Energy Efficient Solutions 2014/15

SOLUTIONS THE PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR INDUSTRY, COMMERCE AND THE PUBLIC SECT

OFFICIAL SPONSOR

VSD+ - NOT JUST AN EVOLUTION, IT’S A COMPLETE REVOLUTION. The new VSD+ changes the way you look at compressors. With up to 50% energy savings, noise levels down to 62 dB(A) and a 12% leap in free air delivery. A vertical design format that shrinks its footprint and a unique, patented permanent magnet motor.

It’s enough to turn your world upside down.

Atlas Copco Compressors Phone: 0800 181085 Email: compressor.sales@uk.atlascopco.com Web: www.atlascopco.com/gavsdplus

OFICIAL SPONSOR

CONTENTS

ENERGY EFFICIENT

Energy efficiency outlined Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 The UK Energy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

SOLUTIONS

Building Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Editor Tim McManan-Smith tim@energystmedia.com t: 020 3714 4450 m: 07818 545308

ISO 50001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13

Sales director Steve Swaine steve@energystmedia.com t: 020 3714 4451 m: 07818 574300 Production Paul Lindsell production@energystmedia.com m: 07790 434813

Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11 Building Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15 Building Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17 ESOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19 Opinion – Andrew Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 Energy Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 Performance Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-25 DECC Pilot Programme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-27 Heat Pumps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-29 ISO 50001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-31

Energyst Media Ltd, PO BOX 420, Reigate, Surrey RH2 2DU

Drives & Motors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-33 Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-35

Registered at Stationers Hall ISSN 0964 8321 Printed by Headley Brothers Disclaimer: Opinions expressed by individual contributors may not necessarily be those held by the publisher. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information published – this should be used at the readers discretion.

theenergyst.com

Energy efficient solutions Combined Heat & Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Compressed Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Energy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 HVAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-41 Monitoring & Targeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-43 Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 3

INTRODUCTION

The opportunities are there to tackle energy efficiency

W

ithout doubt energy efficiency has a higher profile than at any time since the early 1980s following the oil crises of the 1970s.

There is the EU energy in buildings directive, the EU Energy Efficiency Directive the UK Climate Change programme all with many ancillary programmes and schemes such as the recent Energy Saving Opportunity Scheme and the Electricity Demand Reduction pilot, CRC and the CCL. This is to name only a very few of the initiatives, taxes and schemes there to punish profligacy and reward lower energy consumption.

There is often talk about the energy trilemma of security of supply, affordability and environment and how to balance and prioritise this triangle of interplaying concerns. Energy minister Michael Fallon has said that this idea is “false geometry”, though I am pretty sure that three points make a triangle. However, his point is that we cannot invest in low carbon generation and energy reduction initiatives if we do not have secure and affordable energy. He is not wrong in this; there is no point at all in driving away industry and investors with an overiding green agenda if the result is that it bankrupts the UK and makes industry move to more polluting regimes.

Energy efficiency, sometimes called

4 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

the fifth fuel, is the cheapest and most effective method of lowering carbon emissions, improving security and reducing costs. This will enable the more expensive methods of decarbonising to be fully realised.

A report by Carbon Connect suggested that UK business can save £6bn a year by tackling poor energy efficiency. So the opportunities are definitely available and the plethora of legislation from the EU and UK government aims to do is to realise the potential that exists to encourage and incentive businesses to take energy reduction on board and embed it within the corporate structure.

There is much more that can be done with behavioural change and training alongside exciting new developments in technology. But it is worth remembering that we have already have significant achievements and that it is a case of channelling and refining what we have already done.

“Energy efficiency, sometimes called the fifth fuel, is the cheapest and most effective method of lowering carbon emissions, improving security and reducing costs”

According to Andrew Warren (see page 20) we have actually already decoupled GDP growth and carbon emissions, which I think would surprise many. GDP rose by 58% between 2000 and 2012 and yet actual final energy consumption in 2012 was 12% lower than it was in the year 2000. It is also pleasant to report some good news rather than another round of new legislation set out to hammer industry.

I hope you find this year’s Energy Efficient Solutions a useful resource and that it inspires further energy reduction within your organisation.

Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 5

THE UK ENERGY FRAMEWORK

Establishing a framework for stable, secure energy As the need for a structure that delivers dependable and affordable energy supply has gained an ever higher priority in the corridors of power, it is perhaps not surprising that policy development continues apace. Robin Hale, director of the Energy Services and Technology Association (ESTA), reviews recent developments and looks at further potential changes in the political framework for energy in the UK

T

he main legislative development over the past year has of course been the Energy Act, which has enshrined the main points of the government’s Electricity Market Reform (EMR) programme. The underlying context and drive for these reforms is clear even if the policy response as a whole is not.

We live in a country which depends for its energy largely on external suppliers, some of whom are in geo-politically volatile areas. Whether the Middle Eastern states such as Libya or Iraq for oil, or the former Soviet countries for gas, the security of these supplies to the UK – positioned as we are at the end of a long supply chain – from time to time gives cause for concern.

We also have a statutory requirement, set down in the Climate Change Act – to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% (from 1990 levels) by the middle of this century. The problem here is that UK energy intensity is dropping quite slowly, with many of the much-trumpeted reductions being attributable to the use of lower-carbon fossil fuels in the generation mix.

However, to achieve the required reductions will necessitate much greater use of non-fossil sources such as nuclear, wind and wave power as well as, more likely than not, the fitting of fossil plants with advanced carbon capture & storage (CCS) technologies.

EMR

Electricity Market Reform (EMR) includes a series of measures to incentivise the replacement of electricity infrastructure by a more diverse and low-carbon mix at the lowest possible cost to the 6 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

consumer. It is enshrined in the Energy Act, which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2013. With a large part of the existing power generation fleet now aging and the fossil-fuel plants subject to increased European emissions regulations, both environmental and energy-security considerations are forcing the government to change the regulatory landscape so that power companies will be more inclined to invest. The estimated electricity investment between now and the end of the decade is up to ÂŁ100bn (ÂŁ55-65bn for generation and around ÂŁ35bn for networks).

The Act enables the government to set a 2030 decarbonisation target range for the electricity sector in secondary rather than primary legislation.

However, a decision to exercise this power will only be taken once the Committee on Climate Change has provided advice on the level of the 5th Carbon Budget, which covers the corresponding period (2028-32). That is not due to happen until 2016.

EMR includes provisions for: t $POUSBDUT GPS %JGGFSFODF $'% MPOH term contracts to provide stable and predictable incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon generation; t $BQBDJUZ .BSLFU UP FOTVSF UIF security of electricity supply including provisions to allow Electricity Demand Reduction to be delivered; t $POGMJDUT PG *OUFSFTU BOE $POUJOHFODZ Arrangements: to ensure the institution which will deliver these schemes is fit for purpose; t *OWFTUNFOU $POUSBDUT MPOH UFSN contracts to enable early investment in advance of the CFD regime coming into force in 2014; Âť

THE UK ENERGY FRAMEWORK t "DDFTT UP .BSLFUT 5IJT JODMVEFT 1PXFS 1VSDIBTF "HSFFNFOUT 11"T UP FOTVSF the availability of long-term contracts for independent renewable generators, and liquidity measures to enable the Government to take action to improve the liquidity of the electricity market, should it prove necessary; t 3FOFXBCMFT 5SBOTJUJPOBM USBOTJUJPO arrangements for investments under the Renewables Obligation scheme; and t &NJTTJPOT 1FSGPSNBODF 4UBOEBSE &14

to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new fossil fuel power stations.

The government is looking to inject more innovation into the industry through the Low Carbon Innovation Coordination Group (LCICG). This vehicle aims to bring together ÂŁ1bn in public and private sector funding between 2011 and 2015 to directly support energy innovation.

ESOS

The potential for energy efficiency to help countries along the path to achieving affordable, secure and green energy supplies was the inspiration for the EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive. It had a troubled path through the European legislative process but is now on the statute books.

Article 8 requires that larger private sector organisations should carry out regular energy audits – the rationale being that responsible enterprises will then choose to implement the cost-effective savings opportunities uncovered. Evidence in the UK on the uptake from energy audits, specifically research carried out by the Carbon Trust, does not lead to the conclusion that there is a necessary link between audits and action All EU Member States are required to “transpose� Community legislation

“Assessments carried out for other compliance schemes – such as the CCS Energy Efficiency Scheme or the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – will be acceptable for ESOS but none of these other schemes are likely to cover all the emissions sources (particularly transport)�

8 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

TABLE 1: PHASES OF UK ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORM AS SET OUT IN THE ENERGY ACT. SOURCE: DECC POLICY OVERVIEW, DEC 2012 Phase

Technology maturity and market instruments

to 2017

Technology demonstration – renewables obligation and “administrative� price setting

2017-2020s

Technologies maturing – some technology-specific auctions

2020s

Growing technology maturity – technology-neutral auctions

late 2020s

Technologies mature enough and carbon price high enough to enable competition without intervention

into national regulations. In the UK, this has been done via the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), which was due to come into force as this article went to press.

All major businesses will be required to complete an energy audit of at least 90% of their energy use (including buildings, transport and industrial processes) by the end of 2015 – and thereafter every four years. The scheme administrator is the Environment Agency.

Organisations in the UK must assess whether or not qualify for inclusion by the qualification date of each phase. The qualification date for the first phase is 31 December 2014.

For the first phase, ESOS Assessments must be undertaken between 6 December 2011 and 5 December 2015 to be considered compliant. Further ESOS assessments must then be undertaken within each subsequent phase.

The assessment has to cover a full 12-month period, which means that potential participants will have to get their data-gathering processes in order before the end of this year.

Assessments carried out for other compliance schemes – such as the CCS Energy Efficiency Scheme or the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – will be acceptable for ESOS but none of these other schemes are likely to cover all the emissions sources (particularly transport).

These energy audits must be undertaken, or approved, by lead auditors who are themselves approved by the Environment Agency. However, the

approved list may not be ready till the end of this year and, as noted above, it would be prudent to start planning for the scheme now. The Register of 1SPGFTTJPOBM &OFSHZ $POTVMUBOUT 31&$ o jointly operated by ESTA and the Energy Institute – will be applying for inclusion on the EA approved list. For organisations wanting to get ahead with their planning GPS UIJT TDIFNF 31&$ XPVME CF B HPPE place to start.

There are other ways to comply with ESOS apart from an audit, though. ISO 50001 certification is one way that may help many businesses to show compliance. Display Energy Certificates (DECs) will also satisfy the requirement although DECs are in more widespread use in the public sector rather than the commercial sphere. Finally, Green Deal assessments will also be accepted as a form of compliance.

Again, though, the means used to confirm compliance must cover 90% of all energy consumption. If they do not, then the audit method will have to be employed for the remainder and a lead auditor retained.

Does the passage of the Energy Act mean that all the major changes to the energy landscape are in place? That seems unlikely given its vital importance to a competitive UK economy. But the latest piece of legislation is designed to persuade investors that the power generation landscape at least is stable for the foreseeable future. If that brings with it, stable and secure energy prices, then UK business will be very pleased.

The Energy Services and Technology Association (ESTA) represents more than 100 major providers of energy management equipment and services across the UK. For more details visit the website at: www.esta.org.uk

BUILDING PERFORMANCE

Building Performance Exchange – get online to help close the performance gap The UK’s persistent failure to produce non-domestic buildings that combine both comfort and excellent energy performance has been described as a ‘national scandal’. We at the National Energy Foundation have recently launched a new online facility designed to help combat the energy performance gap – Building Performance Exchange, writes Kerry Mashford, chief executive, National Energy Foundation

T

he energy performance of both new and refurbished buildings rarely lives up to expectations, with energy use typically between 2.5 and 3.5 times higher than designed, with some examples in excess of seven times higher.

Deviation from expected performance often builds up throughout the building cycle – from design, through construction and into operation.

Whether it accumulates in the building specification, design and modelling or in its procurement, delivery, commissioning, handover and use, we all too often end up with an unexpected and disappointing cumulative gap – of the wrong kind.

It’s not for us to apportion blame but the disjointed building cycle has many trip-up points along the way. For example, those involved sometimes: t Opt for cheaper than specified alternatives t Take differing advice from “experts” t Agree a change to part of the process – often for the sake of expediency, and not realising that such a decision can significantly affect the end result t Forget the original aims and objectives.

For example, after handover and once the building has settled down operationally, it’s all too easy for the client to stop comparing what they expected against what they ended up with Delivering low-energy buildings with excellent in-use energy performance is a challenge but it’s not impossible, and it should be the norm – so, what do we need to do? t Share our experiences and “stories” – both good and bad – and make them available and freely accessible to everyone. Many of the current problems could be avoidable if the industry learned from its collective experience and fed the results into future projects

t Devise a common language for talking meaningfully about energy performance across the whole building cycle t Encourage a greater appreciation and use of building performance evaluation services. Spending a small proportion of a major capital expenditure budget is money well-spent Our Building Performance Exchange is our new online facility designed to help combat the performance gap. It’s a resource where non-domestic building and energy professionals can record and share their experiences, solutions and thoughts on building better buildings.

It takes a practical and common sense approach and we hope it’ll provide a valuable contribution to: t Closing the gap between the expected and actual energy performance in the built environment

t Closing the knowledge gap that exists in the sector t Stimulating a collaborative approach to experience-sharing and problem-solving t Developing a greater understanding of what’s going wrong and why So, get online and share what you know – so that the whole industry can learn from all the experience and expertise that’s currently siloed away. Your life lessons are valuable and should be shared for the benefit of everyone.

Contribute to our Building Performance Exchange and give everyone the benefit of your experience. The aim of this is to help combat the situation by providing a forum where non-domestic building and energy professionals can record their experiences, thoughts and solutions on building better buildings. To submit your experiences, and solutions, please go to www.nef.org.uk/ building-performance-exchange

NEF is an independent charity based in Milton Keynes and has been at the forefront of improving the use of energy in buildings since 1988. We aim to give people, organisations and government the knowledge, support and inspiration they need to understand and improve the use of energy in buildings.

Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 9

TRAINING

How long before you are made to take energy efficiency training?

Energy Managers Association CEO Lord Redesdale looks at the need to train all staff within an organisation and not only the energy managers

T

hree questions: 1. What is the cost in grammes of carbon of an email with an attachment? 2. Did you think there was one? 3. How many emails do you have in your inbox over a year?

If you do not know the answer to these questions you need energy efficiency training, but why is energy efficiency training not standard in most companies?

The answer is that energy efficiency training is often seen in exactly same way as bicycle training, something that kids are encouraged to do but could be ignored by almost everyone else and certainly is something you would not pay to do. This is an odd attitude for companies to take, as every single one of their employees is costing them money if they are using energy inefficiently in their work place.

Until recently boards have believed that energy spend is fairly irrelevant. However, with the prospect that energy prices will double over the next five years and energy gaps will lead to price variation at different times, understanding energy use is going to be vital if companies are to remain profitable or in the worst case scenario, survive.

Energy efficiency has in a recent past been almost exclusively top down. If companies are to make real savings, bottom up approach will be needed based on behaviour change. Whatever reason companies are forced into training their people, whether it is a pressure from their supply chain or from their financial director, more and more companies will need to take this journey. Luckily the Energy Managers Association (EMA) has a simple solution. It has introduced five standards of energy management training that have already been trialled with ZSL London Zoo, with negotiation to train all those working in Parliament in the next few months under way.

The EMA scheme, called the Low Energy Company (LEC), will mean companies will be able to claim LEC status if they have trained a proportion of their company in basic energy management 10 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

Will energy management training have any effect?

training courses. In the future, the supply chain will use LEC status as part of the procurement process so companies will become LEC not to fulfil their CSR agenda but because they might lose contracts if they cannot prove that they are LEC as part of the procurement process.

How do the EMA training levels work?

Level I, which is one hour of online training, sets out what uses energy in the work place and where it comes from.

Level II teaches people how to reduce their own energy use in the workplace.

Level III courses are for those whom energy management is part of their main job. Level IV is management of energy managers. Level V is strategic approach to energy management.

The first LEC in the UK was ZSL London Zoo. The zoo has an enormous energy cost in running the exhibits but like many other businesses, the energy cost was not well understood and was not taken into consideration in the design of the new exhibits. A clear case was the new penguin pool. Half a million litres of water in the pool had to be filtered three times a day to keep it clear and hygienic for the penguins.

The energy cost of pumping water was significant, but while the keepers were trained to the highest level in the care of penguins, they were given no training in the efficient management of the exhibit.

The ZSL London Zoo trained its staff in the summer of last year to LEC standards.

While we are still correlating the data from this trial, the immediate result was that all the zoo staff started to understand the importance of energy efficiency and at the staff meetings at different parts of the zoo, it was the staff who suggest different measure for reducing energy.

The case for energy management is a financial one and over the coming few years most companies will train their staff, or will be forced to by the supply chain trying to minimise its financial risk. The LEC concept works on the principle that everyone in a company uses energy so everyone is part of the solution.

Answers to the quiz: 1. 4 grammes 2. You didn’t really‌ 3. If you have 10,000 emails with attachments in your inbox per year it is quite possible that you are releasing more carbon than in your winter fuel bill

The EMA aims to: 1. Improve the standing of the Energy Management profession and those working within it 2. Establish best-practice in Energy Management 3. Put Energy Management at the heart of British business theema.org.uk

Energy management needn’t be taking a dive into the unknown – London Zoo used the EMA’s Low Energy Company scheme to engage with staff and reduce energy use

BUILDING CONTROLS

Raising awareness of the true costs of running a building Time and again, there have been calls for designers and contractors to give as much consideration to the operating costs of buildings as they do the construction costs. But this continues to be a challenge.

Steve Harrison highlights how the long-term value of controls can be calculated

1

0-80-10: the approximate percentage costs of a building at three key stages of its life: construction; operation and decommissioning. That 80% figure is what it costs to own, occupy and maintain a building, and it is an enormous sum. Of that amount approximately another 80% is the cost of running the building services: heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting.

The anomaly between how much concentrated effort goes into keeping that initial 10% to a minimum and how little thought is put into the operational costs has vexed many experts in the construction industry. Organisations such as CIBSE, BSRIA and BRE have asked important questions about why buildings don’t operate as intended, or why they are so wasteful of energy. Methods such as BSRIA’s Soft Landings and BRE’s BREEAM assessment tools are now well known. Many clients have adopted them successfully – but they are not universal.

At the same time, legislation is supposed to be driving buildings to be more energy efficient, with the EU particularly regarding energy efficiency as its key goal – especially in the built environment. However, those who work in the construction industry know that enforcement of energy-related legislation has not been as robust as it might be.

So this leaves us with the question of how can those who are putting up new buildings, or refurbishing existing ones, be persuaded to pay more attention to the operating costs of a building before the occupants are in there?

From a building controls point of view, this is an especially important question. So often, BCIA members tell us, the controls are subject to cut-backs at the specification and design stages. Saving money on what may seem like ‘small’ items such as sensors and actuators is viewed as an almost consequence-free method to minimise that initial 10%.

However, controls have a major impact 14 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

TABLE 1: CLASSES OF BUILDING CONTROL FROM BSEN 15232 Class

Energy efficiency

A

High energy performance building automation and controls * networked room automation with automatic demand control * scheduled maintenance * energy monitoring * sustainable energy optimisation

B

Advanced building automation and some specific controls functions * networked room automation without automatic demand control * energy monitoring

C

Corresponds to Standard building automation and control * networked building automation of primary plants * no electric room automation, thermostatic valves for radiators * no energy monitoring

D

Corresponds to non-energy efficient building controls. BSEN15232 recommends that buildings with this type of system should be retrofitted, and that new buildings should avoid this level of control * without networked building automation functions * no electronic room automation * no energy monitoring

TABLE 2: POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTROLS ON THE THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Building type

Building control efficiency factors – thermal D Non-energy efficient

C Standard (Reference)

B Advanced energy efficiency

A High energy efficiency

Offices

1.51

1

0.80

0.70

Schools

1.20

1

0.88

0.80

Hospitals

1.31

1

0.91

0.86

Restaurants

1.23

1

0.85

0.68

Retail

1.56

1

0.73

0.60

Table reproduced from EN15232 on the operational costs of a building. They provide effective automation and control of heating, ventilating, cooling, hot water and lighting systems that lead to increased operational energy efficiencies.

Also, building controls and building management systems can be used to configure energy saving functions and

routines, based on the actual use of a building, depending on real user needs.

This can help to reduce unnecessary use and CO2 emissions.

But as an industry, controls needs to be able to prove its worth in the longterm. This is the key to overcoming the concentration on the initial capital costs

“The notion of 10-80-10 is increasingly important as energy prices rise, adding to the costs of commercial property.

For anyone thinking about construction in the 21st century, the old view of cost-first must be a thing of the past”

of buildings. Each element has to prove its worth in terms of better energy efficiency; better operation; value to occupants, and value to investors.

Thanks to research carried out in support of the European Energy Performance Of Buildings Directive (EPBD), there is a document that can identify the potential energy savings of a wide range of generic building controls, and their impact on energy use in several different types of building.

BSEN 15232 (2007): Energy performance of buildings – impact of building automation, control and building management may not be the kind of document that leaps from the shelves, but for anyone trying to calculate the cost-benefits of building controls it is an invaluable tool.

BSEN15232 is a European and British Standard that provides a structured list of controls and building automation technologies which have an impact on the energy performance of buildings. The document deals with a range of controls products such as automatic detection devices, demand-based controls such as CO2 sensors, and also controls-based strategies, for example night cooling.

It also gives a method to define

minimum requirements for building controls for buildings of different complexities. Most usefully, the Standard provides detailed methods to assess the impact of building controls on the energy performance of a given building.

The Standard can therefore be used to demonstrate the energy savings of different types of building control, to compare against the costs. For clients and specifiers, BSEN15232 can be used to identify levels of control required in a new building, or refurbishment project – the Standard identifies four classes A, B, C and D of controls giving estimates of how much energy is saved at each level. Table 1 shows the classes in more detail.

In terms of calculating the impact of these different classes of control, BSEN 15232 offers real insight, based on extensive modeling of different types of buildings such as offices, hospitals, schools,

lecture halls and retail buildings. With class C controls taken as “standard”, the amount of energy saved compared with this level is shown for each building type. Table 2 shows examples of these figures for thermal efficiency.

For new-build projects this type of data can offer insights into the long-term value of not value engineering out even the smallest element of a building energy management system. Each part of the controls can be shown to contribute to optimised long-term efficiency – helping to keep that 80% at levels that are acceptable to building owners and occupiers.

The Standard is equally useful for those operating existing buildings. The most cost-effective approach that any facilities or energy manager can take is to use their existing building controls as effectively as possible. It is surprising how much energy a simple audit of areas such as sensors and detection devices can identify problems that can easily be rectified, saving energy immediately. Building controls can become the backbone of an energy efficient building.

At a time when budgets are constrained, it is important to deploy what cash there is to get the most effective return.

The notion of 10-80-10 is increasingly important as energy prices rise, adding to the costs of commercial property. For anyone thinking about construction in the 21st century, the old view of cost-first must be a thing of the past.

Steve Harrison is president of the BCIA (Building Controls Industry Association)

The Building Controls Industry Association represents the interests of a wide range of businesses in the building controls industry. With its specialised programme of training, education and marketing, the BCIA upholds high standards of performance for organisations and individuals. For more information see www.bcia.co.uk Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 15

BUILDING SERVICES

New subsidies could undermine energy efficiency The coalition government has found that it does like subsidising energy-efficient retrofit projects after all, but David Frise warns that just chasing the money could lead building owners to make the wrong choices

T

he government has changed direction regularly on energy policy, and particularly on financial incentives, but it has surprised everyone by showing renewed enthusiasm for subsidies with the launch of the domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI); revamp of the RHI for commercial buildings; and relaunch of the Green Deal.

It would be churlish to look these apparent gift horses in the mouth, but their potential impact on the energy efficiency of buildings is not as straightforward as many might think.

The new Green Deal was launched in the wake of an Advertising Standards Authority ruling that the Green Deal Finance Company had misled consumers about the potential returns on their investments.

It remains true that many people would be better off financing energy efficiency improvements themselves rather than applying for Green Deal funds – and the savings are most definitely not guaranteed.

However, the £7,600 grants available under the new Green Deal Home Improvement Fund are attractive and more than 22,000 Green Deal assessments were carried out in the month once the new funding was announced. So, if nothing else, these initiatives do increase interest in the whole topic of energy saving.

Enhanced

This was further enhanced by the launch of the domestic RHI and the fact that more technologies are now being supported by the non-domestic scheme. Air source heat pumps; biomass combined heat and power (CHP); all anaerobic digestion plant (only plants under 200kW were eligible before); and heating from waste now qualify for RHI payments.

New higher tariffs also came into effect for large biomass heating systems; deep geothermal heating; ground source heat pumps; and solar thermal water heating.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said the launch of the domestic RHI had a knock-on positive impact on the non-domestic scheme with 16 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

capacity as a result of poorly insulated pipework.

Less complex and much cheaper air source heat pump systems can now reach coefficients of performance (CoP) of between 3 and 3.5, which rival those claimed by ground source systems, because they avoid transmission losses by delivering their heating load at the point of use.

Nonsensical

the publicity reigniting interest among commercial building operators.

Currently renewables account for just 1% of all heating in the UK and the government wants to increase that to 12% by 2020.

This is a very ambitious target, but this new enthusiasm for public subsidy should certainly push us in the right direction.

However, inappropriate choices and poor quality installations could easily derail the whole strategy.

Quality assurance schemes are in place and all contractors have to be Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) accredited – as do the technologies – but there are still many examples of systems being poorly designed, badly installed, not commissioned properly – or simply not appropriate.

Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) are a particular problem with some having to be ripped out and replaced with air source alternatives. Consultants working for the Building & Engineering Services Association (B&ES) have analysed a number of installed systems and uncovered widespread lack of understanding of the technology and failure to calculate system capacities properly.

The loss of one third of a system’s capacity is not uncommon as a result of transmission losses as heat leaks away from poorly insulated pipework and plant components – this in turn leads to considerable problems with system undersizing. In some cases the B&ES team found losses as high as 45% of the total

Elsewhere some contractors have attempted to install heat pumps as direct replacements for gas boilers without taking into account the lower flow temperatures and remodelling the system accordingly.

It is also totally nonsensical to install electrically driven heat pumps in buildings that are on the gas grid. Switching out of gas to electricity, no matter how efficiently, doesn’t stack up in terms of cash or carbon.

There is plenty of potential in rural locations off the main gas grid, where around four million consumers are currently tied to expensive oil and LPG heating.

Switching many of those to heat pumps or, in some cases, biomass makes better sense.

However, biomass has a far from unblemished record. As a result, installations now have strict new emissions standards to meet and their fuel must come from a sustainable source and should not lead to additional transport pollution. So, before designing a biomass system the specifier needs to consider issues like site access, fuel quality and transport feasibility.

Another concern is that many designers and installers continue to ignore the basic principle of the “energy hierarchy” and, encouraged by the subsidies on offer, go straight for a renewable solution.

Although the revamped RHI includes new energy efficiency standards as part of the accreditation process, there is still a danger that the project will be very far advanced before the real performance figures are available.

Basic, low-cost measures such as adding insulation and glazing to improve the thermal performance of the building fabric must come first to reduce energy demand

before looking at how that energy demand will be satisfied. System components like heaters, valves and pipes should also be insulated as part of the initial programme.

Measuring and monitoring current levels of consumption is crucial because it is very hard to save energy if you can’t see what you are using. A strategic ongoing maintenance and commissioning regime should then be put in place to ensure systems continue to operate as intended.

Adding intelligent controls systems and sensors is a sensible second stage in the hierarchy, but this is also the time to look at how thermostats are set and whether systems will default to “off”. Changing pumps and introducing variable speed motors are other relatively cheap measures that deliver a very fast payback.

Once all these things have been considered, then you can start to think about how renewables might fit into the

building services set-up. If you dive straight in at stage three, then you will only add an efficient energy generator onto an inefficient building driving up costs and disappointing the end user.

RHI payments to the end user, which are guaranteed for 20 years, depend on the data received from heat meters – another pre-requisite for an eligible system. Scheme administrator Ofgem reports that many meters are not properly installed and/or calibrated, particularly in complex systems.

Failing to provide fuel use records and to allow for heat losses are other common

problems that undermine RHI projects and leave end users disappointed by the return on their investment.

Performance problems are rarely the fault of the individual technologies themselves, but how they are integrated, controlled and selected in the first place. That is not a job for just anyone who fancies it, but for skilled engineers, who have taken the trouble to invest in the right training and have consulted with the right experts.

David Frise is head of sustainability at the Building & Engineering Services Association (B&ES)

B&ES is the UK’s leading trade association for building services engineering contractors. Founded in 1904, the B&ES represents the interests of firms active in the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration (hvacr) products and equipment. b-es.org Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 17

ESOS

Mandatory energy audits – no plaudits The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) affects all non-domestic energy users who are not public-sector bodies or SMEs. Vilnis Vesma has been monitoring developments

18 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

T

he Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), which comes into force at the end of 2015, requires all non-domestic energy users who are not public-sector bodies or SME to have comprehensive energy audits carried out by 5 December 2015 and every four years thereafter. The Department of Energy & Climate Change is planning to issue a summary guide to the scheme in June 2014. A draft of this guidance is in circulation and this article attempts to highlight the salient points.

A good place to start would be to consider who can undertake the audits. Last year we thought that they would all have to be done by approved energy auditors, but that would have condemned many – perhaps most – customers to buying expertise from outside. With a huge peak in demand likely on the eve of the first-phase deadline, that would not have been feasible.

So what will now happen is that any energy audit (done by anybody, using any methodology they choose) can be submitted as long as it has been at least reviewed and signed off by an approved “lead auditor”. And one will be able to submit existing audit reports done at any time since December 2011.

The next question is, who will be approved to act as lead auditors? The answer is that nobody knows. It could be months before the full list is available, and the criteria have not even been formally published yet.

The mechanism for approving lead auditors will be based on registers maintained by professional bodies like (presumably) CIBSE and trade associations such as ESTA. DECC has appointed the Environment Agency (EA) to be scheme administrator for ESOS, and EA is looking for a subcontractor to evaluate registers for suitability. The criteria they use will be based on a publicly available specification, “PAS 51215: Energy efficiency assessment – competency of a lead energy assessor”, which British Standards Institution have been commissioned to write.

At the time of writing, PAS 51215 has not been finalised or published.

Worryingly, the draft circulated last year for public comment included some peripheral stipulations for competency like the ability to “manage and improve working relationships”. If that survives into the final version it could make life

difficult for the bodies who do not test all their registrants against that requirement.

Anyway, the bottom line is that nobody can offer ESOS auditing services at present because nobody can guarantee that they are, or will be, on an approved register.

Nature of the energy audit

The terms of ESOS derive ultimately from a European Energy Efficiency Directive, which calls for energy audits which “shall allow detailed and validated calculations for the proposed measures so as to provide clear information on potential savings”, and DECC is adding a requirement to “assess and report on the cost-effectiveness of each energy saving opportunity identified”. The bar, then, has been set quite high: an ESOS assessment sounds quite close to an investment-grade audit, since both savings and implementation costs will need to be known accurately. Or maybe not… there are get-outs, which I will now explain.

Exemptions

DECC’s Summary Guide has a section covering routes to compliance, and this enumerates various alternatives to fullblown energy audits. One is to have an energy management system (EnMS) that is certified to comply with ISO 50001.

The certification must have been carried out by a body that is accredited for the purpose (by UKAS, for example).

The ISO 50001 route is not a panacea, though, because the boundary and scope of certification can be as limited and narrow as the organisation chooses.

For example, it might only cover the use of heating fuel in a particular building.

ESOS, however, calls for everything to be audited – buildings, industrial processes

“What will now happen is that any energy audit (done by anybody, using any methodology they choose) can be submitted as long as it has been at least reviewed and signed off by an approved ‘lead auditor’. And one will be able to submit existing audit reports done at any time since December 2011”

and transport – with the exception of up to 10% comprising the least significant uses. Therefore, under the rules of the scheme, everything not covered by one’s ISO 50001 certification would need to be audited or subject to an alternative compliance route.

One very attractive route on offer for people operating buildings is to opt to have Display Energy Certificates done voluntarily (they are only compulsory in the public sector). The advisory report accompanying a certificate is not even based on a walk-through survey: “driveby survey” would be a better term. They are generally worthless but very cheap.

It is extraordinary that DECC has allowed them as a route to compliance but they have, so until the UK is clobbered by the European Commission this will provide a cheap get-out for at least part of many organisations’ energy uses. There is also a non-domestic version of the “Green Deal” applicable to commercial buildings and this affords another super-el-cheapo partial route to compliance.

If an organisation operates industrial processes or has significant transport operations for which it buys the fuel, its compliance costs will be unabated and it will pay them to take ESOS seriously and try to wring some value out of it.

But for the rest, the alternative routes to compliance seriously undermine the whole purpose of the project.

Regular readers will know that I hold the government in very low esteem when it comes to their interventions in energy efficiency. The shamefully poor standard of DECC’s draft Summary Guide just confirms my view. To pick on two of its significant faults (both of which I expect to survive into the finished version): it places huge emphasis on the collection of energy-consumption data and betrays a total ignorance of the need for explanatory (“driving-factor”) data; and it suggests that specific energy ratios (kWh per tonne) are meaningful indicators of energy efficiency, something which their predecessors in the Ministry of Fuel and Power knew was untrue and were addressing in advisory literature 70 years ago. It also includes an unbelievably trivial and superficial guide to energy-saving opportunities, which, frankly, will make this country a laughing stock.

Vilnis Vesma is a former energy manager who now provides training and advice on energy management. vilnis@vesma.com Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 19

OPINION

It’s official. Energy consumption in the UK is on the way down The Association for the Conservation of Energy’s director Andrew Warren explains that although there are still a huge amount of opportunities out there we are not doing as badly as perhaps we think we are. Over time we have increased GDP while not increasing energy consumption.

Have we at last decoupled those two thing that have always seemed to go hand-in-hand?

H

ere is a simple test for everybody.

By how much has UK energy consumption already increased during this century? Actually, this isn’t just a question for generalists. I have been regularly trying it out on energy specialists in companies, in trade bodies, even among the senior civil service. The answer given varies. Almost without exception, the response is that consumption has gone up. Sometimes by 5%, sometimes 10%, sometimes 20% or more.

I then ask: how much do you think the country’s wealth has increased over the same period? And when I tell people that – even despite the recession – gross domestic product (GDP) has risen by no less than 58% between 2000 and 2012, I instantly get a re-evaluation of how much energy consumption has grown. “Ah well, in that case, we are probably talking about a similarly high figure for energy usage. Not 20% but 40%, even 50%.”

The monologue continues: “Thinking about it, we have had this vast expansion of electrical appliances, both at home and at work. And there has been an exponential growth in web energy use. Think of all the servers that are around now but weren’t then. It must have grown a lot.”

Energy shortages

Following the logic along: “So quite possibly energy usage has gone up way over the 58% that GDP has during this century. Is that what you are hinting?

Gosh, you can see why the media are getting so hyped up about imminent energy shortages.” And then, pausing for breath, my respondent asks: “So, by how much more than GDP levels has energy consumption soared?”

I pause for effect. The answer is that it hasn’t. “You mean, overall energy consumption hasn’t gone up at all throughout the entire period? That is quite extraordinary.”

Suitably smugly, I then reply that what is occurring with energy usage is really 20 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

far more extraordinary than that. It hasn’t just not grown since the 20th century concluded. It has actually declined. And not just by a tiny amount.

Actual final energy consumption in 2012 was 12% lower than it was in 2000.

The total amounts, according to the latest “Energy Consumption in the UK” almanac published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, are respectively 159 and 140m tonnes of oil equivalent.

In the immortal words ascribed to Sir Michael Caine, not a lot of people know that. Not many people have yet appreciated the significance of the undeniable fact that the historical link between growth in national wealth and growth in national energy consumption has completely evaporated.

It would appear this ignorance even applies to those in the same department of state that provides these very telling statistics. Only recently an article appeared under the byline of Edward Davey, the secretary of state, stating that his department still believes that electricity consumption is set to double between now and 2050. Meanwhile, his opposite number in Germany is working on the basis of a 25% drop in electricity consumption by 2050.

Mr Davey is, of course, right to point out that electricity is expected to take a larger share of the overall energy market than the 19.4% it now enjoys (up from 17.8% in 2000). But even still there have already been some massive changes in the way in which electricity is used.

Between 2000 and 2012, per capita consumption of electricity in the UK fell by about 10%. In other words, each and every one of us on average no longer has

a need for one in 10 of the kilowatt-hours we were merrily burning at the time of the Millennium.

Unsung statistics

So, why is it that all we ever read about is the dangers of the “lights going out”? Of course, none of us is ever going to hear these remarkable consumption figures publicised by the multitude of publicists whose job is it is to hype the need for massive new subsidies for massive new power stations. Nor, if I am honest, does it make anything like as good a headline.

But the fact remains that, without any headlines, we have succeeded in increasing our wealth substantially while reducing significantly our overall energy consumption. Because average fuel bills have tripled during this period, some of the reductions in the low-income household sector may be a case of people being priced out of buying sufficient warmth.

But I don’t think that is true for companies, whether industrial or commercial, else we wouldn’t have managed 58% GDP growth.

Nor is it valid, I am glad to say, for the vast majority of households.

What higher fuel bills may well have stimulated is a greater willingness to cut out unnecessary fuel usage. Couple that with judicious stimuli programmes (Climate Change Agreements, the Carbon Reduction Commitment, EEC and CERT for households, banning the most energy inefficient products, upping building regulation standards), and we see the first results of what can only be described as a virtuous circle. Something that, eventually, even DECC’s forward planning must surely start to acknowledge.

Association for the Conservation of Energy Westgate House, 2a Prebend Street, London N1 8PT Tel: 020 7359 8000 Fax: 020 7359 0863 Email: andrew@ukace.org Web: www.ukace.org

“In the immortal words ascribed to Sir Michael Caine, not a lot of people know that�

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

You can take a horse to water…

British Institute of Facilities Management CEO Gareth Tancred reflects on the energy management agenda

I

f you took a film crew down any high street in the UK and asked the general public whether, as a society, we should be using less energy, you would struggle to find anyone that strongly disagrees.

However, then ask them what measures they are putting in place to reduce the amount of energy in their household and you will probably be met with a shrug of the shoulders or a blank expression.

Despite a number of the major energy providers offering customers the tools to better manage their energy are we seeing anything dramatically change. Even the increasing cost of energy doesn’t seem to be the motivating factor it probably ought to be.

It’s the same in commercial buildings.

The rollout of smart meters across the nondomestic sector by 2020 can transform the way in which organisations manage their energy consumption. Whether you look at the financial or societal benefits, the case for making energy consumption more efficient is a straight forward one.

However, a recent report from the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC), a report that we supported, concluded that this must be coupled with concerted efforts to imbed long term behaviour change. That is to say, having the smart meter alone will not be the difference; it is an important part of a complex change programme.

Using data to inform and engage people is fundamental but it must also have visible buy-in from leaders within the organisation, it must be sustained and continually reported on till it becomes second nature. That will certainly not happen overnight.

So, it’s clear that this is an organisational wide imperative and facilities management professionals have a vital role to play but they must be working with their colleagues. Whether it is HR to influence the behaviour, IT to look at the systems or marketing to support internal communications; it must be a collaborative approach.

So what role will the facilities manager play?

22 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

“Using data to inform and engage people is fundamental but it must also have visible buy-in from leaders within the organisation, it must be sustained and continually reported on till it becomes second nature. That will certainly not happen overnight”

They certainly will be at the heart of any changes that are required within the built environment to make efficiencies and they will also be looking at the reports to show how these measures are playing out. They also have a crucial role to play in informing colleagues within the business what practical steps can be taken to reduce energy usage.

Whether it is the installation of LED lighting, smart meters or generating their own energy through solar panels, the ways in which organisations can put practical steps in place to reduce energy consumption is vast and facilities management professionals can help make the case internally to make the up-front investment; something that has proven to be a barrier in the past. ‘Big data’ and the ‘internet of things’ means that we have much more management information to hand, information that we can extrapolate over a number of years to accurately calculate payback periods and return on investment.

So yes, innovative technology has helped push us much closer to cracking the energy management nut but that alone will not lead to systemic change. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink; in the same way you can’t tell someone to switch off the lights when they’re leaving a room and expect it to happen 100% of the time.

We know that behaviour change comes from the combination of engagement, articulation of the benefits and a systematic approach. The challenge is getting all three of these to be working in tandem. We look forward to helping facilities management professionals play their part.

The British Institute of Facilities Management (BIFM) is the professional body for facilities management (FM). Founded in 1993, it promotes excellence in facilities management for the benefit of practitioners, the economy and society.

Supporting and representing more than 14,000 members around the world, both individual FM professionals and organisations, and thousands more through qualifications and training. bifm.org.uk

BUILDING SERVICES

PERFORMANCE GAP

The gap between theory and reality There is a gap between the designed building’s energy use and the actual consumption of the building in practice after it is built. Zero Carbon Hub explains what the performance gap is and what is being done to militate against it

S

ince the start of 2013, more than 140 professionals from across the industry have been working with the Zero Carbon Hub on a governmentfunded project to explore the potential causes of the Performance Gap and to develop cost-effective and realistic proposals to help close it. The current focus of the project is on developing solutions for the priority issues identified by industry. A final report is due in July, which will include proposals for mechanisms to help deliver industry’s ambition for closing the Performance Gap so that by 2020, we can demonstrate that at least 90% of all new homes meet or perform better than the designed energy/carbon performance. This report will be crucial reading for anyone involved in the house building process.

There is now clear evidence of a gap between the designed and as-built energy performance of new homes. This gap can arise in a number of ways within the overall housebuilding process and, if significant and widespread, represents a number of risks to government, industry and consumers.

For government, the Performance Gap would mean that new housing cannot be relied upon to play its expected, vital role in achieving national carbon budget targets. For owners and occupants, energy bills may be higher than expected, undermining buyer confidence in new (low carbon) homes. For planners, designers, manufacturers and housebuilders, underperforming new homes could impact on their reputation and business.

Investigation into the Performance Gap is therefore a priority for government and a wide spectrum of groups across the sector.

Industry engagement with this project reflects its perceived importance: more than 140 professionals are working with the Zero Carbon Hub to explore potential causes of the Performance Gap and to develop cost-effective and realistic proposals to help close it.

A Zero Carbon Hub task group, having reviewed historical research and gathered

24 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

Performance Gap when they do occur. t No Immediate Action – Issues with a large degree of evidence but with a low impact on Performance Gap when they do occur.

This project’s approach of viewing performance related issues across the housebuilding process revealed a number of cross-cutting themes including “Knowledge and Skills”, “Responsibility” and “Communication”. further industry evidence, advised that future performance standards for zero carbon homes should be linked to “as-built” performance to achieve the ‘2020 Ambition’.

In response to this challenge, the Performance Gap project commenced at the start of 2013, bringing a wide range of participants together to establish a better understanding of the Performance Gap and to formulate any necessary solutions.

Drawing upon this evidence, a team from the Zero Carbon Hub and Steering Group categorised all of the issues identified using the prioritisation matrix approach (see diagram). A ranking for the existence of evidence relating to each issue was agreed. A combination of multiple peerreviewed industry research reports and Housebuilding Process Review examples were required to merit a position towards the right of the matrix. The team then drew upon the evidence where it existed, and their industry experience to define a range for the potential impact each issue may have on energy performance.

Each quadrant of the prioritisation matrix represents a different challenge: t Priority for Action – Issues with a strong supporting evidence base and medium to high potential impact on the Performance Gap when they do occur. t Priority for Research – Issues with emerging evidence and a suspected medium to high potential impact on the Performance Gap when they do occur. t Retain a Watching Brief – Issues with limited evidence and a suspected low to medium potential impact on the

Priority for Action – 15 issues

A total of 15 issues have been found to be both supported by strong evidence from multiple sources and likely to have a significant impact on the Performance Gap. The project will now focus its efforts on developing pragmatic solutions for the following issues across the delivery process: t Planning and concept design teams are not sufficiently aware of the implications of early stage decisions on the energy performance of completed dwellings. t Detail Design teams do not understand site and buildability issues well enough to be able to reliably design energy efficient homes with consistent as-built performance. t Different aspects of design, in particular building fabric and services, are not being properly inte- grated. This results in unintended thermal bridging, compromised air tightness strategies and reduced system efficiencies. t Calculation assumptions for both fabric heat loss (U-values) and thermal bridging (Psi-values) do not reflect the reality of site construction, often giving lower heat losses than can actually be achieved. t SAP assessors are often unclear on modelling conventions and calculation of U-values, thermal mass, and thermal bridging, and may be expected to provide detailed design advice beyond their technical knowledge and industry experience. t Procurement teams do not prioritise energy related skills when selecting contractors, resulting in site teams that

The Performance Gap creates a number of potential risks affecting government, residents and industry: t impacting on the UK’s carbon targets and meaning that future Zero Carbon homes targets may not be met in practice; t leading to higher than expected household energy bills; and t undermining buyer confidence in new (low carbon) homes and the reputations of all those involved in their development

t

t

t

t t

lack the knowledge to properly install services and fabric.

Products with energy performance different to the intended design are being used on site without being fed back to the design team and the As-Built SAP assessment; typically foundation block work, lintels, windows and ventilation ductwork.

Building fabric is often incorrectly constructed, typi- cally cavity wall insulation, eaves to wall junction insulation and particularly the positioning of windows and doors, reducing the actual performance of the thermal envelope.

Building services are being incorrectly installed and poorly commissioned, resulting in reduced system efficiency and compromising the air tightness and ventilation strategies. Common examples include missing primary pipework insulation and poorly commissioned ventilation systems.

Site teams often lack the knowledge and skills to construct energy efficient homes with consistent as-built performance.

Site Quality Assurance procedures prioritise other issues above energy

performance; this increases the risk of improperly fitted insulation, incorrectly installed services and thermal junction detailing different to the intended design. t Test methodologies for both as-built fabric and building services performance are not always consistently applied, and therefore can have impli- cations on energy modelling assumptions. t As-Built SAP calculations are often produced without inclusion of amendments to the design specification during the procurement or construction process. t Verification procedures across the housebuilding process are not prioritising energy performance. There is reliance on third-party information and inadequate time, knowledge and incentives to focus

on as built performance. t Inconsistent evidence is being requested by and provided to Building Control Bodies, in particular areas such as Accredited Construction Details and building services commissioning. This results in uncertainty around the actual constructed specifica- tion and energy performance.

The majority of these issues result from a lack of “Knowledge and Skills”. There is also a strong indication that the theme of poor “Communication’” runs through several of the detailed design and verification issues.

The cross-cutting nature of these themes means issues influencing the Performance Gap can be seen across the professions and trades.

The Zero Carbon Hub was established in 2008, as a non-profit organisation, to take day-to-day operational responsibility for achieving the government’s target of delivering zero carbon homes in England from 2016. Since then the Hub has worked with both government and industry with the focus on raising build standards and reducing the risk associated with implementing the Zero Carbon Homes policy.

Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 25

DECC PILOT PROGRAMME

Electricity demand reduction pilot programme The UK government is making £20m available to support projects that deliver lasting reductions in electricity demand, for example through the installation of a more efficient lighting system or a pump.

The aim of this pilot will test whether EDR could participate in GB’s capacity market

T

here will be a competitive auction process and participants will bid in an amount of electricity demand savings they can make and a price at which they are prepared to “sell” it. This will test the Capacity Market approach, which takes bids from organisations to supply capacity. Successful bidders will receive funding in line with the level of their bid (£/kW) and the amount of savings proposed, spread across a payment at installation and on provision of evidence of that those savings have been delivered. This money will help subsidise the measure.

Bidding rules

Projects will bid into an auction and commit to delivering a certain kW saving (not kWh, which is the measure for total energy used). Successful bids secure funding, that can then be used to support the installation of more efficient electrical equipment. Projects will need to qualify and this will include submitting a project

26 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

plan with estimated savings and a plan for measuring and verifying these. Applicants will bid a price, expressed in £/kW, for which they are prepared to “sell that electricity demand reduction (capacity) saving.

There will be a minimum bid size of 100kW in the auction. This may be achieved by a single project or through several projects, aggregated into a single application. There will be no limit on maximum bid size or on total subsidy awarded to any one participant (subject to the budget constraints of the funding available. Applications may include a mix of technologies and cover a number of sites or facilities.

Successful bidders will receive a grant payment – not a loan – from government for delivering the electricity demand reduction (capacity) during the peak period, with efficiency savings split between a payment at installation and a second payment on providing evidence of the delivery of savings.

Behavioural measures will not be eligible for the auction timetabled here, however, organisations that deliver behavioural EDR measures are encouraged to contact edr-project@decc.gsi.gov.uk with a view to discussing how these might contribute to EDR delivery in future.

A maximum price (not published in advance) will be set for the auction, to ensure value for money.

Payments

If an applicant is successful then the contracts are for one year. Successful bidders will receive 50% of payment on confirmation of installation and a further payment of 50% on delivery of savings (ie, after 12 months’ operation, on receipt of evidence of the savings).

Under-delivery will lead to payments being reduced.

Measuring and verifying savings (M&V)

A manual will be provided to participants

Applicants themselves need not be GB-based.

How will the pilot be of benefit?

Organisations will receive a payment from government for delivering efficiency savings spread across a payment at installation and on delivery of savings.

There will be the added benefit that it will support your investment case for improvements in energy consuming technology and you will also benefit from all the electricity cost savings.

Your organisation will also benefit from savings outside winter peak time.

What projects and measures will not be eligible? t Those that shift electricity demand to other times of the day. t Savings made by switching to another energy source (eg switching to Combined Heat and Power). t Any measures that have been installed by successful bidders before on how to measure and report savings from their projects. This will build on the approach set out in international protocols (IPMVP) and include three broad approaches: t Deemed: savings are precalculated for a list of technologies. t Partial measurement: combination of metering and calculations or estimates of key variables. t Full measurement approaches: metering before and after.

Who and what will be eligible?

Projects will need to be based in Great Britain and deliver efficiency savings at least during times of winter peak electricity demand (4-8pm on weekdays, NovemberFebruary). Projects that would not be eligible include: t Those that shift electricity demand to other times of the day. t Measures benefitting from specified forms of government incentive (such as Climate Change Agreements, Salix loans). t Savings made by switching to other energy sources (eg onsite generation).

Applicants from all sectors – public, private and voluntary – are eligible as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for the pilot. Projects should be based in Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales).

Energy suppliers with obligations under ECO will not be allowed to bid into EDR for measures they have to install under ECO. Green Deal cash-back: Measures that have benefitted or will be benefitting from the government’s Green Deal cash-back scheme will not be eligible.

Salix Loan Scheme: Measures that have received or will receive funding from the Salix Loan Scheme are not eligible.

Renewables Heat Incentive: Gridrelated measures that have or will receive funding from the Renewables Heat Incentive are not eligible.

Capital Allowances: Applicants need to ensure that any EDR funding they receive is deducted from their claim for capital allowances. For example, if a company invests £1,000 and receiving £100 from the EDR pilot, only £900 will qualify for capital allowances. [This includes the First-year allowance (also known as the Enhanced Capital Allowance), the Annual Investment Allowance (AIA) and Writing-down allowance (WDA) at 8 and 18%.]

“Successful bidders will receive a grant payment – not a loan – from government for delivering the electricity demand reduction (capacity) during the peak period, with efficiency savings split between a payment at installation and a second payment on providing evidence of the delivery of savings” the signature of a grant offer letter. t Any measures that have received or will receive an incentive payment from another government scheme.

To illustrate more specifically: Climate Change Agreements (CCAs): Given that they benefit from a Climate Change Levy Discount, facilities with a CCA will not be allowed to bid into EDR for any of their processes or activities that are covered by their CCA. Any measures that are bid into the pilot should relate to efficiencies outside the CCA. CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: Organisations in the CRC are eligible to participate in the EDR pilot, but if they have facilities covered by a CCA, they will not be allowed to bid into EDR for any of their processes or activities that are covered by the CCA. Energy Company Obligation (ECO):

The pilot is concerned with the installation of measures to reduce demand through efficiency rather than to support additional generation so if a company wants to reduce grid electricity demand by using their waste heat to generate electricity or if a company wants to reduce grid electricity demand by installing solar panels or wind turbines on site these are unable to apply for this programme.

One of the key points to bear in mind is that the pilot will pay the difference that helps make a project viable for a business. So if reducing a five-year payback to three was acceptable, the EDR scheme would pay the difference between these two calculations.

To register your interest in taking part in the pilot, or if you have questions, contact edr-project@decc.gsi.gov.uk

The Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) works to make sure the UK has secure, clean, affordable energy supplies and promotes international action to mitigate climate change. www.decc.gov.uk Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 27

HEAT PUMPS

What is a heat pump and why use it?

Graham Hazell, HPA (Heat Pump Association) Consultant explains what a heat pump is and why consumers should be looking at them for energy and carbon reductions

A

s the name suggests, a heat pump is a device designed to collect low-grade (temperature) heat from a source (air, ground or water) and upgrade the temperature of the heat so it can become more useful and in that sense it “pushes” or transports heat in the opposite direction it would normally flow (ie, from high to low temperature).

Why should consumers be interested in heat pumps?

Heat pumps used in the right applications consume much less energy than the amount of energy they can transfer and upgrade. This ratio of output to input is described as a “Coefficient of Performance” (CoP). When electricity is being used the source of the electricity

Heating type

Nat Gas

ASHP

GSHP (Horiz)

Oil

LPG

Capital/refurb cost (£)

£1,000

£9,000

£15,000

£1,700

£1,600

Fuel cost (£/ kwh)

0.0425

0.14

0.14

0.065

0.075

System* efficiency

85%

280%

320%

83%

84%

and the energy used to produce it must be considered. Taking this into account, the breakeven points that a heat pump needs to achieve over the annual cycle (referred to as seasonal efficiency or Seasonal Performance Factor, SPF) to be at least equivalent to other comparison fuels are shown in Table 1.

Ideally an ASHP systems should provide

Non-Domestic Scheme: Please note the RHI rates used above were announced 4 December 2014 and are due to be effective in June 2014 Heating type

Nat Gas

ASHP

GSHP (Horiz)

Oil

LPG

Heating type

Nat Gas

ASHP

GSHP (Horiz)

Oil

LPG

Biomass

Capital Cost (£)

£4,000

£9,000

£12,500

£6,500

£4,500

Capital Cost (£)

£4,000

£85,000

£125,000

£37,500

£35,000

£120,000

Fuel Cost (£/ kWh)

0.0425

0.14

0.14

0.06

0.08

Fuel Cost (£/ kWh)

0.035

0.12

0.12

0.06

0.07

0.05

System* Efficiency

85%

290%

340%

85%

85%

System* Efficiency

85%

290%

340%

85%

85%

85%

28 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

TABLE 1: BREAK EVEN SPF VALUES FOR COST AND CO2 AGAINST ‘COUNTERFACTUAL’ FUELS Break even SPF requirements for heat pumps Equal carbon emissions

Equal fuel costs

Natural gas

2.53

2.83

LPG

2.16

1.63

Heating oil

1.90

1.89

Using Defra 2014 figures and 90% efficiency of fuel conversion an SPF (H4) of 2.9 and a GSHP circa 3.3.

This clearly shows most benefit is for offgas grid situations when compared with Economy 7 or 10 electrical heating, oil or LPG in order to off set initial capital costs (see below). Add the Renewable Heat Incentives (RHI) from the UK government and heat pumps can become even more attractive with paybacks of between three and nine years verses off grid fuels.

What is the Renewable Heat Incentive)?

This is a government initiative to provide financial incentives to increase the proportion of heat derived from renewable sources. The scheme differs considerably between Domestic & NonDomestic (see Table 2).

“I’ve heard heat pumps only work in well insulated properties and I have an old solid stone built house?”

Regardless of the heating system installed all reasonable measures should be taken to reduce heat loss and improve the thermal integrity of a building. Although there used to be a minor benefit to the operation of the heat pump if the building was thermally efficient this has largely reduced with the advent of variable output inverter driven heat pumps. In addition there may be additional funding available for insulation measures to be applied to hard to treat properties via the governments Green Deal initiative and more precisely the funded ECO system.

However, heat pumps have been very

TABLE 2. THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOMESTIC & NON-DOMESTIC RHI Non Domestic RHI

Domestic RHI

Current technologies included

GSHP & WSHP

(ASHP added in May 2014)

GSHP, WSHP & ASHP since 9 April 2014 (5) (although some installations valid since 15 July 2009)

New build

Yes

No

Heat included

Total heat ( but min efficiency threshold required) (a)

Renewable Heat Part Only(1)

Heat determined

Metered/measured(b)

Deemed (calculated)(2)

Tariff period

20 years

7 yrs(3)

MCS requirements

Self regulating > 45kWt

<70 kWt (4)

Notes: (a) Equipment must be able to produce a CoP of > 2.9 at rated conditions and an SPF (H2) >2.5according to BS EN 14825 (SCOPnet) (b) (1) Renewable Heat is calculated by taking the Total deemed heat corrected by SPF from the Domestic Heat Emitter Guide [ 1-(1/SPF)](e.g. ASHP @ 50oC = SPF of 2.7 equating to a 0.63 deemed heat correction factor) (2) Uses result from EPC. A Green Deal Survey also required to confirm thermal integrity (3) Tariff is based on 20 years of incentive with payments consolidated into seven years (4) MCS thermal limits under review likely to be equipment <45kWt & total load <70kWt (5) some “legacy” installations valid since 15 July 2009, especially if received RHPP successfully installed in Grade 1 listed buildings which could not be improved thermally in any appreciable way and resulted in halving of the original oil fuel heating bills. If a building needs a certain amount of energy (kWh) over the year, it needs this energy to be supplied regardless of the source. If this basic requiement cannot reasonably be reduced further and a heat pump is able to produce this heat energy in a cost

effective way then it should be seriously considered, whether well insulated or not.

Positive Effect of the government RHI Scheme

The graphs opposite indicate typical life cycle costs of heating systems by combining initial capital cost (ie, year zero) and running costs (year one onward) on an accumulative basis. This gives a truer picture of the overall costs.

The Heat Pump Association (HPA) is a trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of heat pumps in the UK. It acts as a central focal point for the exchange of knowledge and information regarding heat pumps. It liaises with government departments to provide expert advice with regards to legislation, standards, guidance and financial incentivesInforms the public and the wider HVAC industry, working with other trade associations and NGOs. Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 29

ISO 50001

Using ISO50001 energy management system as a means to ESOS compliance The Department of Energy and Climate Change has launched UK’s Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme – a transposition of EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive’s (EED) Article 8. Kit Oung highlights the efficacy of using a certified ISO50001-based energy management system and suggests how organisations can use ISO 50001 to meet the requirements of ESOS

30 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

T

he UK’s Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) requires organisations to carry out an energy assessment by 5 December 2015 and every four years thereafter.

The energy assessment has to cover 90% of the total energy consumed (either by energy consumption or energy cost basis) and includes energy use by buildings, manufacturing processes and transport within each undertakings. Apart from carrying out an energy assessment, ESOS also specifies several alternative routes for compliance, one of which is a certified ISO50001-based energy management system.

A survey by Economist Intelligence Unit reports that more than 60% of organisations use a management system to manage energy. ISO50001 was developed by an international collaboration of experts. The standard sets a minimum specification for a management system specifically for managing energy use, energy consumption, and energy efficiency. Its success lies in two in-built features of a management system: 1. The use of a simple and proven management structure.

2. Gaining commitment of senior management.

Structured management based on operational data was first established by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911. This was later formalised by W Edwards Deming to consists of planning, doing, checking and (taking corrective) actions. Its use of simple language lends a hand to make it easy to remember and apply.

The idea of a management system necessitates the buy-in and active participation of senior management.

When using ISO50001, senior management is required to actively participate in setting the energy policy, putting the relevant resources in place and to make sure improvements happen as planned. What sets ISO50001 apart from the rest is it also require the organisation to demonstrate continual improvements in energy performance.

Data from Ireland, Netherland, Denmark and the US indicates that those new to ISO50001 are expected to, on average, achieve 10%-20% savings and achieving the savings 50% to 67% faster than business as usual. Organisations with a mature energy management practices can continue to achieve savings even after 15 years.

Since ISO50001 was launched in 2011, more than 7,100 organisations globally have adopted the ISO 50001 as their management system of choice. In the UK, 350 organisation have sought third party assurance that their management system conforms to ISO50001. Comparing the number of organisations certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 and ISO50001 in the first three years, ISO50001 certification has surpassed those of ISO14001 and is exhibiting a similar growth rates to ISO9001.

How to Use ISO50001 to comply with ESOS

There are two reasons organisations certified to ISO50001 are exempted from carrying out an energy assessment. Firstly, ISO50001 contains an energy assessment called an “energy review”. Secondly, organisations using ISO50001 require top management to be actively engaged in managing, reviewing and implementing opportunities for improving energy performance.

However, when using ISO50001 as an exemption, the organisation should be mindful of the following points: 1. The first task for the organisation would be to identify if ESOS applies to them.

Specifically, organisations employing more than 250 people, have an annual turnover exceeding €50m and/or annual balance sheet exceeding €43 million is required to comply with ESOS. This is to be qualified, similar to CRC, as the highest parent

Costa Coffee in Lambeth, south London implemented an ISO50001based energy management system.

This helped it save 16% of its energy consumption (32% reduction per tonne of coffee roasted) and allow it to increase production without the need to invest in new energy supply and utility systems.

organisation within the UK. 2. When defining the scope and boundary for ISO50001-based energy management system, it should encompass all activities that uses energy including buildings, processes and transport.

Choosing buildings and processes is relatively straight forward. When it comes to transport, if the organisation pays for the fuel or for the mileage, it is to be included.

3. When carrying out an ISO50001 energy review, it should include 90% of the energy consumed (or pays) identified in the above scope and boundary. t 'PS PSHBOJTBUJPOT PQFSBUJOH GSPN POF location, this would be 90% of the energy consumption in that location. t 'PS PSHBOJTBUJPO PQFSBUJOH GSPN multiple sites or buildings, the energy review could be done by site/buildings, by energy users across the organisation or other combination. t *G MFTT UIBO PG UIF FOFSHZ consumption is included in the energy management system, and is also not covered by other exemptions, an energy assessment is required to cover the balance of energy consumption making up the 90%.

4. Even though organisations using a certified ISO50001-based energy management system are exempt from an energy assessment, organisations will still need to complete and submit an ESOS evidence pack. The ESOS evidence pack will need to be signed off by a board-level director. In the absence of a board, two senior managers within the organisation can sign off the evidence pack.

In summary, an ISO50001-based energy management system is a proven way to manage and drive improvements.

Organisations small, medium and large can benefit from applying ISO50001. Its use is expected to grow on a global basis.

In the UK, large organisations can also use ISO50001 as a way to conform to ESOS regulation – a big plus indeed!

Kit Oung is a practicing energy manager using low-cost high return strategies. He is BSI’s expert on energy and environmental management, board member of the Energy Managers Association, advisory member of 2degrees Network and author of Energy Management in Business: The Manager’s Guide to Maximising and Sustaining Energy Reduction, published

by Gower. gowerpublishing.com/ isbn/9781409452454 Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 31

DRIVES & MOTORS

Investing in efficiency, not your energy bill The focus when purchasing electric motors and controls is still too much upon purchase price and not running costs, argues Steve Brambley, deputy director at GAMBICA

“

If you need a machine and don’t buy it then you will ultimately find that you have paid for it but don’t have it,” said Henry Ford. Even back in the early days of mechanisation, Ford was making the case for investing wisely in equipment instead of wasting money by making do without. Exactly the same principle can be applied to energy efficient technology today.

It is financially and environmentally wasteful to continue spending money on excess energy when an investment in efficient systems could pay for itself several times over. Yet the selection of electric motors and controls is all too often focused on purchase price, ignoring the cost benefit that increased energy efficiency can bring.

For a typical motor, the energy it will consume in the first year will cost more than three times the purchase price. Over a 15-year lifecycle, the purchase price is less than 3% of the total expense, while energy accounts for over 40 times more than the purchase cost. If your car consumed energy in that ratio, a £20,000 vehicle would cost £58,000 per year in fuel. It would radically alter the way you drive, how often you drive and which car you would choose.

An energy efficient motor system may indeed increase the initial purchase price but this shouldn’t be a barrier to a sound investment, if the lifetime cost is reduced.

A high efficiency motor may increase the purchase cost by 20%, for example, or a variable speed drive may even cost as much as the motor itself to purchase, but the energy savings can be significant enough that the investment is often paid back in less than 12 months and the ongoing savings contribute to an improvement to the bottom line year-on-year.

So what does it take to change behaviour and specify the most energy efficient solutions rather than just picking the lowest purchase cost equipment? I think there are three drivers in this area – regulation, energy prices and energy shortages.

The Ecodesign Directive seeks to force a change in behaviour by removing the least efficient motors from the market.

This will have some impact by raising the minimum standard. However, the market will still look to buy the lowest cost motor available rather than the most efficient and in some cases will exploit loopholes and exemptions to do so.

Energy prices have more than doubled

Figure 1. 11kW IE3 Motor, 4000 hours per year, 15 year lifecycle. Source: Almeida, EuP Lot11 32 | Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15

in the past 10 years, which has raised the profile of efficiency in some businesses.

However, many organisations do not have a good idea of how much energy is being consumed, and where it could be improved. In a lot of businesses, energy is a hidden cost or just accepted. Often the action to reduce costs is to renegotiate the tariff with the supplier, rather than reduce the amount consumed.

We are not yet seeing power outages in the UK, but we are reaching levels of peak demand that get dangerously close to the generation capacity. In 2012, Ofgem reported: “There will be a significant reduction in electricity supplies ... estimated margins decline from around 14% to 4% by 2015/2016.”

“We are not yet seeing power outages in the UK, but we are reaching levels of peak demand that get dangerously close to the generation capacity” In 2013, it updated its statement to add: “Since last year, the outlook for the supply side has deteriorated and industry has announced the withdrawal of more than 2GW of installed generation capacity in the near future. Further withdrawals are still likely”. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, is conducting a pilot, called Electric Demand Reduction, which seeks to fund systematic reductions in peak demand via energy efficiency projects.

These three factors are all working to raise the importance of energy efficiency, but the point of most influence is the purchasing decision on equipment and machinery. If that decision is based on lifetime cost rather than purchase cost, then the most efficient system will be chosen.

We can take an example to illustrate a typical scenario. Let’s say in purchasing an industrial cooling system, the high efficiency version costs double the standard system to purchase. In many people’s eyes that would be enough information to rule out the high efficiency option, it simply costs too much. But does

and delivers year-on-year savings after that.

However, despite the mathematics, there is still a deep-rooted culture of focus on purchase costs, and this is down to the fact that different parties pay the two expenses.

Motor driven systems, such as air handling units, refrigeration plants, food chillers or water pumps are often sold by machine builders, systems integrators or contractors, competing in a global market.

The drive to compete on purchase cost can compromise efficiency. The vendor does not pay the energy bill and is rarely under any pressure from the purchaser concerning the lifetime cost.

The purchaser is the one who could make a difference, but within their business they are rarely measured on energy consumption. The traditional job of a buyer is to negotiate the lowest purchase cost, but what happens after installation is not linked to their criteria.

The installing engineers, the maintenance team and the production operators are measured on uptime and throughput, but energy is often seen as a necessary cost and isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t a consideration in the specification or validation process.

Energy bills are often handled by accounts or administration functions, so the costs and savings arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t viewed in terms of equipment efficiency.

The key to bringing a focus on lifetime cost is to build energy into the process of specification, quotation, validation and performance measurement. If suppliers were asked to estimate annual energy costs on the quote, or 10-year running costs, it would give the purchaser information on the true cost of the system.

At the implementation stage, the energy consumption could be measured to validate the system and ongoing energy consumption can become a performance measurable for the production and maintenance departments.

it? If you consider the lifetime cost, and the fact it consumes two-thirds of the energy, then in this case they both have the same cost after one year. Over the lifetime of the installation, that is a considerable saving, and even more so as energy prices rise.

One of the key elements in improving motor system efficiency is control. Whether that is fixed speed control or variable speed control, the goal is the same. Turn the motor off when not needed or turn the speed

down to match output requirements and the potential to save energy is significant.

A high efficiency motor is usually a good decision, perhaps saving 3-5% compared with a low efficiency motor. But then turning a conveyor off for 50% of the cycle will save 50% of the energy. Turning a pump or fan speed down by 20% can also save 50% of the energy. At these levels of saving and with the high price of electricity, the investment often pays back very quickly

Association for Instrumentation, Control, Automation & Laboratory Technology (GAMBICA) Broadwall House, 21 Broadwall, London SE1 9PL Tel: 020 7642 8080 Fax: 020 7642 8096 Email: sbrambley@gambica.org.uk www: gambica.org.uk Energy Efficient Solutions | 2014/15 | 33

ENERGY PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY

ENERGY LEADERS

2014

160+ EXHIBITORS

DELIVERING ENERGY MANAGEMENT, EFFICIENCY AND PROCUREMENT SOLUTIONS 50 + free seminars and discussions

Take knowledge and critical insight back to the office from over 70 industry leaders and case studies

Networking opportunities

Make new contacts that can help drive your organisation forward

Discover 160+ exhibitors

Find new products and technologies that will improve your energy efficiency

Meet energy suppliers & consultants

Get the best contracts for your energy supply and make savings for your business

REGISTER FOR YOUR FREE PLACE AT WWW.THEENERGYEVENT.COM/WEE LOGO

HEADLINE SPONSOR

EVENT PARTNERS

CO-LOCATED WITH

MEDIA PARTNERS CMYK POSITIVE

energy services and technology association

CMYK NEGATIVE

LOGO WITH PARTNERSHIP CREDIT

LOGO WITH PARTNERSHIP CREDIT AND DATES

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

LOGO WIT

Fancy reducing your CRC admin costs by 20%?

Using in excess of 6,000 Mwh of electricity through half hourly meters annually?

You need to be CRC compliant.

Why the fuss?

If you’re not compliant, BIU has calculated that you’ll be fined the equivalent of 14% of your annual utility costs.

Why BIU? Our proven CRC service will save you time, money and an unnecessary headache.

Need a further incentive?

We’ll beat any like-for-like CRC provider’s rate by 20%, including your incumbent’s*.

BIU can start your CRC audit today.

Get in touch to find out how BIU can help your business save time and money on utilities

01253 789816 hello@biu.com www.biu.com @BIUenergy

BRITISH INDEPENDENT UTILITIES, THE UK’S LEADING ENERGY CONSULTANCY * Terms & Conditions apply.