News analysis Carbon reduction
New cap will weigh
Many larger companies that have
fallen outside the European rules on
Shutterstock
capping carbon emissions are now
being drawn into the net. But some
leading building services engineers
are concerned about the workability
of the scheme. Bob Cervi reports
n
Next month sees the to other firms that have exceeded
closure of a UK government their allowances.
consultation on a policy that Under UK legislation, the CRC is
could have a significant impact on being brought in to apply a system
companies, local authorities and of carbon allowances to non-
the building services sector. The energy intensive sectors, so long
Carbon Reduction Commitment as they consume more than 6,000
(CRC) policy is due to be introduced megawatt-hours of electricity a year.
next year, but some of its initial These sectors cover operations
provisions are already beginning to such as supermarkets, hotel chains,
take effect. office-based corporations and large
The introduction in recent years local authorities.
of the Emissions Trading Scheme Under the scheme, companies
(ETS) in Europe has meant that will have to pay for their carbon
each EU country has had to set a emissions up front – at a rate of
cap on total carbon emissions from £12 per tonne. This means a
its energy-intensive industries, in minimum bill of £35,000 for anyone annual league table based on their
There is loads
order to meet the Kyoto agreement in the CRC. There is also a long time carbon emissions and reductions.
on climate change. Such industries lag between paying up and getting Ian Butterss of building services of unused carbon
include electricity generation, steel, the money back. engineering group Fulcrum
cement and paper. Building services organisations Consulting says the table will lead
sloshing around
Under ETS, companies are and consultancies will have a role to a game of “carbon-reduction
– which means the
allocated a carbon ‘allowance’ and in advising and servicing the needs poker”. Butterss, along with other
can trade these annually. If they of organisations that come under building services industry figures,
CRC may actually
have exceeded their allowances the CRC net. But building services took part in a recent debate on the
increase energy
they can cover this excess by buying engineering professionals have CRC organised by the CIBSE Energy
additional allowances. If, however mixed views about the viability of Performance Group (EPG) and
usage – John Field
they have achieved an allowance the CRC. Another complex layer of Fulcrum.
surplus through a reduction in activity in the CRC scheme is that He says that companies will want
emissions, they can sell this surplus companies will be placed in an to work out how they sit in the table activity: “Minor changes to property
by trying to predict their energy ownership can enable a company to
Anti-CRC views sway majority
usage up to a year ahead. The get [more] carbon allowance rights
result will be companies jostling for and push it [the company] up the
The recent debate on CRC, jointly had been swayed by the sceptics, position in the table by, for example, league table.”
organised by the CIBSE Energy with most attendees backing the buying up carbon credits. David Farebrother of property
Performance Group (EPG) and motion. John Field of consultancy Power group Land Securities believes
Fulcrum, posed the statement: The debate was chaired by Efficiency argues that, in the initial that the CRC will reduce emissions
This house believes that the Carbon Phil Jones of London South Bank phase of CRC implementation up overall – although probably not
Reduction Commitment will not University, who is also chairman to 2013, the process could actually enough to meet government
reduce carbon emissions. of the EPG. Those who took the increase emissions. targets – but that some sectors will
Those attending the debate position of arguing for the motion “The credit crunch has meant a inevitably languish at the bottom of
gave a show of hands before were David Farebrother of Land reduction in energy usage, and there the table as others are more able to
discussions started, and a clear Securities and John Field of Power is loads of [unused] carbon sloshing cut emissions. No matter how well
majority rejected the motion – Efficiency Ltd. Speaking against around. This means the CRC may commercial property groups do
indicating a belief that the CRC can the motion were Patrick Brown of actually increase energy usage,” he in reducing emissions, they might
work. However, once the debate the British Property Federation and warns. never be able to match the potential
was concluded, a second show of James Patterson of Environ. Field also points to a potential for major cuts by, for example,
hands revealed that the audience www.cibse-epg.org loophole in the system when it manufacturers.
comes to changes in company James Patterson of consultancy
16 CIBSE Journal May 2009 www.cibsejournal.com
CIBSEmay09 pp16-17 newsanalysis.indd 16 4/30/09 5:35:53 PM
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72