Page 2566 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
over $16 billion by 2030 by improving the performance of residential buildings. At a time when households are feeling the pinch of utility bills, designing houses to require less electricity has a real impact on the lives of Canberrans. The reduced need for electricity also leads to lower harmful emissions. These emissions are responsible for a range of environmental challenges locally and globally, the greatest risk being climate change. The most effective way to reduce environmental damage is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Energy efficient houses enable each of us to oblige this principle more readily.
With health benefits, financial benefits and less environmental damage, energy efficient homes offer significant improvement to our standard of living. When it comes to energy efficiency of residential buildings, the ACT stands unique among Australian states and territories as the only jurisdiction that requires dwellings to meet energy efficiency standards.
Since the ACT introduced its energy efficiency rating scheme, the tools that measure energy efficiency have proliferated, where once they were very limited. We are now in a position where there are a number of options for us to consider in respect of how we best measure the energy efficiency of a building. As part of the review that I am calling on to be finalised into the energy efficiency rating scheme, it is important that we consider the options available and consider which option is best for use in the ACT system.
The energy efficiency rating at point of sale measures the thermal efficiency of a building envelope. The scheme is based on the potential of the design to reduce energy use. This is modelled using extensive computer simulations of housing performance in the ACT climate, focusing on insulation, orientation of living areas and windows, air leakage and other design features to provide a comprehensive picture of a house’s potential for reduced energy consumption.
It is certainly the case that the simplest way to reduce energy consumption is to prevent it through better design, and each of these factors remains integral to the efficient design of housing. However, it is time we ask whether this is still our preferred method of assessment. There have been many improvements to knowledge and technology in this space since the scheme’s introduction and there are computer models available that better capture the design elements or the materials we are using today in energy efficient design.
Should we consider these tools that can assess appliances and behaviour and include this in the rating? Will our rating system be strengthened by revisiting the assumptions that underpin our current model? In undertaking a review into the energy efficiency rating scheme, we need to ensure that we are not missing opportunities that might improve our current system to make it more accurate and more reliable.
Canberra is unique among Australian climates as it experiences a hot summer and a cool winter. The design we require needs to work in these attributes, as does the system we use to assess the EER. Achieving energy efficiency can be determined through design, insulation, heating, cooling and appliances, and our rating system must be adaptable to each of these factors. Improving the energy efficiency of our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video