OPINION
ARE EPCS A TRUE INDICATOR OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY?
The commercial property sector will not be motivated to improve building performance until it is forced to measure actual energy consumption, says Chris Botten
It is well documented that approximately 45% of the UK’s
carbon emissions come from the built environment, with commercial buildings being responsible for approximately 20%. However, this sector, as a whole, has historically been profl igate in its attitude to energy use. We are continually reminded
that a signifi cant proportion of the commercial building stock we see today will still be standing in 2050 – energy reduction targets will not be met by improving standards of new buildings. This has been recognised by government with the recently launched Energy Effi ciency Strategy, which outlines the UK’s potential to save the ‘equivalent to 22 power stations’ by 2020. Commercial property clearly has an important role to play in contributing towards this. In recent years, government has introduced a growing number of policy and legislative drivers focused on encouraging carbon and energy reductions throughout the industry, including the CRC Energy Effi ciency Scheme, Mandatory Carbon Reporting and the Green Deal. A key policy driver is the use of Energy Performance Certifi cates (EPCs). The government has decided to use
EPCs as its main rating tool for the energy performance of buildings. They are required for the sale and letting of all commercial buildings and, importantly, there are plans to introduce minimum performance standards based on EPC ratings. The legislation, to be introduced by 2018, will result in any building that does not achieve a minimum standard of energy effi ciency being ‘unlettable’ and ‘unsaleable’. At present, the suggestion is that this minimum standard will be an EPC ‘E’ rating. But are EPCs an appropriate indicator of a building’s energy performance? Every year the Better Buildings Partnership measures the energy consumption of its member’s
20 CIBSE Journal January 2013
Ropemaker Place (left) has an EPC rating of B compared to an E for 10 Exchange Square (right) but in terms of actual energy consumption 10 Exchange Square was 66% more effi cient
Measuring and reporting actual energy consumption is essential
London property portfolios. Taking two central London offi ces as an example – Ropemaker Place, with an EPC rating of ‘B’, and 10 Exchange Square, rated ‘E’ – it should be expected that Ropemaker Place is the more effi cient. However, the reality is that 10 Exchange Square is 66% more effi cient in terms of actual energy consumption. As surprising as this is, the scenario is far from unique. Our analysis, supported by Jones Lang LaSalle, based on the actual energy use of more than 200 properties, shows that there is little or no correlation between EPC ratings and actual energy performance. The BBP/JLL research is not intended
to discredit EPCs, which have a role to play. They can help to set goals for improved design and refurbishment of buildings and, similarly, for investment in improvement measures, which can lead to a more energy-effi cient building. The main concern is how they are
being used as a cornerstone of policy and how the industry interprets their meaning. A measurement mechanism that focuses on actual energy consumption is likely to be far more useful in helping the industry reduce its carbon emissions. This is already a requirement for many public sector buildings through the use of Display
Energy Certifi cates (DECs). This basic requirement of understanding how our building stock is performing is a necessary fi rst step to signifi cantly reducing our consumption, yet is currently ignored by government policy. Internationally, positive examples
can be seen, for example the use of the National Australian Built Environment (NABERS) rating system and the recent mandatory disclosure of energy use for buildings in New York. It can be argued that, in the UK, the private commercial property sector should already be reporting and measuring energy consumption because it makes sense, given the savings that are available. However, the sector is a complex
beast and reticent to change unless forced to by regulation. If the government is serious about reducing carbon emissions from commercial buildings, it needs to wake up to the fact that measuring and reporting actual energy consumption is essential. Only then, with a good understanding of how the industry is performing, will it be in a position to introduce effective policy that stands a chance of achieving its ambitious – but necessary – targets.
● CHRIS BOTTEN is the programme manager at the Better Buildings Partnership
www.cibsejournal.com
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