These are my links for April 30th through May 4th:

• Bioenergy strategy – Department of Energy and Climate Change – Another document to plough through: "Bioenergy is expected to play a key role in our ability to meet the 2020 renewables target as well as longer term carbon reduction targets to 2030 and 2050. But we recognise that bioenergy is not automatically low carbon, renewable or sustainable: alongside its many positives, bioenergy carries risks.
  The UK bioenergy strategy, published jointly by DECC, Defra, DfT sets a framework of principles to guide UK bioenergy policy in a way that secures its benefits, while managing these risks.
  The strategy’s overarching principle is that bioenergy must be produced sustainably and that there is a role for UK Government to steer sustainable development of bioenergy in the UK and as far as possible internationally."
• Low Carbon Funding Landscape | About Us – The Low Carbon Funding Landscape Navigator, provided by the Energy Generation & Supply Knowledge Transfer Network, will take users through the low carbon energy funding landscape, providing clear guidance on key public and private funding bodies and support mechanisms for UK low carbon energy projects.
  As a non-registered user you will be able to search for the latest funding opportunities in the low carbon area. You will also be able to get background information on current private and public funding providers.
  As a registered user looking for funding you will be able to indicate which calls you are interested in and get help in finding the right partners to build project teams for specific calls.
  As a private or public funding provider, you will be able register your organisation and add and manage your own funding opportunities.
  The Navigator is a resource for the entire Low Carbon Energy RDD&D community. It will be particularly valuable to smaller technology companies who str

McLeod, R.S., et al., An investigation into recent proposals for a revised definition of zero carbon homes in the UK. Energy Policy (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.066

I found this paper via one of the many publications I scan via RSS. The paper has two slants to it – an excellent history of zero carbon and the route UK government have taken to date, and then a less persuasive, but comprehensive look at Passivhaus. I’m going to mostly look at the zero carbon aspects in this post and maybe return to the Passivhaus stuff (SAP vs PHPP etc) at a later date. If you’re fan of Passivhaus, it’s worth hunting out in the meantime.

The key aspect the paper explores is if the revised definition of ‘zero carbon’ dwellings in the UK and the approach to implementing this policy, advocated by the Zero Carbon Hub (ZCH), is coherent with overarching climate change and energy policies. Basically, is the zero carbon definition going far enough to contribute to the target of 80% reduction by 2050.

Of course, we still don’t have a final definition of zero carbon, although there were some heavy hints this week in the proposals for the future Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Within the sustainability commitments the targets for “ENERGY CONSERVATION & CARBON REDUCTION” for new construction is:

The paper expresses a concern that the current revised definition of zero carbon does not include unregulated and embodied emissions. It would make sense that any changes to Building Regs between 2016 and 2050 ought to start to take into account embodied energy.

I can see myself returning to this paper again and again in the future – highly recommended.

These are my links for April 22nd through April 26th:

• Exclusive: Contractors’ PFI school payments tied to green targets | Online News | Building – "Building understands the government is now planning to ensure that under its Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP), expected to come to market in September after a six-month delay, the government will implement post-occupancy checks on energy use, with contractors paid for actual performance in use of the schools. Currently, no such checks are undertaken."
• Product & Material Terminology for Ska Rating | Sustainability and Commercial Design Interiors – "The following instances are applicable and can be stated:
  A product or material COMPLIES with Ska Rating Criteria (or one of them if there are multiple options) or,
  A product or material MEETS the Ska Rating Criteria.
  The only ‘thing’ that achieves a Ska Rating is the whole project."
  In both examples the sector and version of the tools must be included as criteria are updated between versions. So if a product was compliant in Offices v1.0 and the GPM has been updated in v1.1 it could then be out of date for the later and would be missinforming audiences.
• BlingNoMore » Language Barrier – Good post from Doug: "One of the key issues that did arise from the discussions however, was that of language. It is becoming clear to me that we designers do not speak the same language when we talk about sustainability as is spoken by property investors and those who appraise buildings. This results in the standard tick-list approach to environmental appraisal, as we see embodied in rating systems such as BREEAM and LEED, becoming the default intermediary for communicating sustainability between parties. Unfortunately, any rating system that is simple enough that it can be applied universally, by expert designers and non experts assessors alike, must contain elements of compromise. At the moment, that compromise appears to be manifesting itself in a loss of essential energy performance and operational information."
• Government drops plans for standardised school designs | Magazine News | Building – Not looking hopeful for retaining BREEAM, reading between the lines: "Mairi Johnson also said this week that the the government’s new “simplified” school premises regulations would be implemented in September.
  She said DfE had tasked the EFA with reducing and guidance to 25% of its current level and that the regulations would now only cover aspects of school premises that were not covered by other bits of legislation, such as health and safety, in a bid to reduce bureaucracy.
  These would include aspects such as medical accommodation, acoustics, lighting, water supplies and outdoor space, as well as toilets and washing facilities, although she said the new regulations would no longer prescribe how many toilets schools should have, only that there should be “enough”."

Very quietly pushed out on 17th April 2012 (the only press I’ve seen which picked it up were Construction Enquirer – linked further down), a press release buried in the Masonry First website heralded the launch of a new report from ‘think tank’ The Futures Group “Building Better Homes for the Customer” (pdf, 16 pages). Their key recommendations are:

• withdraw Code for Sustainable Homes as an assessment, bringing key parts into the Building Regulations
• not changing Part L in 2013 as currently programmed but waiting until more evidence collected

Their timing is impeccable. Part L 2013 consultation closes on Friday 27th April and this report plays the hand of a significant proportion of house builders. Members include Taylor Wimpey, Barratt Homes, Bovis, Redrow, Miller and McCarthy & Stone.

Taking seasonally adjusted housing completions for 2010 (DCLG statistics) of 102,830, the members of the group account for 28,879* of them – at over 28% of the market they can claim to truly represent housebuilders. Additionally, the supply chain is well represented, with a strong focus on traditional build materials.

It’s a new body to me and the website is still under construction. Construction Enquirer explain their pedigree:

Set up by the Modern Masonry Alliance and Home Builders Federation four years ago, the group also wants to reduce red tape and remove unnecessary duplication of regulations by bringing parts of the Code for Sustainable Homes into existing regulations.

The Futures Group seem to be the antithesis to the Zero Carbon Hub. Indeed there’s a dig at (what I have assumed to be) the deliverability of the ZCH proposals on the first page:

The Futures Group can support Government by providing a direct link to expert resource within the industry who can advise on the commercial impact of proposed regulatory changes, based on extensive, cumulative hands-on experience rather than pure theory.

The traditional consultation process giving voice to many disparate interest groups can create a confusing and unbalanced picture. Members of The Futures Group believe that this has on some occasions resulted in misguided and questionable policy decisions being made which have led to significantly increased cost for the industry and unintended consequences.

One of their key themes throughout the paper is that policy direction over the past few years, whilst (and possibly because of) being widely consulted on, does not truly reflect the expertise held within the industry.

Onto their recommendations. At first they seem to be supporting the government’s preferred option for Part L1A 2013 of an 8% improvement in carbon over Part L 2010, quoting a 30% reduction over 2006 (which is near to the 33%). In actual fact they don’t want any improvement on 2010, as they point out that due to the changes in treating party walls within SAP, the 2010 improvements over 2006 are greater than the quoted 25% and equate to 30%:

This means the industry is effectively already delivering to our proposed revised 2013 figure and we submit that further regulation changes are unnecessary at this time.

A whiff of sleight of hand here, but I am in agreement with their findings with regards to equating CSH3* to Part L 2010, with Merton Rules compounding the confusion:

…it is erroneous to evidence figures for new homes built to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, because changes to successive versions of the Code and Standard Assessment Procedure make accurate comparisons with Part L (2010) totally impractical. The confusion is compounded by the award of code credits for the installation of renewables, often driven by the need to meet planning-led Merton Rule type policies, which may result in a build specification which compensates by employing less demanding fabric standards.

I would question the phrase ‘totally impractical’ – this jars with my engineer brain – I’m sure I could find a way to map the results – their point being that it is not an easy task stands. I’ve written before on the unintended consequences of Merton Rules. The problem, if we go down this route is what happens to our well worn path to zero carbon? No alternative path is given nor any indication as to when they’d next like to see the regulations change, if not in 2013. This weakens the report and I’d have taken it more seriously if an alternative had been given. Then again, it’s hard to beat a path to something which still isn’t properly defined.

Next they look at FEE (fabric energy efficiency). One point which hits home and something I will also be saying in my Part L 2013 consultation response is:

…concern is being expressed about summer overheating in well insulated new homes. Evidence is anecdotal in the main, with little published, verifiable information available, but studies to date suggest that SAP is inadequate in this area and an approach employing more complex dynamic modeling is required to more accurately assess and understand the mechanisms involved.

I would prefer they framed this as a design problem, rather than an insulation problem. It is more than possible to properly design well insulated homes so they do not overheat, but I agree that SAP is not the tool to do this with.

Next they wish to wait until results of as built performance are available for 2010 before moving the goalposts again. Conversely they wish to have a database of psi values for accredited construction details now, before the junctions have been ‘proven’:

…a database of as constructed details needs to be established prior to the introduction of any formal scheme. If evidence is produced indicating that the actual values are not achieving their design and assessed values, the data collected would properly inform development of an effective scheme.
In the meantime the industry should be allowed to use its own details or published versions until such time as evidence is produced to indicate that the actual values are not achieving their design and assessed values.

Some consistency in approach would help their case here – you can’t have it both ways. Personally I would drop the demand for comprehensive data being available for as-built performance before a change to Part L is allowed. The change of 8% proposed in the current consultation is doable, and would keep us on the trajectory to the political nirvana of zero carbon. Defining zero carbon by 2016 will be made even harder if we don’t take at least this next step (which we’ve all had plenty of time to prepare for and won’t be built on the ground until 2014 at the earliest).

The ‘doability’ of the proposed 8% improvement (which is much less than current CSH4* standards) is proven, and in most cases by the housebuilders who have lent their names to this report. Indeed the AIMC4 project includes Barratt and H+H, both of whom are also in the Futures Group. The report would have considerably more substence if they could have evidenced some learning from AIMC4.

Which leads us on to the final point I want to explore in the report. The death of Code for Sustainable Homes as an assessment. This is something I have predicting for quite some time, and we are currently waiting with bated breath the interim findings of the Harman Review, mentioned in the report. Is the Futures Group wishlist a preview of what Harman will publish? Or will CSH survive in some guise? Grant Shapps has voiced his preference to bring CSH within Building Regulations and the reports apes much of what has been said before:

The Futures Group believes that there is significant duplication within the regulations and the code. This offers the Government the opportunity to remove red tape and create estimated cost savings of £750million in administration.

In taking forward this approach, it is effectively making the Building Regulations a set of sustainable regulations, We believe that the Code has served its purpose and it is time to move on.

I’ve done a similar exercise myself and my one area of concern had been materials. The Futures Group have covered this by including the supply chain, although there is no detail as to how this will be policed or incentivised.

The report has much to be commended in it and makes some valid points. There unfortunately is an underlying current of ‘it’s too hard and we don’t want to do it’ to it which does not reflect my experience of housebuilders. Come on guys, I know you’ve got it in you. By the time the 2013 regs are being built (about 2015 going on how quickly 2010 has worked it’s way through – we’re just seeing 2010 going on site now), cost issues will have worked their way through. Without this as a driver, there won’t be an incentive for supply chain to improve.

We desperately need some clarity on housing policy:

• the final definition of zero carbon
• Harman’s interim findings

I’m currently involved in several pre-planning projects for housing within London which will be phased over the next 5-10 years. My Mystic-Mel skills are being stretched to the max.

*statistics taken from Building magazine’s Top 25 Housebuilders – Ranked by Sales/Completions

These are my links for April 17th through April 18th:

• Government to slash planning guidance | Online News | Building – “Clark, speaking at a seminar on the NPPF in London yesterday, said: “We’re now conducting a review of the underpinning guidance, which will concentrate on focusing it, finding out what is necessary to be there. We hope this will result in a body that is less voluminous that then 6,000 pages currently there at the moment.”
  Clark comments refer to a raft of planning circulars and good practice guides issued in recent years to supplement previous planning policy, and which, theoretically, are still currently in effect. This is distinct from previous policy statements, called PPSs, which were almost entirely cancelled with last month’s publication of the NPPF.
  Much of the extant advice covers issues such as how practically to carry out measures called for in planning policy, such as how councils should go about assess housing need.”
• I’m a celebrity – get me on board – The Regeneration Blog – Jackie hits the nail on the head re: celebs & government: “But you know there are a shed load of quiet professionals out there who know, really know, how to crack problems like these, were they to be empowered to do so. “

These are my links for April 7th through April 12th:

• Does a building lose its airtightness over time? – Great article, worth reading the results: "In many ways Elizabeth Fry was the construction industry's Higgs Boson – rare proof that it was possible to build both an energy efficient and highly comfortable and usable building. (The puzzle has been the industry's inability to repeat the exercise on a regular basis, but that's another story.)"
• Ugly plastic window giant on the #NPPF and ‘sustainable’ windows #planorak « Decisions, Decisions, Decisions – "But this says nothing whatsoever about embodied energy in construction. For any developer to say on top of matching any standard, even gold, that their homes are ‘sustainable’ they should qualify this as ‘sustainable in use’ – and for Zero carbon hub homes should say ‘sustainable in use – apart from all domestic appliances which dont count’."

It’s 6 years since I first pressed ‘publish’ on this blog. It’s a nearly annual ritual for me to write up some stats and thoughts (although I managed to forget last year for my 5th blogday, but 4th, 3rd, 2nd and first are all available).

Despite my best attempts to break the blog through hack attacks and my own limitations with WordPress (for example, I’m currently not showing up on the front page of Google at all since I re-installed WordPress a few weeks ago – I’m sure I’ll figure it out but I’m not in any danger of running off and becoming an SEO/marketing WordPress genius any time soon. My awesome blog skillz breaking stuff are a recurring theme over the past 6 years), I seem to have managed to retain a core audience who keep reading, commenting and Tweeting – thank you everyone!

I’ve been accused of giving too much away on the blog – but believe me I receive as much knowledge (and even paid work) through interactions on the blog, that the input I pay in pretty much pays for itself. And I’m naturally nosy and this allows me to have conversations with far more people across the country than I ever would ‘in real life’. If you are concerned that I am giving too much away for free, feel free to click through to any of my amazon affilated links so I can earn some more money to feed my Kindle addiction.

The numbers for the past year are actually a little bit down on the previous year, but my bounce rates are better – so fewer people are finding me, but staying for longer when they do. Growth was exponential till year 4, but seems to have levelled out for now at around 25,000 hits per year.

Weirdly, my highest hit blogpost is still my Rough Guide to BREEAM 2008, with 1,464 hits last year (a total of 6,021 hits since publication in June 2008). Which reminds me, I really ought to write a follow up for BREEAM 2011!

My average blogpost (as opposed to list of recommended links which I do weekly via delicious) are around 1000 words long. I managed 35 ‘proper’ posts in the last 12 months which is almost halfway to a novel. In 6 years I’ve published over 800 posts in total, around half of which are ‘linkfest’ type posts.

Oh, and by the way, the three guys I teased for not having twitter accounts in the 4th Blogday post ALL now have twitter accounts. Resistance is futile.

Here’s to blogging – twitter may have replaced blog comments, but blogs are still alive and kicking…

A couple of weeks ago the twittersphere and US blogs were awash with news that LEED was now recognising BREEAM energy points, to much fanfare. Worldwide domination of LEED over BREEAM could only follow (or perhaps I read too much into that?). The UK press dutifully repeated the press release with no comment or questioning (I’ll not pick on any one publication – it made it in as a sidebar to most of them). I commend the sentiment behind the announcement, but knowing the two schemes intimately I was intrigued.

And then, I smelt a rat. No statement was forthcoming from BRE and the interview between Scot Horst and Tristan Roberts on LeedUser rang further alarm bells. Let’s look at this a little closer…

Firstly, the press release (pdf) of 16 March 2012 from USGBC:

At the meeting it was announced that the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED green building program will now recognize credits from BREEAM, the U.K.’s widely used green rating program. The recognition will begin with LEED for New Construction and the most recent International version of BREEAM.

“Europe faces unique challenges with its buildings, not only existing buildings, but also the wealth of historic structures that can realize significant resource savings and protection of occupants,” said Scot Horst, Senior Vice President, LEED + Global Strategic Innovation, USGBC. “The announcements today show USGBC’s dedication in making the LEED program more flexible, starting with the specific challenges faced by project teams in Europe.”

These are my links for March 30th through April 5th:

• Contractors turning away from LEED – Journal of Commerce – Trying to hunt down the paper cited here: "Green building systems’ shortcomings were recently pointed out in a paper prepared by the B.C. Construction Association: A Study in the Risks and Liabilities of Green Building.
  It points to the pitfalls of third party verification systems. It also highlights the impact of written agreements on contractors and subcontractors, over aspects of the work, where they have no control.
  “The responsibility of achieving credit across all aspects of a project (design, material selection and installation) means that no one party can control all the aspects in achieving certification,” said the report.
  “There is no way for designers and builders to guarantee whether a building, even designed and built to necessary specifications, will attain certification or not.”
  The difficulty with the LEED process, said Bayley, is it was never a compliance program, but rather it is a roadmap to a green building."
• ‘Low carbon’ design: a mistaken proxy for ‘sustainable’ design? | METROBLOGS – Excellent post – have added Spohie's book to my wishlist: "Clearly, we want to avoid legislation and frameworks becoming any more complex; but if the direct impact of our ‘carbon reduction drive’ on other aspects of sustainable design is properly acknowledged then we would have a better chance of designing energy efficient buildings that are truly ‘sustainable’. The challenge is to acknowledge that by undertaking one strategy, adverse impacts may occur on another environmental parameter, which cannot always be measured in CO2, and to carefully investigate how any such adverse impacts can be minimised and negated."
• Mark Brinkley (aka House 2.0): The Future of Heating? – Mark's started reading the Heat Strategy doc – some good points: "Take §27 in the Exec Summary. It starts Reducing our demand for heat is a highly cost effective way of cutting emissions from buildings. Well, is it? No evidence is given to support this statement, it is just assumed to be the case. It might be cost effective to reduce demand by a little bit, but very expensive to reduce it by a lot (more than likely in fact). And without having some idea of what low carbon power sources will be available and how much they will cost, the cost-effectiveness of demand reduction is nothing more than guesswork."
• energystorage | Energy Research Partnership – "A project by the Energy Research Partnership has been looking at the role for energy storage in the UK's future energy system. The report, published in June 2011 presents a strategic view of the opportunities for electrical and thermal storage to provide a reliable energy supply, setting-out the nature and scale of the challenges that will be faced. We describe how energy storage could go to meeting those challenges and the innovation landscape for further technology development in the UK."
• Knowledge capture | Policies | BIS – Call for evidence: "The question of how a low carbon built environment may be achieved has generated a wide range of research papers, case studies and other publications. A good awareness of this body of knowledge is important for the Green Construction Board and its working groups, since it permits an appreciation of best practice, supports informed challenge of proposals, and identifies critical gaps in our understanding.
  To ensure we have as clear a picture of as possible of the work available or planned, we have begun a review of publications and research in this area. This has involved a high level search for relevant literature as well as discussions with key research bodies."
• RICS iConsult – RICS draft information paper – Methodology for the calculation of embodied carbon as part of the life cycle carbon emissions for a building – Consultation Homepage – Due back same day as Part L 2013 response: "RICS invites comment on a new consultation draft – Methodology for the calculation of embodied carbon as part of the life cycle carbon emissions for a building"
• Statistical press release: UK Energy Statistics – Department of Energy and Climate Change – "Renewables’ share of generation increased by 2½ percentage points on 2010 to a record 9½ per cent. Hydro generation increased by 58 per cent on 2010 as a result of higher rainfall, whilst wind rose by 54½ per cent, of which offshore wind rose by 68 per cent, due to higher wind speeds and increased capacity. Overall hydro and wind generation was 55½ per cent higher than in 2010."
• About the National Heat Map : Community Energy Online – National Heat Map is updated – caveated to the hilt, obviously: "The National Heat Map has been developed for the stated purpose making use of the best data and technology available at a reasonable cost. Accordingly, the heat map has an expected margin of error, and should not be relied upon in isolation. Similarly, the map does not reveal personal or private information about any individual home or building. At that level, the map shows modelled aggregated information.
  Consequently, DECC gives no guarantee or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the heat map and accepts no liability for any inaccuracy or incompleteness. Persons wishing to obtain detailed or accurate information on particular locations or properties must do so by obtaining suitable professional advice, and must not under any circumstance rely on the heat map. In particular, the heat map must not be relied on in the context of any commercial decisions."
• BSRIA publishes Soft Landings Core Principles – "BSRIA has published a free to download guide to twelve Core Principles that define a Soft Landings project. The Soft Landings Core Principles have been developed by BSRIA working with the BSRIA Soft Landings User Group. They have been written for construction clients and their professional teams to inform Soft Landings project processes.
  Soft Landings is the cradle-to-occupation process for the graduated handover of a new or refurbished building, where a period of professional aftercare by the project team is planned for at project inception and carried out for up to three years post-completion."

Via Andrew Lainton’s excellent planning blog (a must read ifyou’re interested in the NPPF) comes the advice for inspectors (pdf) with regards to NPPF – two paragraphs of interest to me:

• Provide more flexibility regarding manner in which local planning authorities meet local requirements for decentralised energy supply.
• Encouragement for local planning authorities to map areas for commercial scale renewable and low carbon energy development opportunity, and then to apply these criteria to other applications.

This comes hot on the heels of DECC’s newly released “The future of heating: A strategic framework for low carbon heat“.

We have until 24 May 2012 to comment on the strategy, but low carbon heat looks to be the theme of the next few years (with any luck usurping sometimes counter-productive Merton Rules – more to follow on that).

This is reinforced by UKGBC’s advice to: “help Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and the new neighbourhood forums to understand sustainability issues, to ensure they achieve a balance between requiring robust sustainability standards but also ensuring development remains viable” – their energy related questions are:

What is the potential for maximising renewable and low and zero carbon (LZC) energy production in the local area?
To what extent are renewable and LZC energy technologies already exploited in the local area and what is the potential to increase this through new development?
What are the opportunities for decentralised renewable and LZC energy networks in the local area?
Can the viability of decentralised renewable and LZC energy networks be improved by future-proofing new development by making it ready to join the network at a later date?
What targets to encourage the use of renewable and LZC technologies and energy networks are viable for new development based on the existing and proposed energy infrastructure and local conditions?
What opportunities exist to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy demand at a community and site level through new development and refurbishment of the existing built environment?
What potential is there to develop an energy policy in conjunction with adjoining authorities to benefit from economies of scale and ensure the future viability of the strategy?

Buzzword of the year has to go to ‘viability’ – I’m still not clear who has a duty to demonstrate viability of targets – the planners or the developers? Like much of the NPPF, it’ll take a while for these things to become clear. UKGBC doesn’t specifically mention low carbon heat, but it is implied in the idea of decentralised local energy networks.

Of course, we’re still waiting for the zero carbon definition, but with RHI being put back a year and RHPP extended for another year, I’m suspecting that all the ducks are lining up and a definition will eventually bring all these threads (including Part L 2013 and any fallout from the Harman interim findings with regards to CSH) together. Perhaps by the autumn?

It worries me slightly that there seems to be little urgency at the minute, but perhaps this leisurely pace will ensure a more robust solution in the long term. A cynic could point out that there is of course another election between now and the deadline of 2016, but I’m feeling in a glass half full mood today, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.