑reduction potential of various equipment categories during equipment selection.

 

2. Clear system boundaries: The “dual‑boundary” approach is tailored to different products, balancing comprehensiveness with practicality.

 

In response to the differences between the two product categories, the Draft for Comments establishes a “dual‑boundary” accounting approach: end‑use consumer products are subject to a cradle-to-grave full life‑cycle boundary, encompassing five stages—raw material extraction, production, distribution, use, and end‑of‑life treatment—while non‑end‑use products adopt a cradle-to-gate partial life‑cycle boundary, covering only the first two stages—raw material extraction and production (Draft for Comments, Section 5.3.1).

 

Schematic Diagram of the HVAC and Air Purification Equipment System Boundaries

 

To provide a clear visual representation of the boundary scope, the draft for public comment is accompanied by a schematic diagram of the system boundaries. This differentiated boundary definition both prevents accounting biases arising from non‑end‑use products that rely on the system during their use phase and ensures the integrity of the carbon footprint for end‑use products, thereby aligning with the zero‑carbon park’s requirements for full‑life‑cycle carbon data across all equipment.

 

3. Clear functional units: flexibly adaptable to multiple scenarios, ensuring data comparability.

 

The functional unit serves as the “benchmark” for carbon‑footprint accounting. Section 5.2.2 of the Draft for Public Comment specifies the rules for selecting functional units for different types of equipment: heating equipment uses “unit heat output (kW)”; ventilation equipment uses “unit airflow rate (m³/h)”; air-conditioning equipment uses “unit cooling (heating) capacity (kW)”; and air‑purification equipment uses “unit clean air volume (m³/h)”. In addition, it permits using “1 unit (set, piece)” as a supplementary option.

 

For example, when calculating the carbon footprint of a zero‑carbon campus’s central air-conditioning system, “kW of cooling capacity” can serve as the functional unit, facilitating comparisons of low‑carbon performance across different brands and models. Meanwhile, for assessing small wall‑mounted ventilators, using “one unit” as the unit of measurement is both simpler and more practical. This flexibility respects industry conventions while ensuring the horizontal comparability of data.

 

4. Data requirements are clear: prioritize “primary data” and establish a quality assessment framework.

 

Data quality is the cornerstone of carbon footprint accounting. Section 6.1.2 of the Draft for Comments explicitly states that “primary data (direct measurements or calculated data) shall be prioritized; secondary data (from authoritative databases, literature, etc.) may only be used when primary data are unavailable,” and specifies the sources of primary data—such as records, ledgers, and test reports—and the requirements for aligning secondary data with respect to geographic scope, time period, and technical domain.

 

 

Meanwhile, Appendix C establishes a five‑level data quality assessment framework, assigning scores to data quality across dimensions such as “data reliability,” “temporal representativeness,” and “geographic representativeness.” This requirement compels enterprises to enhance their data management practices, thereby ensuring that zero‑carbon parks can obtain accurate and reliable equipment‑level carbon data.

 

5. Clear accounting methodology: Formula-based calculations throughout all stages, lowering the operational threshold.

 

Chapter 7 of the Draft for Comments provides detailed formulas for calculating the carbon footprint at each stage of the product life cycle, covering all phases—including raw material acquisition (Equation 4), production (Equations 5–7), distribution (Equation 8), use (Equations 9–10), and end-of-life (Equation 11). For example, calculating the carbon footprint during the use phase requires accounting for parameters such as equipment power, annual operating hours, and service life, which are directly linked to energy‑consumption management in zero‑carbon industrial parks.

 

To help enterprises understand the application, Appendix E uses “Non‑end‑use product—Heat‑Recovery Fresh‑Air Unit” as an example to provide a complete demonstration of the carbon‑footprint calculation process: from product description (rated airflow 350 m³/h) and data collection (raw material weights, electricity consumption) to result calculation (total carbon footprint 0.366 kg CO₂e). ₂ e/(m³/h)), accompanied by a carbon‑emission distribution map. This “formula‑plus‑case‑study” approach significantly lowers the threshold for implementing the standard in practice.

 

6. Reporting requirements are clear: standardized output to ensure information transparency.

 

Chapter 9 and Appendix D of the Draft for Public Comment provide a standardized template for product carbon footprint reporting, requiring that reports cover six core components: “general information, quantification objectives, quantification scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation of results.” For example, the report must clearly specify data sources, allocation principles, selection criteria, and the share of the carbon footprint attributable to each life-cycle stage.

 

For zero‑carbon parks, standardized reporting enables “transparency in equipment carbon‑footprint information”: when procuring HVAC equipment, parks can directly require suppliers to provide carbon‑footprint reports that conform to this template, thereby quickly identifying the key sources of emissions—such as the raw‑material stage, which accounts for 99.45% of total emissions (see Case Study in Appendix E)—and providing a solid basis for low‑carbon decision‑making.

 

Empowering Zero-Carbon Park Development: The Core Value of the Draft for Public Comment

 

As a “demonstration unit” for low‑carbon transformation in the building sector, the development of zero‑carbon parks requires coordinated management across multiple stages, including equipment selection, operational control, and supply‑chain collaboration. The release of the draft for public comment addresses, from a technical standpoint, the critical questions of how to calculate and apply the carbon footprint of HVAC equipment, with its core value manifesting in five key aspects.

 

1. Provide a “quantitative benchmark” for low-carbon equipment selection in industrial parks, thereby avoiding “low‑carbon gimmicks.”

 

Previously, due to the absence of a unified standard, some HVAC equipment manufacturers touted “low carbon” as a marketing gimmick without providing verifiable carbon‑footprint data, leaving zero‑carbon campuses with no reliable basis for making informed procurement decisions. Following the implementation of the draft for public comment, campuses will be able to leverage standardized carbon‑footprint calculations to identify and select truly low‑carbon equipment.

 

For example, when procuring fresh-air handling units, the campus can compare the “carbon footprint per unit airflow (kgCO₂)” offered by different manufacturers. ₂ e/(m³/h)”: If Manufacturer A’s product has a carbon footprint of 0.366 kgCO ₂ e/(m³/h) (as in the example in Appendix E), Manufacturer B is 0.5 kg CO ₂ e/(m³/h), then Product A better meets the requirements of a zero‑carbon park. This data‑driven selection approach can effectively enhance the overall low‑carbon performance of park‑level equipment.

 

2. Promote “full‑lifecycle management” of park HVAC systems, with a focus on emissions reductions during the operational phase.

 

Carbon reduction in zero‑carbon parks focuses not only on the carbon footprint of equipment at the point of manufacture but also on emissions during the operational phase. Section 7.5 of the draft for public comment specifies a methodology for calculating the operational‑phase carbon footprint, which must account for factors such as the energy consumed during installation, annual operating hours, and energy used for maintenance and servicing—aligning closely with the park’s operational management requirements.

 

Taking the park’s central air-conditioning system as an example, if the equipment has a capacity of 100 kW and operates for 2,000 hours per year, with an electricity emission factor of 0.5366 kg CO₂/kWh, ₂ e/kWh (see Appendix E, Table E.4), the annual carbon emissions during the use phase would be approximately 107,320 kgCO₂. ₂ e. Based on this data, the park can implement measures such as “optimizing operating hours” and “improving energy efficiency” to reduce emissions, thereby achieving “precision carbon reduction.”

 

3. Collaborate across the industrial chain to achieve “coordinated carbon reduction,” thereby enhancing the park’s overall low-carbon performance.

 

The development of zero‑carbon industrial parks extends beyond the park itself, requiring coordination with upstream equipment suppliers and downstream recycling enterprises. Section 7.2 of the draft solicitation for comments mandates that equipment manufacturers calculate the carbon footprint associated with the raw material procurement stage—such as the carbon emissions from materials like full‑heat cores and electric motors, as detailed in Appendix E. This requirement will incentivize suppliers to optimize their raw material mix—for example, by adopting low‑carbon steel or recyclable plastics—thereby fostering a synergistic effect: “park‑level demand → manufacturer‑driven decarbonization → supply‑chain optimization.”

 

4. “Addressing Green Trade Barriers” to Enhance International Competitiveness

 

Currently, international green trade policies such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) are being progressively implemented, imposing clear requirements on product carbon footprints. Exporting enterprises within the park that produce air-conditioning and air-purification equipment can calculate their carbon footprints in accordance with this standard, thereby obtaining a “green passport” for export and avoiding exclusion from international markets due to non‑compliance with carbon‑footprint thresholds.

 

5. Enhance the “carbon accounting system” to address gaps in equipment-level carbon data.

 

Carbon accounting for zero‑carbon parks must encompass multiple dimensions, including the building envelope, equipment systems, transportation, and energy use; among these, HVAC equipment serves as the core of the equipment system. Previously, park‑level carbon accounting largely relied on “aggregated building‑wide energy consumption conversions,” lacking granular, equipment‑level carbon data. Following the implementation of the draft for public comment, parks will be able to establish a more precise carbon accounting framework by combining “cumulative equipment carbon footprints” with “system‑level loss assessments.”

 

For example, there are 10 air conditioners in the park, each with a carbon footprint of 500 kgCO₂. ₂ e) 20 ventilation units (each with a carbon footprint of 100 kg CO₂) ₂ e), then the total carbon footprint of the HVAC equipment is 7,000 kgCO₂. ₂ Furthermore, by factoring in the carbon emissions associated with pipeline losses during system operation, we can obtain precise carbon‑related data for the HVAC system, thereby providing a solid basis for the park to set its carbon‑reduction targets and develop an actionable roadmap.

 

Conclusion

 

The refinement and implementation of the draft for public comment will establish a unified carbon‑footprint “metrology” for the HVAC and air‑purification equipment industries, while also providing practical technical tools for building zero‑carbon campuses. With the standard’s rollout, there is good reason to expect that HVAC systems in the building sector will transition from “high energy consumption” to “low emissions,” thereby injecting strong momentum into the nation’s dual carbon goals.