Lismore, NSW energy efficiency
Lismore, NSW

Delaying the increase of decades-old residential energy efficiency standards will lock in hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary costs and carbon emissions. But the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) has a plan to boost building efficiency, mandate renewables and save the economy billions.

Today, we unveil another signpost on the road to a more prosperous, zero emission Australia. The Bottom Line: household impacts of delaying improved energy requirements in the Building Code report, produced by ASBEC and Climateworks Australia, shows that if we improve the energy standards for houses and apartments in our National Construction Code we can lower emissions and save up to $150 a year in energy bills for households, with bill savings more than offsetting additional capital costs.

Australia’s National Construction Code governs the minimum standards for all new residential buildings and major renovations. Although the Code is regularly revised, its energy provisions haven’t been updated since 2010.

Right now, the Australian Building Codes Board is proposing an ambitious upgrade to the energy performance standards for commercial buildings, to come into effect in mid-2019. This includes improvements to the requirements for housing, but there is no proposal to strengthen the required level of energy efficiency for homes. The next scheduled update to the Code is in 2022, so we’re likely to be stuck building to decade-old standards until then – locking in years of higher energy bills and producing unnecessary carbon emissions.

Energy efficiency and distributed generation technology has improved massively in recent years, and is already being used in new and existing builds across the country. Almost a quarter of Australian households now boast some form of rooftop solar, with several companies now selling solar PV roof tiles. Other technologies like insulation and air circulation have also seen innovative changes. Updating the Code would bring it into line with current technology, with the added benefit that mandated use of technologies like these would increase their uptake and decrease their price across the board.

We’re getting used to higher temperatures in Australia. It’s possible we’ll see regular 50 degree days in Sydney and Melbourne in the coming decades. This leads to a very real risk to human life. Airconditioning assumes a reliable electricity generation and distribution network, but you only have to Google “summer blackout” to know our ageing infrastructure is struggling to cope with the increasing demand for airconditioning when temperatures soar. Reducing the demand for energy in our homes means less stress on the electricity grid we all share – and in a future of increasing extreme temperatures, that could very well be a life saver.

Reducing the strain on our electricity infrastructure also means less to spend on maintaining and replacing it – saving us all money. The Bottom Line demonstrates that if just one household cuts their peak demand by one kilowatt – the power used to run a small oil heater – this saves almost $1000 in outlay on our electricity system’s infrastructure, reducing electricity prices for everyone. In total, the changes suggested in the report could save an estimated $1.2 billion across Australia by 2050 in the form of avoided or deferred electricity network investments.

Population growth is occurring in Australia: we’re a favoured destination for skilled migrants and foreign students, and we have our own natural population growth too. This means our cities are becoming more densely populated and our suburbs expanding. We’re building homes, commercial buildings, schools and universities at a rate of knots. That means that a lot of our future buildings have yet to be built.

A staggering 58 per cent of the buildings that will be standing in 2050 will be built after 2019. This means that changes to the Code right now can make a big difference in meeting Australia’s Paris Agreement obligations. It’s much easier to make the buildings we were going to build anyway more energy efficient than to retrofit old stock.

The report calculates a per-household annual bill saving of up to $150 for each of the energy efficiency measures we found to offer the highest cost-benefit to households, with bill savings more than outweighing additional capital costs. This flies in the face of arguments that improving energy efficiency standards will reduce housing affordability. In fact, the poorest Australians will benefit even more from stronger energy provisions in the National Construction Code.

Low-income households spend a much higher percentage of their income on energy costs to light, heat and cool their homes. That means that adopting these changes will benefit these households the most, helping us towards not only a cleaner and richer society, but a fairer one too.

As a signatory to the Paris Climate Change Agreement, Australia urgently needs to cut our emissions rapidly in order to meet our international obligations. Closing the most polluting power stations is one way to do this. So too is adopting stronger energy standards for housing in the National Construction Code, which could save 10.8 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050. That’s the same amount of carbon as emitted each year by one of Australia’s most polluting power stations, the Loy Yang B station in Victoria, powered by the most polluting brown coal.

They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The journey to a lower emission, affordable energy Australia is nowhere near that long, and industry is already taking some of the steps.

States, territories and the Commonwealth government now need to:

  1. Commit to harmonised strengthening of Code residential energy requirements as soon as possible. Individual jurisdictions should show leadership by piloting stronger standards (an increase of at least the equivalent of 1 star NatHERS)
  2. Introduce market transformation initiatives to reduce the cost of energy-saving technologies and improve industry capability in smart building design.
  3. Introduce renewable energy requirements in the Code (in addition to minimum efficiency requirements).
  4. Improve Code compliance, including:
  • Upgrading NatHERS
  • Reviewing residential compliance pathways
  • Improving monitoring and enforcement

If these recommendations can be adopted, we’ll be guiding ourselves down the road to a more comfortable, prosperous future.

Suzanne Toumbourou is executive director of ASBEC.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

  1. Because of potential billions of dollars of compensation are at question, Governments are frightened to rectify the wrongs of the past relating to insulation, particularly the bulk fibrous industry, to now do the right scientific “thing” with building products such as cladding etc. not to our Australian Standards (or follow regulations, even though some are misguided), or mandate reflective foil at roof or wall level in residential homes for its insulation properties.

    because successive Governments Labor or Liberal have been lobbied and led by the mainly fibrous bulk insulation industry to over insulate homes as if we live in cold climates of Europe.

    Australia has its own varying climates, and different building methodologies, and with the breakdown of one of the two ozone layers above us, the net effect is rising solar radiation.

    WE protect humans in space from radiation using foil, why not our homes with foil?

    Why not stop heating car interiors by placing bulk insulation in cars?
    NO, people place double sided foil near the inside of the windscreen.

    Why? because foil reflects the solar radiation, whereas bulk insulation stores the heat generated from solar radiation to then heat up the car interior, continuing even when the sun goes down.

    Aluminium double sided antiglare foil is credited by CSIRO as giving summer and winter benefits?

    A 2013 report from UNIV SA partly funded by the United Church calls for mandated foil under roofs.

    And before anyone says foil is electrically unsafe in roof spaces, the 27 million dollar 2014 Royal Commission Home Insulation Program dispelled the electrical issues with foil manifested by the electrical and bulk insulation industries when finding that Governments had not policed the Wiring Rules, and electricians failed to comply with the Wiring Rules.

    Why isn’t foil mandated under every roof to combat rising solar radiation?
    Should our climate get so hot, and the energy crisis of availability and ever increasing costs, everyone may have to live underground or in caves again.

    Just like most people in Cooper Pedy live underground to escape the scorching heat with no airconditioning.

  2. Once again an expert has skirted around the elephant in the room – population growth. At our currents rates any savings our efficiency gains we make will simply be cancelled out by population growth within a few decades so all we are doing is delaying the inevitable. Most experts, especially those in the property industry, talk about population growth as a given, something we just have to accept, like gravity.

  3. Good article Suzanne. Improving monitoring and performance can be as simple as including one additional mandatory insulation and glazing installation inspection, by building surveyors, at a cost of approximately $150-$200 per freestanding dwelling. This would go a long way to alleviating the problem of poor insulation installation ie gaps, and windows being installed that are not the ones approved in the energy rating. This additional inspection is not something I hear many people suggesting, but it is a simple measure that can be accommodated within our exiting regulatory inspection framework. If you like it – keep the conversation going!

  4. It defies belief that we have to lobby so hard and for so long to get the attention of our politicians and regulators to DO SOMETHING about such obvious basics – absolute no-brainers!! Let’s hope we see some real action come out of the current review of the NCC. Nevertheless, I can’t be anything but cynical about us ever wiping out the legislative lag. It only takes another hike in energy costs for there to be a need for another review of the Code, not in five years but immediately. Otherwise, loads of cost-effective building shell measures never get implemented en masse for years. In the meantime lots of energy goes down the drain, costs consumers lots, especially if they have air conditioners (which are usually pretty much necessary in our poorly designed buildings), pollutes and stresses our supply networks. (Signed, “40 years of persistence”)