9 October 2012 – LETTER: I have just finished reading the article on the NABERS ruling in relation to district tri-generation systems.

I agree with the ruling that NABERS team has made and I think that it is important to ensuring the integrity and original intent of the NABERS rating tool.

NABERS is a fantastic tool that has driven important change within the property sector, having a positive impact on both energy efficiency and emissions.

In many ways NABERS is becoming a victim of its own success.

Fundamentally NABERS is a building rating system. That is why elements that contribute to a building’s improved NABERS rating that are external from the building (Green Power, district trigen, district renewable or any other source) should be recognised separately from the rating of the actual building.

This is not to say there is not value in these other initiatives, obviously there is. However, it does become a little unreasonable to think that NABERS can deal with it all.

To be honest I think there is a level of hyperbole from those pushing the inclusion of district tri-generation within the headline NABERS rating.

The impact of the NABERS rating will not be a defining factor in either the decision to invest in district tri-generation or the decision to sign up to purchase district tri-generation power.

To argue otherwise is to assert that the business case for district tri-generation is so marginal that it needs the certainty of NABERS to get it across the line. This is not the case or if it is then district tri-generation should not be pursued as viable alternate energy supply solution.

The ruling that NABERS has reached on district tri-generation is fair and equitable to all parties. The NABERS team should be rewarded for its willingness to engage on these and other challenging issues and respond in a manner that is considered and reasonable.

Angus Gordon, is development manager, sustainability & operations, The GPT Group. These views are personal and not those of GPT