NEWS
Hammerson reveals plans for energy performance contracts
Soft landings key to success says developer
Hammerson will draw up its fi rst energy performance contracts (EPCs) with consultants by May, according to the property developer’s head of sustainability Paul Edwards.
The energy performance contracts are set to take a carrot and stick approach, rewarding consultants that exceed energy targets and penalising those who fail to meet the targets predicted at design stage.
Edwards said EPCs would include soft landings and the involvement of facilities managers at early design stage. A baseline design model establishing predicted energy use would be established using IES or
TAS, according to Edwards. He said: ‘EPCs and DECs don’t align, which is really annoying. We have to come up with a base model with the design team, and agree targets.’
Edwards said that
Hammerson’s FM team would be involved at design stage, when
‘Soft landings give consultants opportunity to learn’
lighting loads and occupancy densities would be taken into consideration.
Design changes or value engineering would be tested against the baseline model throughout the design process, explained Edwards. Consultants would continue
to be involved in the project after completion. ‘As part of the contract, consultants would check energy performance every month for 12 months to ensure commissioning is done correctly,’ said Edwards.
He added: ‘The 12-month soft landing gives engineers the opportunity to learn about the operation of the buildings. Being kicked off as soon as the building is completed is not good for them.’
Edwards said Hammerson was prepared to invest in soft landings and boost consultant fees. He said a proportion of the savings made from lower energy use would cover the larger fees. ‘It’s a sensible approach – it encourages people to deliver what they say they will,’ said Edwards.
‘You don’t expect a clapped out old banger when you buy a Ferrari’
Paul Edwards couldn’t be more straightforward about why he wants consultants to sign up to energy performance contracts for Hammerson’s retail schemes. ‘We develop £300m shopping centres and a year later fi nd we discover they’re using twice as much energy as we expected. We want buildings to behave as predicted by the consultants.’ ‘If a Ferrari did 0-60 in three
seconds and I was getting 15 seconds, I wouldn’t be very happy.’
Edwards, who is the current chair of the Better Buildings Partnership, is dismissive of energy performance certifi cates, which only offer a building’s predicted energy rating. ‘At the moment, we might be told the development has an energy performance certifi cation rating of B, but it ends up being a G and we can’t do anything about it,’ he says. Consultants signing up to Hammerson’s energy performance contracts will be set targets based on a baseline energy model established by the design team. Hammerson’s FM team will have input, helping to establish lighting loads and occupation rates. ‘When we start more detailed design, we will test against the base model, and if value engineering takes
place, we will also look at the impact of these changes,’ says Edwards.
When CIBSE Journal
reported that Hammerson was considering introducing energy performance contracts (Life after DECs, CIBSE Journal, February 2013), the CIBSE LinkedIn forum lit up with questions about how it would work. There was some cynicism about Hammerson’s motives and whether consultants
would be expected to work harder for less. Edwards was surprised by the tone of some of the comments. ‘It’s a fantastic opportunity for engineering fi rms,’ he says. ‘We’re simply asking the best engineers to step up to the mark.’ Consultants will be reassured that Hammerson is willing to pay consultants a higher fee to look at the performance of the building after completion – consultants will look at the building performance every month for a year to ensure systems have been commissioned properly. ‘A little bit of investment in the design team by us will save us money, and if you have lower operating costs, it will add to the value of the building,’ says Edwards.
Workmanship ‘key’ to retrofi t projects
The airtightness of existing homes must be improved if mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) is to be fi tted into existing homes, a major research study has found. Project Calebre found that
workmanship was critical to ensuring optimal performance. On the EON test house at Nottingham University, a contractor fi tting an MVHR unit compromised the airtightness despite having experience of fi tting 30 MVHR systems. ‘A lot of work needs to be
done in broadening out the training,’ said Professor Dennis Loveday, principal investigator on Project Calebre, which stands for Consumer-Appealing Low Energy technologies for Building Retrofi tting. The report found that the
refurbishment of existing housing could achieve airtightness levels of around 3 m3/(h.m2)@50Pa with good detailing and a high level of workmanship. Project Calebre is a
collaboration between six universities that aims to address the challenges of energy effi cient refurbishment in the UK’s 8.3m solid-wall properties. The project has been testing and developing technologies most likely to improve performance and be accepted by occupiers. Loveday said: ‘The project
found that comfort and need for repairs were much bigger drivers than energy effi ciency for householders. Calebre has been looking
closely at the integration of slender vacuum glazing for period windows and heat pumps that fi t into the space of an existing boiler. The project is working with manufacturers to commercialise innovative products that had been refi ned in university laboratories. Another important fi nding
has been the impact of existing energy saving systems on retrofi tting. Calebre says the order of measures can have
a big impact on overall CO2 emissions. The fi ndings of the ongoing
project have been published to coincide with the launch of the Green Deal.
www.calebre.org.uk/
www.cibsejournal.com April 2013 CIBSE Journal 11
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