ECA manager at the trust is Dr. Andy Lewry. He says: “It needed to be pulled together and launched in a succinct manner. It was going in the right direction, it just needed to be integrated into the other activities that were going on.” Lewry explains that the scheme required an identifiable label to increase awareness in the industry about the way it works and the benefits that it can bring.
This has come in the form of the new Energy Technology List symbol – a logo which companies can attach to their listed products. Under the management of the Carbon Trust, Lewry claims that the scheme has gained a new focus and will be more effective in the future. “Previously, there was no coherent package of promotion and direction towards the end market. The scheme had only been going for a year, so we did some market research and held some stakeholder workshops to look at how it was working and how it could be improved. Alongside that we’ve done some impact assessment to look at how the scheme has been effective. We found that it needed identification and a proper promotional campaign, so we have addressed that first before going on to look at how it can be expanded and developed.”
These objectives were laid out in the Carbon Trust’s annual review. Along with the promotional strategy, the list is expanded to include five new products.
The question now is whether it will all pay off. The Trust plans to promote the scheme to enhance its effectiveness as a tax instrument, while continuing to develop and review criteria for both new and existing products and technologies. So it would seem that much is being done to persuade manufacturers and end-users to invest in the ECA scheme, but a year on from it’s beginning, what do they really think of it?
David Pepper, managing director at water heater and boiler manufacturer Lochinvar, isn’t convinced: “I think the scheme is flawed because of the number of anomalies in it. As far as boilers are concerned, the scheme only considers condensing boilers and their test efficiency. They don’t think about how they are applied in the system.”
Pepper believes that by excluding other energy efficient means of providing hot water from the list so far, the scheme is not performing properly. “The scheme should be about carbon efficiency, but it’s almost trying to say that condensing boilers are the be all and end all. They may be the best option in the right application, but there are many occasions where a high efficiency boiler will do just as good a job if not better. Our biggest copper fin model qualifies for the scheme, and yet we have an identical direct hot water heater, which is just as energy efficient, but doesn’t qualify. I don’t think the people who set the parameters for the list looked closely at the systems these products would be used in.”
Pepper also claims that in the experience of his firm, there is a relatively low number of enquiries concerning the scheme: “We have a few customers that ask us about it, but not many at all. Perhaps the new marketing campaign will start to change that. I’d like to think that the design engineers can see right through it and acknowledge that it is flawed.”
Consultation with the industry in the review and expansion of the Energy Technology list will certainly be crucial to it’s success in the years to come, and this is something that Lewry is well aware of: “We have continuous consultation with the industry to look at the criteria in place. If it has aged, then it needs to be updated, or products pulled out, so it is updated annually. We also consult with industry groups to discuss the expansion of products on the list. We’re trying to push the scheme now, so the next couple of years will tell how successful it will really be.”
Source
Building Sustainable Design
No comments yet