Better building performance is a stimulant to growth, not a barrier

The decision to drop consequential improvements, whereby property-owners in England make simple, cost-effective improvements to the energy efficiency of a home when they spend a good deal more on other building work, is confusing and frustrating. It is bad for jobs, growth and stable energy supply in the UK economy.

The government has just published the Energy Bill. This aims to reform the energy supply market and create investor confidence to deliver new generating capacity to replace dirty coal and life expired nuclear plant. And to keep the lights on, and our economy working, from 2015. This is a real risk, as Ofgem figures show that in 2015 spare generating capacity in our system could be as little as 1%, leaving perilously little room for an unexpected event, or plant shutdown. We need to save energy to protect our economy, and this can be done using our current technology and know-how.

The idea that being ‘green’ always costs jobs is a myth

Alongside that Bill the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announced a consultation on electricity demand reduction. They realise that reducing demand by not using energy is a better investment than generating electricity to waste. So they are consulting on a range of measures to reduce electricity demand by up to a third, using cost effective measures, by 2030. Many of these apply to our buildings. And the underlying policy analysis identifies Building Regulations as a key policy measure to realise those savings through better building performance and to reduce the energy investment burden on UK plc.

Our buildings consume almost half the energy we use in the UK. But they need not. There are many simple measures, such as better insulation and controls on heating and ventilation, that would benefit occupiers and cut their bills every year. They would employ people making insulation and supplying controls, and people installing them. In other words, they would stimulate growth in our economy. The idea that being “green” always costs jobs is a myth. A myth the government’s own figures dispel.

By their own figures, the decision on consequential improvements means over 2 million fewer homes being better insulated or controlled. And that in turn means fewer jobs for people making insulation and control systems. It may mean the closure of manufacturing plant and loss of existing jobs, plant and jobs which may leave the UK for ever. It condemns many families and pensioners to continued fuel poverty. And the economies in mainland Europe that are outperforming the UK already have more rigorous requirements for their buildings.

Improving the energy performance of our buildings saves energy and cuts spending on energy imports

Improving the energy performance of our buildings saves energy and cuts spending on energy imports, as we are now a big net energy importer. That situation worsens daily, contributing to our sluggish growth. Spending that money on materials and labour for energy efficiency measures in the UK cuts energy bills and keeps the money within our economy. It also reduces our exposure to the risks of importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar through the Straits of Hormuz. If we do not need the electricity, we do not need to generate it, cutting the bill for new generating and distribution plant, currently estimated at £110bn.

So on the one hand, DECC is working flat out to attract investment in generating capacity, and identify ways to reduce electricity demand. But it is now being actively undermined by the decision to abandon consequential improvements, a decision apparently motivated by a false belief that being green is bad for jobs. In reality better building performance is better for creating jobs and investment in the UK and reducing our dependence on energy imports.

Hywel Davies is technical director at the CIBSE