8 Electric-Car Myths Busted
Nov 29, 2010 MotherJones
I'm about as far from a gearhead as it gets, but even so, I was excited about the release of the nation's first two consumer plug-in electric vehicles: the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf. The Volt can go 40 miles on battery power and another 310 thanks to an auxiliary gas engine, which kicked in smoothly as I floored it up a hill during a recent test drive. The Leaf is—even cooler—completely electric, with a range of about 100 miles. In 2011, Ford, Mitsubishi, and Mercedes-Benz plan to introduce their own tailpipe-free models. GE has ordered up thousands for its sales force, and the federal government has set a target for 1 million electric vehicles by 2015. (A good step, even considering the 246 million or so gas vehicles already on the road.) Are we finally ready after years of false starts? Despite widespread public jitters, the experts I polled said yes. Herewith, eight e-car worries not to spin your wheels over.
1. Our grid can't handle the added burden. While electric cars do use a great deal of juice, utilities have been working behind the scenes for years to make sure the cars don't fry the grid. Blackouts are "extremely unlikely," notes Simon Mui, a scientist who studies clean vehicles and fuels for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Advanced charging technology will help distribute power loads more evenly, and many home charging stations will operate only during off-peak hours—which is more efficient and usually cheaper. "Smart chargers," slated to hit the market in 2011, will decide when to charge based on the time and distance you commute, local rates, and electricity demand in your neighborhood.
2. My utility bill will skyrocket. Yep, you'll spend more on amperage, but your savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a battery-only car 12,000 miles a year at going power rates, you'll pay an extra $27 or so per month for electricity, but save about $97 on gas. Some utilities offer special rates during off-peak hours—in California, you might pay as little as $13 a month (roughly half-price) to charge up at night. The one drawback of cheaper fuel is, well, cheaper driving, which some experts worry will lure commuters away from public transit, carpools, and bikes.
3. Coal-burning utilities mean electric cars will make emissions worse. Hardly. Even in predominantly coal-burning regions, an electric car releases 35 to 60 percent less CO2 than a comparable conventional car, according to industry think tank Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In areas with an ecofriendly power mix, the emissions are up to 75 percent lower. EPRI transportation expert Mark Duvall points out that "as the grid gets cleaner—which it almost certainly will—electric cars will get cleaner, too." Bonus: Unlike gas, which is refined largely from imported petroleum, electricity flows from domestic sources.
4. Electric cars already flopped once, so why should I believe they'll succeed? Climate worries, obviously, have gained traction since the 1990s, but the main reason to believe in a comeback is economic. Perhaps you've noticed that Detroit seems, uh, a little leaner than it was during the Clinton years. To compete with foreign automakers in places with high gas prices and tougher climate regs—think Europe and California—the industry needs to roll out efficient models. "Automakers see this as a necessity," says Mui. Technology has really improved, too; old-school e-car batteries, famous for exploding and generally sucking, have joined your wallet chains and Crash Test Dummies albums in '90s heaven.
5. Government rebates on electric cars favor the rich. To ease sticker shock (the Volt starts at $40,280; the Leaf, $32,780), the feds are offering a tax credit of up to $7,500 to the first 200,000 buyers of each model. If you still can't afford one, there's a consolation prize: As Mui points out, the reductions in emissions and pollution will benefit everyone. Plus, prices are sure to come down. The very first iPods, you may recall, set you back more than $400.
6. Electric cars handle like roller skates. I'm not the savviest driver, but I thought the Volt felt pretty much like a regular mid-size. Car and Driver writes that it "drives surprisingly well, with a reassuringly steady suspension." The Leaf gets dinged for its short range, but its transmission works so smoothly in stop-and-go traffic "that we started rationalizing our range concerns."
7. Lithium-ion auto batteries are as crappy as lithium-ion laptop batteries. Now here's something that might be worth fretting about. Although battery technology is light-years beyond where it was back when GM was peddling EV1s, it's far from perfect. Lithium-ion cells are sluggish in cold weather—and cranking the heat, AC, or stereo will reduce your range. More worrisome: No one can predict how long they'll last. "There will be degradation of the battery over its lifetime," says EPRI's Duvall. "But we don't know exactly how much." The good news: Recent breakthroughs in battery technology promise faster charging and greater reliability. In the meantime, both Volt and Leaf come with eight-year battery warranties.
8. I'll run out of juice in the sticks. This is only an issue for fully electric cars, and as long as you're within range of a socket, you'll make do. A full charge takes about 10 hours using a standard outlet, or half as long with a home 220-volt station that'll run you about $2,000. Meanwhile, the federal government plans to spend $115 million to help cities set up 15,000 pay-as-you-go chargers in public places. Electric vehicles "do require a lot of planning, but not as much as you might think," says Mark Vaughn, an AutoWeek editor who blogged last summer about his trial run with Mitsubishi's i MiEV—comparable to the Leaf. When Vaughn showed up at a hotel with a low battery, he told me, a kitchen employee offered to snake an extension cord out to the parking lot. "You really learn as much about people as you do about amps and volts and things like that."
Monday, November 29, 2010
Energy Issues
Governance problems at NERSA - shades of Eskom?
by Chris Yelland, managing director, EE Publishers
(follow EE Publishers on Twitter)
To comment and respond to this article, and/or to any of the views and positions expressed, visit EE Publishers' blog: "The best from EE Publishers..."
Once again, public sector governance issues, and battles between the CEO, the board and the responsible minister have rocked South Africa. Eskom, SAA, Transnet, the SABC... and now, in the latest saga, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)... (more)
On 15 November 2010, Chairperson Cecilia Khuzwayo indicated that the regulator had suspended its CEO, Smunda Mokoena, for "alleged gross transgression of NERSA's code of conduct".
Whilst official spokesman Charles Hlebela would not be drawn on the specifics, an article in The Times on 15 November went a step further, quoting a source alleging that that "quite recently he (the CEO) chaired a meeting completely drunk", and that "he had a drinking problem that was getting out of hand".
In the meantime, pending an internal investigation, Nomalanga Sithole, NERSA's executive manager for corporate services, was appointed as acting CEO.
Then, only ten days later, another bland press release issued by NERSA on 24 November stated without elaboration or explanation that the board had decided to lift the suspension and reinstate the CEO, and that the allegations against the CEO would now be investigated by the office of the minister of energy.
This immediately gave rise to perceptions of undue political interference, and that a "political" solution was being sought, rather than following an objective administrative and disciplinary process.
NERSA is a statutory body established by an act of parliament (No. 40 of 2004: The National Energy Regulator Act, 2004), to make independent regulatory decisions in the electricity, piped-gas and petroleum pipeline industries.
In terms of the Act, the minister of energy appoints the four full-time and five part-time board members of NERSA, and designates one of the part-time members as chairperson, another part-time member as deputy chairperson, one full-time member as CEO, and the other three full-time members as responsible for each of electricity, piped-gas and petroleum pipeline regulation, respectively.
Thus although in practice the board may recommend the candidate for the position of CEO to the minister of energy, the final appointment of the CEO is the prerogative of the minister.
The Act also states that the minister of energy may prematurely terminate the appointments of board members, including the CEO, but only under specified criteria. These include failing to act independently of any undue influence or instruction, and/or failing to act in a manner that is required and expected from the holder of a public office.
Whilst "undue influence" probably relates to matters of corruption or executive interference, a legal opinion indicated that "perhaps the context could be extended to the undue influence of alcohol. One would certainly expect that an appointment at this level would include the presumption that the CEO should act in a manner that is seen to be competent, which would obviously include competency of mind".
It should be noted that in this case the board did not terminate the appointment of the NERSA CEO - it merely suspended him pending an investigation, which presumably would result in a report to the minister of energy, who could then make an informed decision on termination in terms of the Act.
Former NERSA board member and head of infrastructure reform and regulation at University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business, Prof. Anton Eberhard, does not believe that the role of the minister as detailed above necessarily prevents the independence of NERSA. "Regulatory independence is about being able to make independent regulatory decisions (licensing, tariff setting, technical standards, etc.) without these being arbitrarily overturned by any other person or agency, except through pre-specified appeal mechanisms, for example the high court. NERSA enjoys this independence", he said.
While the Act indicates that if the chairperson is unable to perform his or her functions for any reason, the deputy chairperson must perform them until the minister designates another chairperson, it is silent on procedures if the CEO is unable to perform his or her function, for example due to suspension.
A legal opinion indicated that "procedurally, this would then depend on what disciplinary code is in place, and to avoid the risk of legal exposure and litigation, NERSA would need to follow its code meticulously - they certainly won't want a legal claim against them for not following procedure and/or an unlawful termination." In the energy sector, the current case of Jacob Maroga vs. Eskom and the minister of public enterprises springs to mind!
This new saga is perhaps symptomatic of ongoing governance issues resulting from unclear lines of authority, accountability and communication between the CEO, the board and the responsible minister, in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and statutory bodies.
For companies established in terms of the Companies Act, the shareholder(s) elect and appoint the board of directors, and the directors in turn appoint (and may dismiss) the CEO. The CEO reports to the board, and the board is responsible to the shareholders.
In the case of SOEs and statutory bodies, there are a number of grey areas. As the position of the CEO is effectively an appointment by the shareholder minister, and not the board, does the board have the authority to suspend the CEO and appoint an acting CEO pending an investigation? Who is the CEO accountable to, and does the CEO report to the board or the shareholder minister? May the CEO communicate directly with the minister, and may the CEO take instructions directly from the minister? Is the regulator truly independent of the minister, government and politics in its administrative and regulatory decisions?
There may indeed be considerations other than procedural issues at play in the rapid about-face and reinstatement of the CEO by the board. NERSA spokesman, Charles Hlebela indicated to EE Publishers that "the five-year terms of the full-time regulator members, including the CEO, ended in September 2010", and that "the minister had extended their terms till March 2011".
Perhaps the reinstatement of the NERSA CEO is a pragmatic endeavor to avoid inevitably damaging and expensive litigation, extending over several years, resulting from the governance and accountability issues that have been experienced in other public entities such as Eskom. It may simply make sense to allow Smunda Mokoena to see out his contract in the next few months, and leave with his reputation intact.
But whatever the case, NERSA is undoubtedly a critical regulatory body in the South African economy, and its ongoing independence is essential. Despite the criticisms and shortcomings of NERSA, the regulator is in fact the thin line between the customer and some very powerful monopolies. Therefore, surely we should all work to strengthen and support NERSA, and not to destroy it?
Recently NERSA approved Eskom price increases of 25% per annum for three consecutive years, on top of a 32% increase the previous year. This week, NERSA will be heavily involved with the public hearings of the National Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, IRP 2010.
One trusts and expects therefore that NERSA's deliberations are characterised by sound judgment and sober mind
by Chris Yelland, managing director, EE Publishers
(follow EE Publishers on Twitter)
To comment and respond to this article, and/or to any of the views and positions expressed, visit EE Publishers' blog: "The best from EE Publishers..."
Once again, public sector governance issues, and battles between the CEO, the board and the responsible minister have rocked South Africa. Eskom, SAA, Transnet, the SABC... and now, in the latest saga, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)... (more)
On 15 November 2010, Chairperson Cecilia Khuzwayo indicated that the regulator had suspended its CEO, Smunda Mokoena, for "alleged gross transgression of NERSA's code of conduct".
Whilst official spokesman Charles Hlebela would not be drawn on the specifics, an article in The Times on 15 November went a step further, quoting a source alleging that that "quite recently he (the CEO) chaired a meeting completely drunk", and that "he had a drinking problem that was getting out of hand".
In the meantime, pending an internal investigation, Nomalanga Sithole, NERSA's executive manager for corporate services, was appointed as acting CEO.
Then, only ten days later, another bland press release issued by NERSA on 24 November stated without elaboration or explanation that the board had decided to lift the suspension and reinstate the CEO, and that the allegations against the CEO would now be investigated by the office of the minister of energy.
This immediately gave rise to perceptions of undue political interference, and that a "political" solution was being sought, rather than following an objective administrative and disciplinary process.
NERSA is a statutory body established by an act of parliament (No. 40 of 2004: The National Energy Regulator Act, 2004), to make independent regulatory decisions in the electricity, piped-gas and petroleum pipeline industries.
In terms of the Act, the minister of energy appoints the four full-time and five part-time board members of NERSA, and designates one of the part-time members as chairperson, another part-time member as deputy chairperson, one full-time member as CEO, and the other three full-time members as responsible for each of electricity, piped-gas and petroleum pipeline regulation, respectively.
Thus although in practice the board may recommend the candidate for the position of CEO to the minister of energy, the final appointment of the CEO is the prerogative of the minister.
The Act also states that the minister of energy may prematurely terminate the appointments of board members, including the CEO, but only under specified criteria. These include failing to act independently of any undue influence or instruction, and/or failing to act in a manner that is required and expected from the holder of a public office.
Whilst "undue influence" probably relates to matters of corruption or executive interference, a legal opinion indicated that "perhaps the context could be extended to the undue influence of alcohol. One would certainly expect that an appointment at this level would include the presumption that the CEO should act in a manner that is seen to be competent, which would obviously include competency of mind".
It should be noted that in this case the board did not terminate the appointment of the NERSA CEO - it merely suspended him pending an investigation, which presumably would result in a report to the minister of energy, who could then make an informed decision on termination in terms of the Act.
Former NERSA board member and head of infrastructure reform and regulation at University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business, Prof. Anton Eberhard, does not believe that the role of the minister as detailed above necessarily prevents the independence of NERSA. "Regulatory independence is about being able to make independent regulatory decisions (licensing, tariff setting, technical standards, etc.) without these being arbitrarily overturned by any other person or agency, except through pre-specified appeal mechanisms, for example the high court. NERSA enjoys this independence", he said.
While the Act indicates that if the chairperson is unable to perform his or her functions for any reason, the deputy chairperson must perform them until the minister designates another chairperson, it is silent on procedures if the CEO is unable to perform his or her function, for example due to suspension.
A legal opinion indicated that "procedurally, this would then depend on what disciplinary code is in place, and to avoid the risk of legal exposure and litigation, NERSA would need to follow its code meticulously - they certainly won't want a legal claim against them for not following procedure and/or an unlawful termination." In the energy sector, the current case of Jacob Maroga vs. Eskom and the minister of public enterprises springs to mind!
This new saga is perhaps symptomatic of ongoing governance issues resulting from unclear lines of authority, accountability and communication between the CEO, the board and the responsible minister, in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and statutory bodies.
For companies established in terms of the Companies Act, the shareholder(s) elect and appoint the board of directors, and the directors in turn appoint (and may dismiss) the CEO. The CEO reports to the board, and the board is responsible to the shareholders.
In the case of SOEs and statutory bodies, there are a number of grey areas. As the position of the CEO is effectively an appointment by the shareholder minister, and not the board, does the board have the authority to suspend the CEO and appoint an acting CEO pending an investigation? Who is the CEO accountable to, and does the CEO report to the board or the shareholder minister? May the CEO communicate directly with the minister, and may the CEO take instructions directly from the minister? Is the regulator truly independent of the minister, government and politics in its administrative and regulatory decisions?
There may indeed be considerations other than procedural issues at play in the rapid about-face and reinstatement of the CEO by the board. NERSA spokesman, Charles Hlebela indicated to EE Publishers that "the five-year terms of the full-time regulator members, including the CEO, ended in September 2010", and that "the minister had extended their terms till March 2011".
Perhaps the reinstatement of the NERSA CEO is a pragmatic endeavor to avoid inevitably damaging and expensive litigation, extending over several years, resulting from the governance and accountability issues that have been experienced in other public entities such as Eskom. It may simply make sense to allow Smunda Mokoena to see out his contract in the next few months, and leave with his reputation intact.
But whatever the case, NERSA is undoubtedly a critical regulatory body in the South African economy, and its ongoing independence is essential. Despite the criticisms and shortcomings of NERSA, the regulator is in fact the thin line between the customer and some very powerful monopolies. Therefore, surely we should all work to strengthen and support NERSA, and not to destroy it?
Recently NERSA approved Eskom price increases of 25% per annum for three consecutive years, on top of a 32% increase the previous year. This week, NERSA will be heavily involved with the public hearings of the National Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, IRP 2010.
One trusts and expects therefore that NERSA's deliberations are characterised by sound judgment and sober mind
Monday, November 15, 2010
lighting control and BMS
CONTROLS FRIDAY: TYPICAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR USING ADVANCED LIGHTING CONTROLS
Posted on November 5, 2010, 6:31 AM, by Craig DiLouie, under Controls, Energy, Research.
How much energy is saved when a building uses lighting controls? The typical answer is the ever-present lighting term, “It depends.” Research, however, is suggestive:
Space Type Controls Type Lighting Energy Savings Demonstrated in Research or Estimated as Potential
Study Reference
Private Office Occupancy sensor 38% An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center/EPA, August 2000.
Multilevel switching 22% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Manual dimming 6-9% Occupant Use of Manual Lighting Controls in Private Offices, IESNA Paper #34, Lighting Research Center.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting) 50% (manual blinds) to 70% (optimally used manual blinds or automatic shading system) “Effect of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices”, by Reinhart, CF, National Research Council of Canada, Internal Report NRCC-45374, 2002.
Open Office Occupancy sensors 35% National Research Council study on integrated lighting controls in open office, 2007.
Multilevel switching 16% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting 40% “Effect of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices”, by Reinhart, CF, National Research Council of Canada, Internal Report NRCC-45374, 2002.
Personal dimming control 11% National Research Council study on integrated lighting controls in open office, 2007.
Classroom Occupancy sensor 55% An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center/EPA, August 2000.
Multilevel switching 8% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting) 50% Sidelighting Photocontrols Field Study, Heschong Mahone Group, 2003.
Posted on November 5, 2010, 6:31 AM, by Craig DiLouie, under Controls, Energy, Research.
How much energy is saved when a building uses lighting controls? The typical answer is the ever-present lighting term, “It depends.” Research, however, is suggestive:
Space Type Controls Type Lighting Energy Savings Demonstrated in Research or Estimated as Potential
Study Reference
Private Office Occupancy sensor 38% An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center/EPA, August 2000.
Multilevel switching 22% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Manual dimming 6-9% Occupant Use of Manual Lighting Controls in Private Offices, IESNA Paper #34, Lighting Research Center.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting) 50% (manual blinds) to 70% (optimally used manual blinds or automatic shading system) “Effect of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices”, by Reinhart, CF, National Research Council of Canada, Internal Report NRCC-45374, 2002.
Open Office Occupancy sensors 35% National Research Council study on integrated lighting controls in open office, 2007.
Multilevel switching 16% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting 40% “Effect of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices”, by Reinhart, CF, National Research Council of Canada, Internal Report NRCC-45374, 2002.
Personal dimming control 11% National Research Council study on integrated lighting controls in open office, 2007.
Classroom Occupancy sensor 55% An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center/EPA, August 2000.
Multilevel switching 8% Lighting Controls Effectiveness Assessment, ADM Associates for Heschong Mahone Group, May 2002.
Daylight harvesting (sidelighting) 50% Sidelighting Photocontrols Field Study, Heschong Mahone Group, 2003.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Electrical Energy Management
Oct 29, 2010
Australia’s biggest office landlords are switching off lights and installing more efficient air conditioners ahead of rules demanding reporting of energy use in the nation with the developed world’s second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per person.
The largest property managers are ahead of legislation which comes into effect Nov. 1 requiring owners to reveal office buildings’ energy efficiency to tenants and buyers, according to Simon Wild, Sydney-based principal at sustainable design consultants Cundall. Cundall worked with the U.K. Green Building Council on a study of the nation’s sustainability rating tool, the results of which were released in August.
“The industry, particularly the tier one landlords, have been disclosing for a long time,” Wild said. “Australian companies are very much market-driven about how they can attract the big players in town to reside within their buildings.”
GPT Group, Australia’s second-biggest diversified property trust by market value, cut its buildings’ greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent between 2005 and 2009 by installing more efficient air conditioners and recycling more waste. Morgan Stanley-backed Investa Property Group’s 21-story Ark building in North Sydney can generate electricity, recycle rainwater and recharge electric cars.
Australia boasts some of the most environmentally friendly real-estate groups in the world, a survey of global companies by Netherlands-based Maastricht University found this year. Sydney- based GPT heads the Dow Jones Sustainability Index’s 21-company real-estate leader list, a third of whose members are Australian, more than any other country.
Energy Efficiency
Australia had the second-highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita among developed nations, according to 2008 figures from the International Energy Agency, the latest data available from the group. Only Luxembourg’s emissions were higher.
The legislation requires owners of office buildings leasing or selling more than 2,000 square meters (21,528 square feet) to reveal their day-to-day energy efficiency on the five-star National Australian Built Environment Rating System. Companies pay A$770 ($752) for a rating to New South Wales state’s Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, which administers the program nationally, and about A$3,000 for an assessor to review documents including the previous year’s bills, said Yma ten Hoedt, the department’s principal program manager.
The rules will affect 10 percent of office buildings nationally every year, DECCW estimates. Companies must also disclose tenanted areas’ lighting systems’ performance and provide a statement on buildings’ efficiency from Nov. 1, 2011.
Smaller owners, who may not have ratings or necessary documents, will be most affected, said Rebecca Pearce, Sydney- based head of sustainability at CB Richard Ellis Group Inc., the world’s largest commercial property broker.
Tenants
Government agencies, which occupy about a third of offices nationally, will require buildings they lease or own to have a minimum 4.5 star energy rating by next year. The national average is 2.5 stars, with the biggest landlords targeting 4.5 over the next two to four years.
“To have a building vacant because it’s not efficient or rated so tenants don’t want to go into it, we don’t even want to go there,” said Rowan Griffin, head of sustainability at Colonial First State, the asset management arm of Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Colonial manages 34 office properties, valued at about A$4 billion.
Almost 300 tenants occupying about 1.5 million square meters, have committed to the CitySwitch Green Office program, including accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, property broker DTZ, and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the country’s biggest bank, pledging to achieve at least a four-star tenancy rating.
Improving Performance
PricewaterhouseCoopers has spent A$800,000 replacing light switches in its Sydney office with sensors, according to the CitySwitch website. DTZ is saving A$3,500 a year on the energy bill at its Sydney headquarters by introducing steps such as installing shared printers and setting computing equipment to turn off automatically, the website said.
A one-star efficiency gain means A$2 to A$4 in annual savings per square meter, a Citi Investment Research study in January found. For a 10,000-square-meter office building, that equates to savings of as much as A$40,000 a year.
A University of California, Berkeley, study found buildings rated under a U.S. plan similar to the system used in the incoming Australian rules commanded rents of about 3.5 percent more than comparable properties, and sale prices rose as much as 16 percent. A similar Australian study is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2011.
Building Management
Companies reach up to four stars by better timing lights and equipment use, installing more efficient systems during upgrades, and better training staff, said Craig Roussac, general manager for sustainability, safety and environment at Investa. The company improved one of its building’s performance by 1.5 stars more than expected by adjusting the way it was run by its manager, he said.
“You can have an efficient car, but you can be driving it with the handbrake on and completely stuff things up,” Roussac said. “Conversely, you can have someone who’s passionate and skilled, and see an increase in returns.”
Australia’s biggest office landlords are switching off lights and installing more efficient air conditioners ahead of rules demanding reporting of energy use in the nation with the developed world’s second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per person.
The largest property managers are ahead of legislation which comes into effect Nov. 1 requiring owners to reveal office buildings’ energy efficiency to tenants and buyers, according to Simon Wild, Sydney-based principal at sustainable design consultants Cundall. Cundall worked with the U.K. Green Building Council on a study of the nation’s sustainability rating tool, the results of which were released in August.
“The industry, particularly the tier one landlords, have been disclosing for a long time,” Wild said. “Australian companies are very much market-driven about how they can attract the big players in town to reside within their buildings.”
GPT Group, Australia’s second-biggest diversified property trust by market value, cut its buildings’ greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent between 2005 and 2009 by installing more efficient air conditioners and recycling more waste. Morgan Stanley-backed Investa Property Group’s 21-story Ark building in North Sydney can generate electricity, recycle rainwater and recharge electric cars.
Australia boasts some of the most environmentally friendly real-estate groups in the world, a survey of global companies by Netherlands-based Maastricht University found this year. Sydney- based GPT heads the Dow Jones Sustainability Index’s 21-company real-estate leader list, a third of whose members are Australian, more than any other country.
Energy Efficiency
Australia had the second-highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita among developed nations, according to 2008 figures from the International Energy Agency, the latest data available from the group. Only Luxembourg’s emissions were higher.
The legislation requires owners of office buildings leasing or selling more than 2,000 square meters (21,528 square feet) to reveal their day-to-day energy efficiency on the five-star National Australian Built Environment Rating System. Companies pay A$770 ($752) for a rating to New South Wales state’s Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, which administers the program nationally, and about A$3,000 for an assessor to review documents including the previous year’s bills, said Yma ten Hoedt, the department’s principal program manager.
The rules will affect 10 percent of office buildings nationally every year, DECCW estimates. Companies must also disclose tenanted areas’ lighting systems’ performance and provide a statement on buildings’ efficiency from Nov. 1, 2011.
Smaller owners, who may not have ratings or necessary documents, will be most affected, said Rebecca Pearce, Sydney- based head of sustainability at CB Richard Ellis Group Inc., the world’s largest commercial property broker.
Tenants
Government agencies, which occupy about a third of offices nationally, will require buildings they lease or own to have a minimum 4.5 star energy rating by next year. The national average is 2.5 stars, with the biggest landlords targeting 4.5 over the next two to four years.
“To have a building vacant because it’s not efficient or rated so tenants don’t want to go into it, we don’t even want to go there,” said Rowan Griffin, head of sustainability at Colonial First State, the asset management arm of Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Colonial manages 34 office properties, valued at about A$4 billion.
Almost 300 tenants occupying about 1.5 million square meters, have committed to the CitySwitch Green Office program, including accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, property broker DTZ, and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the country’s biggest bank, pledging to achieve at least a four-star tenancy rating.
Improving Performance
PricewaterhouseCoopers has spent A$800,000 replacing light switches in its Sydney office with sensors, according to the CitySwitch website. DTZ is saving A$3,500 a year on the energy bill at its Sydney headquarters by introducing steps such as installing shared printers and setting computing equipment to turn off automatically, the website said.
A one-star efficiency gain means A$2 to A$4 in annual savings per square meter, a Citi Investment Research study in January found. For a 10,000-square-meter office building, that equates to savings of as much as A$40,000 a year.
A University of California, Berkeley, study found buildings rated under a U.S. plan similar to the system used in the incoming Australian rules commanded rents of about 3.5 percent more than comparable properties, and sale prices rose as much as 16 percent. A similar Australian study is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2011.
Building Management
Companies reach up to four stars by better timing lights and equipment use, installing more efficient systems during upgrades, and better training staff, said Craig Roussac, general manager for sustainability, safety and environment at Investa. The company improved one of its building’s performance by 1.5 stars more than expected by adjusting the way it was run by its manager, he said.
“You can have an efficient car, but you can be driving it with the handbrake on and completely stuff things up,” Roussac said. “Conversely, you can have someone who’s passionate and skilled, and see an increase in returns.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)