SUSTAINABILITY
Must do better
Over recent months, the consistency of the political rhetoric about the importance of not wasting energy has been impressive. As have been the various reasons given to motivate us to action: ecological danger, financial prudence, social welfare, import reduction. But, to be truly effective, all this high flown exhortation needs one key ingredient in order to succeed. We need unequivocal assurance: are our political leaders practising what they preach, asks Andrew Warren
sliding scale. The rating provides the official indication of how a building is actually performing in energy and carbon terms
The ratings are not prepared in a vacuum. With the rating comes an advisory report, pointing out what investments need to be made to improve the buildings performance.
Andrew Warren is chairman of the Association for the Conservation of Energy
F
ortunately, for the past year or so it has become very easy to tell if they are really
walking the walk. Or just talking the talk. To find out, it has simply been a matter of visiting any building open to the public where the fuel bills are paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
In the foyer, displayed ‘in a prominent manner’ is to be found the building’s energy performance certificate.
Hospitals, health centres, surgeries,walk-in centres, administrative offices - as well as schools, museums, town halls, and even our great departments of state. Twenty eight thousand plus of them. Each has to post the latest operational rating of the building. Here is our analysis of the numbers:
Display energy certificates assess a building’s fuel consumption as an operational rating on a
Jul/Aug 10
These changes must be deemed to be cost effective. Of course, that phrase covers a multitude of sins. In some spheres, such cost effectiveness can be calculated factoring in the presumed cost of carbon saved, as well as the actual kilowatt hours.
And the calculation can last the lifetime of the energy saving artefact which in the case of many fabric improvements, is the same as the lifetime of the building in question. Others merely restate the familiar payback time on today’s fuel bills - thereby negating any investment not returning the capital within a couple of years.
Consequently, included in the Climate Change Act was a last minute addition, designed to try to turn the public sector into rather more of an exemplar. For years, ministers have promised to ensure that all buildings under central government control are within the top quartile of energy performance. At present, qualifying could mean getting as low a rating as a C. As of now, less than 1% of public buildings achieve that coveted A rating.
The 151 A-rated buildings include 40 schools, 16 university buildings, 16 sport and leisure centres - and just 14 health/ medical centres/PCT.
There are 41 buildings with zero carbon emissions, this includes three medical centres.
The new obligation means that, if any government organisation opts to take up a lease in a building below that top quartile, it must publish a clear justification as to why it has chosen such a profligate building.
Interestingly, one of the first such entities which needed to meet this challenge is the new Committee on Climate Change. It began life based at Number 3, Whitehall Place. That building had one of the very worst of the G ratings yet recorded.
Fortunately the committee has now moved out . As the voice of our collective ecological conscience, it needed to make sure that is into an exemplar building. Indeed it has made a formal recommendation to government that no smaller business be occupying a G rated building by 2020!
Its initial hosts and current sponsors, the Department of Energy & Climate Change consequently felt compelled to improve the energy performance of Number 3, Whitehall Place.
A few months ago, it announced that it had undertaken a root-
nhe 59
and-branch set of improvements to its headquarters building, which embarrassingly had been the winner of ecological awards as recently as 2002.
Now its second year Display Energy Certificate is proudly boasting that it has moved up from a G rating to (just) an F rating.
The National Audit Office is chastising government departments for slowing down progress on energy efficiency. Indeed, 17 out of 21 departments are not on track to meet their own target to improve energy efficiency by 15% this decade.
And 15 are actually less energy efficient than in 2000. Even showpiece retrofits like those at the Treasury and at the Communities department still achieve only a derisory E rating.
Overall, it is clear that the report card on our public buildings’ energy management record is firmly in the ‘must do much better” category. This is not just because we as taxpayers are losing out from such fuel profligacy.
It is also because the message such laxness is sending is still that the government is not serious about energy conservation. And that, for all the reasons I gave at the start, is a very foolish message to be sending.
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100