You might have spotted this story just before the Christmas break. Friends of the Earth and two solar firms, Solarcentury and HomeSun took the Government to court over the decision to slash the Feed in Tariff from 43.3p to just 21p per kilowatt hour. The favourable rate was introduced in 2010 as a deliberately attractive rate to encourage the fitting of panels.
A whole industry sprang up. Thousands signed up and this technology has the prospect of making real inroads to our CO2 emissions. Self generation (and selling surplus power back the grid) are clearly very green. Your south facing roof could save CO2 and potentially make you money.
But no sooner had the movement started than the Government slash the rate of the feed in tariff. Not by a few percentage points, but by half. The announcement was made in the middle of the consultation period! Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court found the Governments decision to slash feed-in tariffs (FiT) several months early, before a consultation on the issue ended, was “legally flawed”. There is likely to be a Judicial Review in the New year.
Of course a number of people paid premium prices to get panels fitted before the cut off date – which now looks like a waste of money. But more fundamentally, this whole debacle has put some people off the fitting of the panels.
Like most things, we don’t like uncertainty. The smart money is that this is a set-back. the Government have had their knuckles rapped. But they will almost certainly reduce the rate – they’ll just have to it a bit smarter next time!
Nas the clue is in the official Government response – Greg Barker the Climate Change Minister said the government disagreed with the court’s decision and would seek an appeal.
Perhaps the Government are not quite as Green as they suggest?
UPDATE 4 January
Climate change minister Greg Barker has today said, “We disagree with the court’s decision,” adding, “We will be seeking an appeal and hope to secure a hearing as soon as possible. Regardless of the outcome, the current high tariffs for solar PV are not sustainable and changes need to be made in order to protect the budget, which is funded by consumers through their energy bills.”
In all the times I have been to the USA I have never really thought they go mad on green. I think a few years ago, the best they got was lighting the Empire State with green lights – missing the point a bit?
But times have changed and this building now sources 100% of renewable energy. The owners announced recently that they are buying all of their energy from the Green Mountain Energy Company. This is reckoned to save around 45,000 tonnes of CO2 annually – or the equivalent of
planting nearly 150,000 trees – more than 6 times the number of trees in Central Park now.
The owners have spent $550m in the last twelve months – of which $100m has been on ‘green technologies’. 6,500 windows have been upgraded to replace the glazing with a new super-insulated sandwich glass. This will save another 100,000 tonnes of CO2 over a 15 year period – the equivalent of 17,500 cars being taken off the road.
I think it has taken the Americans some time to come to the sustainability table. New York is rather consumer-centric.
The Empire State building isn’t my favourite New York piece of architecture (The Chrysler Building is), but you can use it in lots of places to identify where you are! It is certainly iconic. And at 2.85m sq ft – it is a monster of a building – from a different era. But it is now bang up to date! And very green…
When I say ‘green’ I mean purple…. bright purple last night!
From my last weeks posts you will know that I spoke at a conference in Istanbul two weeks ago. The theme of the conference was ‘sustainable energy technologies’.
I have spoken to a lot of people since I returned (justifying my ‘holiday’ mostly). But it occurs to me that people, generally, don’t understand what we mean by sustainable buildings or developments. Most, understandably, go to the ‘solution’ – solar panels or loft insulation. They understand these to an extent.
We do have some major issues in identifying what sustainability actually means. There are lots of other labels too – green buildings, low energy buildings, carbon neutral, zero carbon, Code 4 homes, BREEAM excellent offices… The list goes on. And it’s not always helpful.
One of the things we had an issue with when trying to capture data for my research paper was how you identify a ‘more sustainable’ building. It is not an easy test – you can read it – if you have time in the paper here.
In fact the most established definition of sustainable development is often quoted as the ‘Bruntland Commission’ from 1987,
Development ..”that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
So, that’s the easy bit. The next bit – how do we measure it and make those measurements easily understood by all? In my industry we are having to get to grips with it. But I have realised in the last week or so, that people generally have no idea about what is being done around them to try and reduce our ‘footprint’. They hear the buzz-words, but these are just that. They offer no clarity, no help. They are good for marketing but not much else?
We have some way to go… The story needs to be clear. It also needs to be widely understood if it is to have any effect?
Day three of the conference in Istabul – and the big one for me.
Back in January I was discussing with my friends at Nottingham University the fact that we weren’t seeing premium prices for sustainable buildings – which was odd really. In fact, in the commercial market the opposite is true – the ‘market’ appears to be applying a discount to sustainable buildings! In the residential sector the issue is that there is a lack of clear data.
And so an idea was born – I was challenged to ‘prove’ my assumptions. This is not as easy as it sounds – the resultant paper was jointly written – and was quite difficult. The reasons is that whilst the University are well used to writing papers with hard facts and peer-tested data, the market doesn’t work like that. It’s an imperfect place most of the time.
But the paper was written and it should be on a sperate page now at the top of this site. It is quite long – so you might need to print it (not very sustainable). Since the paper generated a lot of discussion, we have decided to do some more work on the data. So this is very much work in progress.
And I guess that fundamentally we hope that the results turn around – soon….
I can’t believe it is 12 months since I first went to Shanghai – a year ago I visited the City with Nottingham City Council and The University of Nottingham. I spent a fascinating few days with the University at a conference aimed at Sustainable Technologies. I also got to see the World Expo – which was fascinating.
One year on and we hit Istanbul. I have been invited – and this time I am speaking at the SET (Sustainable Energy Technologies) conference.
I have written a joint paper which addresses the question of whether green property attracts premium prices*. It’s not an easy question for various reasons. The paper is lengthy and can’t really be published in a blog post. You would fall asleep! I will though, after the conference ends, put it on its own ‘page’ on this site. I would welcome comments and observations. I don’t expect the findings to be popular!
I am in Istanbul this morning where the conference starts today and, assuming the technology works, I’ll do some updates on anything interesting I come across.
We also get a chance to see some of Istanbul after the conference ends – I am looking forward to this. I’m told that this is one of the most photogenic places in the World – so you may see some images… I’ll try to limit it to twenty images (which I guess will be as difficult as my attempts in Nottingham over the last few weeks – see here).
The one thing I won’t be doing is Turkish Delight – which ranks alongside Mushrooms as food of the devil in my book.
If it goes quiet, you will guess that I can’t work the Turkish wi-fi!
*PS – the answer to the question is no for commercial property and yes for residential… in Nottingham at least!
You will know, if you are a regular reader of my blog that I have some issues with ‘green bling’. I an all for us finding technologies which can reduce running costs and or ‘carbon footprint‘ (whatever that is!).
One of the issues we come across in the valuation world is the apparent dichotomy between who pays for the technology and who benefits. My research with Nottingham University suggests that,at present, we can’t see increased values for sustainable buildings in the commercial sector*. This is partly as a result of the fact that some of the technology is expensive for the developer, but it is not he who benefits on the long term.
So this video (don’t worry about the language!) is brilliant – it takes a humble coca-cola 1.5l bottle and turns it into a sun pipe! Sometimes the best ideas in life are the simplest!
* I am yet to work out how best to share my joint research with you!
We seem to be bombarded with sticks and carrots in the property industry. We are told that almost half of the UK’s carbon emissions come from buildings. So it is my industry that can make a difference.
Is this a picture of global warming? It didn't feel like it....
The Government are trying to impose rules on the Industry for new buildings – especially in the housing sector where Zero Carbon is a target for 2016 for anything newly built. In the commercial sector we are required to provide Energy Performance Certificates for sales and lettings. It has been suggested that by 2018 it will be illegal to let commercial properties with an “F” or “G” rating.
On the other hand we have the feed-in tariff for those with solar panels – a technology that allows you to sell your excess electricity back to the grid.
Putting to one side the questions over the validity of the arguments about the damage we are (allegedly) doing to the planet, the messages we get and guidelines we have to operate by can be confusing to say the least. The lack of clarity does nothing to help us make choices.
But, if you take a step back – it probably isn’t a bad thing that we should reduce our footprint. Not just on the resources we are consuming but generally on the planet. The resources are scarce and the real test is when we see prices of gas and electricity increase – last weeks suggestion of 18/20% increases this winter will start to hurt.
So perhaps the message needs to be a little more realistic. Rather than zero carbon, perhaps we should try to ‘tread lightly’. To think about what we do. But at the same time acknowledge that in some situations we can do little to get to zero carbon. In my business we spend our lives driving to property – it isn’t practical to use public transport. We do where we can (commuting to London as an example).
Tread lightly – I like that. Now I need to lose some (more) weight….
Chris Huhne seems to be in trouble with the Mail on Sunday – who have devoted a number of weeks column inches in trying to bring him down for allegedly getting his wife to take his speeding points.
But there was a sideshow in this weeks paper which levelled an attack on him for the work he is doing on the UK’s green agenda. His Carbon Budget commits the UK to reducing its carbon output by 50% over the next 14 years. A tall order.
What was really interesting about the article was the language – it was suggested that in the policy-making bubble of the Palace of Westminster it is “settled” that there is such a thing as ‘global warming’. Even the most vocal of global warriors dislike the phrase and say the Scientific community don’t know for certain – it is work in progress. And the University of East Anglia (who were at the centre of the last ‘data’ storm) have now suggested that there has been ‘no statistically’ significant increase in global temperatures since 1995…
I have always been a sceptic of some of the stories that are put about. The low point was the Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ shambles. Someone should have told us it was a work of fiction – we all thought it was a documentary.
At the back of my mind is that we should take care of the planet – and shoving pollution out can’t be good in the long term. But we have to make sure that what is being done is relevant. If the UK ‘only’ contributes 2% of the Worlds emissions we need to prioritise. None of the big polluters (The USA, China or India) have carbon reduction commitments – if they did so, it would have an impact. Until you realise that the human race only account for 3% of the total carbon dioxide produced…
My research work on the correlation of values on green buildings is nearly complete – and it seems to show that the commercial markets are not buying into green buildings – but more of that later.
I have always said that we really do need some clear Scientific evidence to demonstrate that we are causing the problems. Then we can respond accordingly, but in the meantime – we will just go around in circles?
I had to change my car last September and it was a sad sad day; I blogged about it here. The reason the car had to go was primarily tax, but it was a massive part of my carbon footprint. My replacement car was a much greener diesel Mercedes.
RS4 RIP - for no reason
The new car isn’t the same, but then the RS4 was something quite different and special. My E Class Mercedes does have a (hairdressers) drop top – which I am looking forward to over the next few months! The top was down last week.
I nearly choked on my orange juice at the weekend – the Daily Telegraph main story on Saturday was that Diesel Cars are now close to worshipping the Devil – as far as the green brigade are concerned. To the extent that they are worse for the environment than petrol cars, some Councils are now charging a premium for ‘dirty’ diesel engined cars. In some parts £150 per year more for a permit.
Make your bloody minds up. I thought my diesel produced less CO2?
My real issue with the whole of this sustainability movement is the lack of consistent and accurate data. I do accept that we need to reduce our carbon footprints as we have established a link with bad stuff. But this constant stream of conflicting data does nothing for the cause.
You might recall that I am doing some research with The University of Nottingham about values in green buildings. One of the early suggestions is that ‘the market’ have some concerns about the credibility of some of the technology – and whether all of the rules are necessary. The ‘East Anglia effect‘ still burns…
In the meantime – I am considering getting a Hummer …
I have blogged a few times about values with specific reference to green buildings. Professionally this is an important subject for me – as you might imagine!
Currently, the hard evidence on the relationship between values on ‘green’ and ‘not-green’ buildings is sketchy at best, but perplexing at worse. It seems that (generally) a premium is being paid for ‘green’ residential property, whereas a discount is being applied to commercial property. The real problem is that it is very difficult to pin this down – and valuers love that saying that ‘we practice an art not a science’. Sometimes it looks like a black art.
I need some help…
I am working a paper with Nottingham University which firstly, tries to identify if the supposition about premiums and discounts is true and identifiable (no mean task). But if this is the case – why?
So, if you can help please get in touch.
If you just have a view as to why a green commercial building would be less appealing than a non-green building I would be interested to know. Even if you are not a surveyor or valuer…
I look forward to the comments – if you don’t want your comments to be ‘public’ feel free to email me at tgarratt@innes-england.co.uk
