The phones were running hot. Not everyone was happy about the new NatHERS tool for existing homes that’s expected to be the precursor for mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency in the massive residential sector of our economy.
In the commercial sector mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency in offices at the point of sale or lease was a game changer. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure” said countless influencers. Energy efficiency soared; Australia’s commercial building reputation did likewise.
But in residential, where were the guarantees for occupants that they could have a comfortable existence and afford the energy bills to heat and cool their houses?
NatHERS ratings for new homes came along and promised at least some basic standards for new homes. Never mind that this is being wound back by the new anti ideological virus sweeping the world and now infecting Labor and Liberal governments alike.
Now it was – finally – the turn of existing homes to be rated. A trial was announced this week and we carried the story.
Then came the calls.
Our story was misleading, they said. Not exactly wrong but incomplete. We had failed to mention Scorecard, the Victorian-developed energy assessment tool for existing homes that has been developed over 10 years and had gone national in 2021.
Since it started the assessment tool had served more than 11,000 home occupants through the work of just 150 assessors, on current numbers, and at costs of just a couple of hundred dollars per house.
According to one assessor who wanted to stay off the record, the beauty of Scorecard is that it engages the occupants and gives them practical ways to improve energy efficiency in their homes. They may plan to insulate the floor but the assessor may advise them that in their case they will get more value from insulating the ceiling properly.
The assessors also work out the energy consumption of fixed appliances, even down to the fine grain detail of what each model of heater or hot water service for instance is rated at, energy wise.
The data is simple at the front end, but has complex backend calculations that provide an accurate final reading.
What owners can expect is a nice discount on their mortgages. Currently that’s about 0.25 per cent from banks such as Bank Australia, Commonwealth and Gateway.
One assessor said she took a 1 star home and got it to 10 stars with relatively little investment.
With the NatHERS existing homes tool though the required data is far more complex to gather. Each wall needs to be measured and orientation factored in. And instead of one to two hours the full tranche of assessment will take five hours or more.
Scorecard assessor Danielle King of Green Moves and the Green Building Institute who has consulted for the likes of the City of Melbourne, says both tools use the Chennith Engine to do their work. And the end results are broadly the same.
Her question is why both cannot be maintained.
According to her colleagues in the system and her own views, the tool costs very little to maintain. It’s her understanding it’s between $1 million and $1.5 million a year and it’s so popular and simple to use that on its current trajectory it’s expected to be self supporting in just a year or two.
Currently the cost of assessments under Scorecard is about $450 and with government kickbacks in Victoria (but not elsewhere) the home owner ends up paying just $200 or $250 for the service.
King has sat in on consultations and industry discussions but says it’s difficult for Scorecard assessors to get a useful handle on what could be going on behind the scenes.
What is certain is that funding is set to come to a halt in July.
King can see both systems operating as one. Banks already use it and are happy with it, she points out.
Other sources say there’s something else at stake and that’s that our national science organisation CSIRO, which has designed the tool, is now effectively privatised and must pay its way. Hence commercial concerns may well take centre stage, rather what tool produces the best overall result.
The Scorecard assessors say their system accurately measures the energy consumption of an entire house – because total actual energy consumption is being measured.
While natHERS measures the thermal quality of a house or building. In other words you could have a massive mansion that still rates 10 stars but uses an enormous amount of energy thanks to its size while a small house of 5 stars uses much less.
There are plenty of people in the Scorecard assessment world that say both tools should co-exist because of need to measure both potential and actual energy consumption.
The question is will the government agree?