Alan Pears, who led many of the energy efficiency movements in Australia is not impressed at Australia’s very slow progress towards better housing. In fact, even the new National Construction Code of Australia’s 7 star NatHERS standard that states are refusing to implement in a timely manner would be illegal in many parts of Europe and parts of the US, he says.
To me, the underlying problem with building energy policy is that policy makers have tried to drive change using regulation without enough emphasis on complementary measures.
They have failed to mobilise community support, which is fundamental to change. Erika Bartak and her colleagues at the University of Melbourne showed some time back how builders were manipulating the 6 star regs, claiming that 6 stars meant their houses were fantastically efficient (see Spruiking the stars: some home builders are misleading consumers about energy ratings ). Even now 7 stars would be illegal in many EU countries and some parts of the US.
On the other hand, I gather that there are some practical challenges in meeting 7 stars on sites with poor solar access for instance.
This reflects issues with the rating scheme itself, as well as lack of innovation. I dream of the “good old days” when CSIRO Building Research at Highett [in Melbourne] did strong practical work and Melbourne University Architecture was a global leader in building modelling
Even the Gas & Fuel Corporation was doing serious work understanding how gas heating interacted with real buildings – and selling insulation by letting people pay for it on their gas bills.
With appliance efficiency we used an effective energy labelling scheme with multi-million dollar promotion, training of appliance sales staff and tech innovation to drive community support.
The laggards couldn’t deny that there were others offering much better products, and consumers were asking why government allowed poor performing products to be sold. When most new home buyers have no idea what stars mean, what hope do we have?
Also, the present NatHERS [home energy rating system] approach doesn’t focus enough on peak summer and winter demand, and comfort/health in extreme weather. The software is capable of doing this: it’s the communication that is failing. And we are still using weather data from pre-2015 to design buildings with 75 year lives in a changing climate and increasing vulnerability of energy supply infrastructure.
The 2022 NCC still used a 7 per cent discount rate and very low carbon price in its benefit-cost ratio analysis, so it didn’t reflect economic reality. So much for rational policy making. I discussed this in a recent article in The Fifth Estate We need a new design for our electricity market Spinifex
Then there is the issue of enforcement. It seems we can’t even build homes that don’t leak, crack or catch fire. These create costs and deep trauma for the unfortunate people who buy them. Mind you, the book by David Oswald and Trivess Moore (Constructing a Consumer-Focused Industry, Routledge 2022), and the recent disaster in Turkey have shown this is a global problem.
It’s true, as the Housing Industry Association claims, that the extra energy savings of shifting from 6 to 7 stars are a lot smaller than if you improve a 2 star to 3 stars – I think I was the one who highlighted that a while ago.
But that is an argument for a stronger focus on upgrading poor performing homes, not an excuse for delaying new home improvement in a context of terrifying climate change and multiple benefits from health, amenity, lower peak demand (saving on energy supply infrastructure costs) for example.
It is unfortunate that energy performance measures have been introduced into the NCC at the same time as the very important “liveable housing measures”, which introduce significant costs and provide a double excuse for laggards to complain.
Given the large and increasing percentage of ageing Australians with disabilities, and the increasing recognition of the importance of allowing people to age in place and save governments a lot of money, the delays are even more appalling.
It is interesting that “conservative” Queensland has been a leading advocate for universal access – maybe pushed by their large numbers of retirees. Maybe the HIA and Master Builders Australia should consult some retired builders and tradies on the importance of this measure.
I have been fighting these battles since I was running Melbourne’s Energy Information Centre in the early 1980s. To still face the insanity of this makes me very sad.
Passive House is simple , effective & works at making an energy efficient house, well insulated , use of double glaze , no thermal bridging to name basic items .it’s not rocket science .
What are we waiting for ??
Thanks Alan!
It is very sad.
We have moved a lot for work and have had much frustration attempting energy and comfort improvements to each home. Sometimes the work just hasn’t been on the agenda of the tradespeople we’ve found, the work has not been up to the results sought or the product has not been entirely suitable for the situation. Then when we’ve onsold each home it’s not been bought by someone looking for or understanding those improvements.
We’re now awaiting completion of a new build in a gas free 7 star townhouse development, while renting a “colder inside than out” house. Hoping not to be disappointed.
We build crap houses and Lou’s cookie cutter development to make maximum profit with minimum work
Told by a politician/ builder that it costs too much to build a house that is properly sealed and cool in summer and warm in winter
Hi Alan
In my 50 years of Home ownership I have endeavoured during our home purchases to buy four homes, it was impossible to find anything that was aligned for good light and sun placement beneficial to climate.
I feel sad too that our Councils do not give any thought to good design practice so that builders are forced to produce better homes complying with environmental guidelines.
People are just dumb. Developers are just carving up bad homesites and the sad story just house in and on.
Good reflections Alan and thanks for your efforts long-term, but the existential threat that we face is not energy efficient homes, it is climate change. I am just incredulous that we are still talking energy efficiency instead of mandating net zero homes and getting solar on every new roof. If we did this even with 6* homes, we would quadruple the rate of decarbonisation from homes by 2050 and all of the new homes would be immediately more affordable. The energy cost savings would be up to 8 times larger than the additional mortgage payments. Why are we so blind to all of this everywhere?
Nigel, I broadly agree with you – my word limit and my desire to reflect on the decades of failure limited me. In practice, rooftop solar is not the silver bullet many think it is, although it is an absolute essential. In Southern Aust, cloudy winter weather can limit PV output to 1 kWh/day/kW of capacity for several days in a row, when heating demand is very high. At the same time, sunny day feed-in prices are crashing with electricity system managers wanting to shut down PV at times or charge to export. So we definitely need to combine building efficiency and peak demand management, and heating equipment efficiency with PV and smart management/storage.
We also have to focus much more on existing buildings, including increasing occupancy of existing buildings as discussed in my recent 5thEstate article.
It is great to see emerging focus on embodied emissions. My recent analysis showed that life cycle emissions of a new home today will be dominated by embodied emissions. And if we consider cumulative emissions and diminishing carbon budgets, cutting emissions today is far more important than cutting them 10 years from now – all the more reason to focus on maximising utilisation and performance of existing homes.
How should we confront outright stupidity? Bass Coast Shire is just finishing very large barn of building in centre of COWES. Letters in paper and to council drew attention to energy efficiency for 2 previous designs. Asking what efficiency rating – “we’re not in the business of dictating to bidders, we ask what they think is best?!!?”
Eventually no worries, it’s Passivhaus. It might be constructed with very thick foam insulation to floor, sides and roof but it breaks PH golden rule of orientation. There’s almost no glazing in north or any other wall, except for west! Even rotated slightly south. Cladding outside big foam is nothing less than bricks and mortar, so time consuming, excruciating to watch.
Actual design came with new CEO, restricted community consultation,, years behind schedule, nearly 3x price of previous, fees for usage beyond the means of locals, exemption from car park regulations, taller than height limit, ugly, rectangular, flat walls etc.
Do schools need to teach need for and skills for civil disobedience and protest marches?
BERNIE.
I think your comment about “failed to mobilise community support” is the key, if we make the public want it, then builders will try to beat each other to do it, while there is no demand, we see it as a cost or a hurdle, Government needs to educate the public about the benefits rather than force the cost on to builders and in turn owners, if people want it and banks value it then the building side is easy to get on board.
I have heard builders advertising on the radio to “get in quick before the 7 star regulations start and the price goes up”
why is that not surprising?
Well said Alan and thankyou for your efforts over many years.