Merton Rule a disaster
The Merton Rule is an “expensive disaster” that has distorted the market and led to renewables being applied in the wrong places.
This was a key conclusion from last week’s M&E Sustainability seminar at the Ecobuild exhibition and conference in London.
M&E Sustainability chairman Jim O’Neil said that buildings should not need renewables to comply with the Building Regulations or to meet BREEAM ‘very good’ standards.
“The Merton Rule has been counterproductive as it has allowed developers to drag poorly performing buildings over the line by sticking on renewables,” he told the seminar. “We struggle to get buildings to comply with Part L [of the Building Regulations] because cost consultants value engineer us on building fabric, windows etc. “Cost consultants always want buildings to be cheaper. They accept that they have to spend money on the renewables to get planning consent, but our argument is that any building we design should not need renewables.”
Seminar chairman Professor Tim Dwyer of London South Bank University said the industry was threatened by "greenwash" and needed to get clients focused on what was practical and relevant.
His opinion was supported by Bill Wright of Wright Energy, who was formerly head of energy management at the John Lewis Partnership. He said that the Merton Rule was “an expensive disaster” that had forced developers to invest in renewables for sites “that are completely unsuitable”.
Wrong places
“The Merton Rule has set back renewable energy for years. Renewables are being specified in all the wrong places and make buildings too expensive to build. Some local authorities have put up their ‘Merton’ target to 30 per cent - that’s crazy.
“The Merton Rule has set back renewable energy for years. Renewables are being specified in all the wrong places and make buildings too expensive to build. Some local authorities have put up their ‘Merton’ target to 30 per cent - that’s crazy.
“If you put a wind turbine on the East coast you will get 100 per cent of the potential energy from it, if you put it in a town you will get 13 per cent. Don’t force people to buy renewables in the wrong place – PV doesn’t work in the shadows, so don’t put it in towns, and turbines are a waste of money in urban sites,” said Wright, who is also a consultant to M&E Sustainability.
“Solutions must be affordable. There is nothing new about sustainability. If you are a client who builds and operates your buildings you have an interest in making sure it is sustainable. It shouldn’t be an extra.”
He said building owners should guard against overspending as that would make them unsustainable. “Look at the basics like controls first. Look at solutions that will save money, and make sure the decisions you take are economic.”
Former M&E Sustainability chairman David Frise stressed that solutions had to add value to clients' businesses.
"Planning has driven us into over-complex designs that ultimately forget the end user…some projects have six different renewable systems and that is almost impossible to integrate," he told the seminar. "Often chief executives get excited and insist they want a ground source heat pump, when in fact that is the last thing they want."Frise (left) added that the Carbon Reduction Commitment energy efficiency scheme (CRC) would attempt to apply an economic value to carbon saving so could have a major impact on attitudes among clients.
"Energy conservation has to be strategically important to clients so they value it," he said. "But they are not in the business of energy conservation, we are. They have to focus on making sure their business is working and jobs are secure – energy is still a long way down their list of priorities."
He added that the cost of energy saving had to be linked to what was valuable about their business. "In retail, for example, lighting levels have to be high to encourage sales, so we can’t turn lights down to save money. "We have to find another approach to give them the value they need."
Expensive ornaments
Fellow M&E Sustainability consultant Mike Malina of Energy Solutions Associates said many ‘green’ technologies were misapplied. He described urban wind turbines as “expensive ornaments” and said that biomass was totally unsuitable and unsustainable in cities. However, he said that solar thermal systems were delivering good results and condensing boilers were an example of how legislation and proper application could transform a market for the good.
Fellow M&E Sustainability consultant Mike Malina of Energy Solutions Associates said many ‘green’ technologies were misapplied. He described urban wind turbines as “expensive ornaments” and said that biomass was totally unsuitable and unsustainable in cities. However, he said that solar thermal systems were delivering good results and condensing boilers were an example of how legislation and proper application could transform a market for the good.
“The key is integration and controls,” said Malina. “We have lots of technologies being thrown at buildings that will end up working against each other. If they don’t perform as expected we are storing up problems for the future.”
A lot of these problems can be traced back to commissioning, according to Wright.
“Commissioning is always squeezed, every single time,” he said. You cannot make a building sustainable overnight. It has to start right at the beginning of the installation, but it doesn’t happen because of the mad rush to get the building done. If you start off with a crap building you will live with a crap building, it will never be right.”
O’Neil (left) added that there was no legislative requirement for buildings to be sustainable, but there is a “huge legislative requirement for low carbon buildings”. This means clients need to take a different approach. BREEAM
“In future, they may move from asking for BREEAM Excellent to ‘A rated’ buildings under the EPC/DEC building performance labelling schemes.”
“In future, they may move from asking for BREEAM Excellent to ‘A rated’ buildings under the EPC/DEC building performance labelling schemes.”
He pointed out that Part L 2006 equates to a C rated building, but later this year the target will move up as the new Part L requires a 25 per cent uplift in energy efficiency. Meanwhile, more clients are aiming for BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ in a bid to achieve very low to zero carbon buildings.
“BREEAM is a good tool for demonstrating sustainability in the built environment and the criteria also meet the aspirations for CSR reporting (Corporate Social Responsibility),” said O’Neil. “You specify BREEAM because you want to do it, it is not a legislative thing – there is no legislation saying you should build a sustainable building – you do it because you want to and in order to meet CSR.
“A ‘Very Good’ rating is not hard to get, but ‘Outstanding’ is a tall order and will add 20 per cent to the cost of a project,” he warned. However, BREEAM does not guarantee sustainability or even that the building is low carbon – it is only part of the process, according to O’Neil.