I don't know why it has taken me over a year to catch up with this report from the Master Builders Association of Australia. I found myself spitting
chips all the time while I was reading it, for all the serious work someone obviously put in.
The report begins with a rhetorical stance,
that trying to force further improvements in predicted energy efficiency for heating and cooling of homes is bad for the home owner, and bad for the rest of us. And it never lets up, even when some of the figures it tosses around look
absurd.
I don’t actually have too many
problems though with the methodology, so much as with the total absence of any proper
discussion of either building industry/real estate context, or a decent bit of
economics analysis that looks beyond an unrealistic system boundary.
I mean, if a mandated energy efficiency compliance measure imposes a
cost that is not recovered as an energy saving in financial terms, that is not ipso facto a damaging cost to both the
individual and the rest of society. For
a start, it is likely to be offset in the first instance by foregoing some
other discretionary spending on the
dwelling construction, hopefully related to size. I am not an economist, but I am sure even a
semi-literate professional economist would be able to describe a model, in
which expenditure on the ‘marginal improvements’ for energy efficiency would be suitably considered
in whole of society terms.
How on earth could
you build an entire framework of ‘optimum’ star ratings, without considering
that (at least in new build) it may be contingent on changes in what is a typical
house, rather than incremental tweaks
to existing house designs? That is
the dead give-away. That the MBA would
want such a study is obvious and even understandable. They have a vested interest in making $10K
look like it’s going to bring the home building industry to its knees. They don't want anything interfering with the punters chasing ever bigger MacMansions, or fitting them out with ever more exotic granite topped kitchen cupboards. But for the authors of the study to take the
same position a priori, is intellectually
offensive.
Notwithstanding all of that, I also think the
star ratings scheme based on the AccuRate simulation software is a fatally
flawed way of getting policy traction on domestic energy consumption, and
anything that prompts a re-examination is welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment