Legislation/Technical Updates
Revealing operational carbon savings
JOHN FIELD explains why operational ratings are so important in revealing the true carbon performance of buildings and improvements.
Operational ratings have been called the ultimate tool for reducing the emissions of carbon-dioxide from the existing building stock. But are they?
It looks increasingly likely that in the UK all larger public buildings will have to display an energy label showing the building’s operational rating based on its metered energy use. This requirement, to satisfy article 7.3 of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, may be introduced in mid to late 2007 — or even later if the Government cannot make up its mind.
In the meantime market-led initiatives are pushing operational ratings out to business and property interests. Foremost is the CIBSE 100-day Carbon Clean Up launched last month [June 2006] with over 500 companies already signed on.
This experience will help to prepare for a possible future widening of the operational rating requirement of the EU directive beyond larger public buildings to other sectors such as public sector offices and even, maybe, to all commercial buildings.
What is so good about these ratings?
Legislation
While rating a building’s energy use (or its associated carbon-dioxide emissions) against a benchmark is hardly new, in terms of legislation it’s the new kid on the block. To date, energy labelling has meant one thing — a calculated asset rating or grade based on a complex model of the building’s performance.
On the other hand, operational ratings are usually much easier to produce for existing buildings, and they show — for better or for worse — how a building is actually performing. This is, perhaps, another reason for market-resistance in the past; neither building designers nor building managers liked to be told their building was (in common parlance) a dog. The tables have turned, however, and with energy bills going sky high and pressure on the chairman to show green credentials (while he or she cycles to work…), everyone is suddenly interested in how well they are doing and how they can actually reduce costs and emissions.
This brings up another point. For short- or medium-term cost and carbon savings in, say, the next 10 years, new buildings are all but irrelevant. It is the existing building stock that counts.
While asset ratings are very valuable for labelling at the time of sale or rent, they do not show any advantage from improved management or operation of buildings. The famous 20% saving from operational improvement is still available, according to all the evidence — and it is very cheap to achieve too. Only an operational rating can show such a saving; an asset rating ignores your metered consumptions.
www.modbs.co.uk/news/fullstory.
« Back
JOHN FIELD explains why operational ratings are so important in revealing the true carbon performance of buildings and improvements.
Operational ratings have been called the ultimate tool for reducing the emissions of carbon-dioxide from the existing building stock. But are they?
It looks increasingly likely that in the UK all larger public buildings will have to display an energy label showing the building’s operational rating based on its metered energy use. This requirement, to satisfy article 7.3 of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, may be introduced in mid to late 2007 — or even later if the Government cannot make up its mind.
In the meantime market-led initiatives are pushing operational ratings out to business and property interests. Foremost is the CIBSE 100-day Carbon Clean Up launched last month [June 2006] with over 500 companies already signed on.
This experience will help to prepare for a possible future widening of the operational rating requirement of the EU directive beyond larger public buildings to other sectors such as public sector offices and even, maybe, to all commercial buildings.
What is so good about these ratings?
Legislation
While rating a building’s energy use (or its associated carbon-dioxide emissions) against a benchmark is hardly new, in terms of legislation it’s the new kid on the block. To date, energy labelling has meant one thing — a calculated asset rating or grade based on a complex model of the building’s performance.
On the other hand, operational ratings are usually much easier to produce for existing buildings, and they show — for better or for worse — how a building is actually performing. This is, perhaps, another reason for market-resistance in the past; neither building designers nor building managers liked to be told their building was (in common parlance) a dog. The tables have turned, however, and with energy bills going sky high and pressure on the chairman to show green credentials (while he or she cycles to work…), everyone is suddenly interested in how well they are doing and how they can actually reduce costs and emissions.
This brings up another point. For short- or medium-term cost and carbon savings in, say, the next 10 years, new buildings are all but irrelevant. It is the existing building stock that counts.
While asset ratings are very valuable for labelling at the time of sale or rent, they do not show any advantage from improved management or operation of buildings. The famous 20% saving from operational improvement is still available, according to all the evidence — and it is very cheap to achieve too. Only an operational rating can show such a saving; an asset rating ignores your metered consumptions.
www.modbs.co.uk/news/fullstory.
« Back
Other Updates: