Lessons learnt from the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund

The latest announcement of the Green Homes Grant scheme, with vouchers of up to £5000 for homeowners to spend on energy efficiency measures [1], is strongly reminiscent of the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund (GDHIF). Back in 2014 the GDHIF offered vouchers up to £7,600 per home for measures from a menu of insulation and heating improvements. It was massively popular and sold out in 7 weeks [2]. Unfortunately there was little lasting impact for the industry as insulation rates quickly dropped back to their former levels - as you can see in this chart.

Based on National Energy Efficiency Statistics from [3]

There were many other shortcomings too including:

• Short timescales to spend the voucher did not allow for inclement weather - it is impossible to do a good job with external wall insulation in a rainy January.
• Only Green Deal certified installers could take part, and qualification cost time and money, which shut out many small builders who could not afford the investment.
• The certification scheme was not adequate to protect consumers from rogue traders. In particular, any companies that failed an audit could resurface with another name and get new certification from a different body [4].

Since that time there has been growing acknowledgement of the need for a whole house approach to retrofit, rather than a measure-delivery based scheme. The Each Home Counts report got the ball rolling and now we have started to certify Retrofit Co-ordinators, whose role is to oversee a plan for each case. The goal is to avert unintended consequences from inappropriate measures or combinations of measures. These measures are part of the recently approved PAS 2035 standard and trust mark. At the moment it is voluntary except for government projects - maybe this is a good time to roll it out.

Here are some more suggestions from me:

Electric Blue - a new kind of sustainable investment?

Community energy schemes used to be the no-brainer sustainable investment, for people with moderate levels of spare cash that could be tied up for a few years. I personally have investments in one community solar farm, two wind turbines and two renewable energy suppliers. But this year I have added a new string to my sustainable portfolio that does not generate any energy at all: Electric Blue is in the business of installing and managing EV charging facilities in our city streets. This particular bond issue is for a project in Cambridge.

Why is Cambridge University dragging its feet on divestment?

How much time does it take to change investment policy at a university? Why do Cambridge university students need to go on hunger strike and occupy university office buildings to pressure the university to action? Back in January last year, after a vociferous campaign by students and academics the soverign body of the university ruled that ‘none of the University’s Endowment Funds should be invested directly or indirectly in companies whose business is wholly or substantially concerned with the extraction of fossil fuels.’ They also required the university council to publish a report within twelve months to set out how this should be done. It actually took a bit longer than that but earlier this month a report was produced (5 Mb pdf) and the recommendations in it, while not earth shattering, are a step in the right direction. However, even this is apparently a step too fast because the council are unable to agree to adopt even those recommendations. These include:

1. No investment in tar sands or thermal coal (? What other kind of coal is there?)
2. Commitment to the principles of the UNPRI (United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment)
3. 10% of the fund to be invested in dedicated environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds

Goods vehicles versus cars - the emissions race

Since 1990, carbon emissions from road transport has been almost stable. In 2013, they were just 2% less than in the base year. However, within the sector there have been ups and downs. Cars and taxis have reduced emissions by 14% while those from light goods vehicles have increased by 68%. Cars are still the biggest offenders but the other road users are catching up. In 2013, cars were 58% of road vehicle emissions, down from 66% in 1990 [1]. Our strategies for cars are working - now we need new strategies for the goods delivery sector.

Data from [1] ENV0201

Vote remain for environmental protection

I support Remain because EU regulations are vital to protect us from exploitation by big businesses. They protect us personally, for example in the workplace; they protect our environment, where we live; and they ensure we play our part in minimising climate change, which protects our future and our children’s future.

If we left the EU, it would be up to our government to maintain these protections. However big businesses would lobby government to remove them whenever there is a cost burden on them to implement – they say cutting regulations would help them be more competitive. However, half our trade is with the EU and while we are in with them we all have to abide by the same rules. Outside the EU we would become just one more country competing in global markets for trade and investment and there would be massive pressure to remove the regulations that international corporations do not like – including the ones that we need.

Chasing energy savings in commercial buildings - real life success stories

It is usually difficult to roll out energy efficiency upgrades in rented accommodation because of the split incentive – the tenants pay the bills and would benefit from efficiency except they aren’t usually there for long enough while the landlord gets no benefit unless you count an increase in value – but that is highly uncertain. In a perfect market there ought to be an increase in rental value from an improvement in energy efficiency, but in real life there are many factors involved in setting rental value and energy efficiency is not high up on the list.

The problem is bad enough in residential tenancies but in commercial ones it is even worse, because there are many tenants in a building, rental agreements are more complicated and lawyers tend to get involved too. None the less there are cases where landlords have achieved energy savings, or at least they say they have. So early in 2015 I teamed up with my friend Ray Galvin to find out how they do it.

Low-tech problems with high-tech buildings

New buildings often use more energy than they are supposed to, and quite often the reasons are the same as in old buildings, easily identified and fairly easily to fix. I went to a talk yesterday about one example case which was a prestigious university arts faculty building. I like to think that if the occupiers had been engineers these problems would have been sorted more quickly but I could be wrong. In this instance, as in many others, you didn't need high tech equipment to track down a good deal of the energy wastage.

Gas use in tenanted office block halved

Nearly a year ago I told a story about my friends' campaign to reduce energy use in their over-heated office: Energy saving in a rented office - experience. I am pleased to report their efforts have paid off. Gas use in the building has halved, mainly through adjusting the heating schedule. There are more savings planned - the energy officer has promised to review the lighting in common areas and they are also considering installing hot water heaters for the toilets so that the main boilers are not needed at all in the summer.

Why companies don't have to implement Energy Savings Opportunities

Under the new Energy Savings Opportunities Scheme (ESOS) all large companies must conduct regular energy audits to identify potential cost-effective energy savings. For companies qualifying this December the first audit has to be complete by December 5th 2015 and thereafter every 4 years. However, ESOS doesn’t actually require companies to implement those savings. You might ask - why not?

Energy saving in a rented office - experience

My friends have a small business which recently outgrew their home office and so they rented a small office in the city - I won't say where to preserve anonymity but it is a 2-storey building split into a number of office units on a business park. They moved in at the end of August and they were dismayed at how warm it was. Weeks went by and the weather turned cooler but the office did not. They tried turning off the radiators but it was still too hot. There was more than enough heat coming from the uninsulated hot water pipes going to the radiators, never mind the radiators themselves - the pipes were hot enough to burn your fingers on. The other tenants seemed to control the temperatures by opening windows. The rent included services so they were effectively all paying for the unwanted heat - but hey, gas is cheap.

What will PV panels do to your school's energy bill?

In a previous post I showed you some analysis of gas use data from some schools in Hertfordshire (Potential energy savings in Schools). I also have electricity data from some of the schools from the same source. I am working as a volunteer on a project to raise financing for PV panels for community buildings rooftops, including schools, so I did some analysis to see what impact the panels would have for the sample schools - how much of the power from the panels would be used by the school and how much would be exported to the grid. The schools varied considerably in how much electricity they used at weekends and in the holidays. Also some had a relatively high base load and others presumably are more careful to turn things off at night. Apart from the holidays, their use pattern is probably similar to many other public buildings and offices. First, here are some charts.

Potential energy saving in Schools

Energy bills are going up for schools just as they are for us at home. If there are savings to be made then that could mean more money for useful things like books or educational trips for school pupils. But how can you determine where there are savings to be made? There is a surprising amount of useful information even in half hourly meter readings: it is becoming more and more common to monitor use at at this level with AMR (automatic meter reading) systems. My friend Julia Sonander from Letchworth met with Hertfordshire County Council to discuss how to reduce energy use in community buildings. They decided to focus on schools and Julia has analysed one year’s worth of gas AMR data from 13 schools. She found a huge range in gas consumption per pupil between schools and some interesting patterns of use through the year and through the day.

Tips on saving energy in office buildings

I went to Ecobuild last week and there were some interesting seminars including one on saving energy in commercial buildings - where are the the low hanging fruit? One of the speakers was Karen Dell from DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) telling us about the energy saving measures they have installed in their own headquarters in London. They have reduced their energy use by 50% since 2008. Now granted they must have been in a pretty bad place to start with but I doubt they are alone in this. The last office I worked in could definitely use this sort of advice

The 2050 office - a view from 2013.

Preparing for a series of workshops on energy efficiency in buildings I took another look at the 2050 Pathways tool[1] and was reminded of the importance of energy efficiency in the workplace as well as at home. This tool was developed by DECC for evaluating options to reduce our carbon emissions over the 2050 timescale and all of the example pathways include high targets for energy efficiency across all sectors. However, the base case for lighting and appliances assumes an increase in energy use up to 2050 - 20% more in homes and 35% more in the commercial sector. Is this reasonable? If you haven't decided on a new year resolution why not think about a campaign to save energy in the office.

Energy saving in business - Cambridge City Council

In June Cambridge City Council (CCC) published their carbon management plan for 2011-2016 [1] and it is an interesting read for anyone concerned with saving money in a business environment. Granted some of the CCC services are not exactly typical - like the swimming pools - but there are others which directly relate to commercial business. They heat, cool and light their buildings, run deliveries between sites, run a concert venue (cf lecture theatre or seminar room), and a crematorium (cf incinerator) and car parks. I stated recently that the financial incentives for saving energy are fairly weak (What is the point in Carbon Accounts) mainly because fuel costs are a small fraction of most business costs and this is certainly true for CCC at the moment - fuel costs come to just 1% of their overall expenditure (£1.8 million [1] out of £183.4 million for 2010/2011 [2]). However, fuel prices are expected to rise and in any case CCC have set themselves a target to reduce their carbon emissions from energy use by 20% by 2020. According to their plan they expect to deliver this at a capital cost of only £2.3 million, with expected overall financial payback time of under 7 years. That is perhaps a bit longer than most businesses would consider reasonable, but some of the projects in the plan pay back much quicker than that. In this post I will pick out some high points from the plan - the high carbon services, the quick payback projects and those with biggest carbon savings.

What is the point in carbon accounts?

As from April 2013, 1800 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange will be required to report their carbon emissions annually [1]. Is this going to make a difference? DEFRA says this will save money as well as carbon emissions as it will help businesses identify cost savings from reducing energy consumption. Can this be true?

Why do shops leave their doors open?

Businesses can save energy as well as homes and one easy way for shops to do this, at least you would have thought so, is to close the doors when it's cold outside. We do at home - why don't the High Street shops do the same? There is a campaign to persuade them to do this, called close the door .

When challenged, shops cite all sorts of reasons not to close their doors including:

• It makes it difficult for people with pushchairs or wheelchairs to get inside.
• It discourages people from coming in.

There are many ways to fix the first problem. The Disability Rights Commission does not recommend that doors are fixed open, merely that doors are easy to open and close - having a well designed handle and making sure the door closer isn't too tight is usually sufficient (1). The second issue however is hard to disprove. Close the Doors paid for some research to see what the savings could be and whether closed doors really did lead to fewer customers or not. You can download the full report here.

Just in time versus resilience

Our society runs on cheap energy, and in particular cheap oil. Oil, in the form of petrol and diesel, is by far the best fuel for cars, buses, lorries, planes and ships. It has the best energy density, and it is easy to store and easy to move from place to place. The only transportation mode that doesn't need oil is trains, but trains are not a complete end-end solution for deliveries. We rely on oil.