The scheme, in conjunction with the highly publicised Climate Change Levy (CCL), is the latest attempt to ensure energy efficiency is a primary factor in building design and use.
The Government implemented the scheme through the introduction of an approved list of products that must be used if companies are to qualify for ECAs. The Energy Technology Product List categorises what the Government believes are the most significant areas in which energy can be saved. The list is not exhaustive and products not appearing on the list initially can apply for inclusion.
The main beneficiary of the scheme should be our environment, but what about those manufacturers whose products don't fit into the categories? As far as the buyers are concerned it would appear the benefits are excellent. The scheme will reward those companies who are prepared to look towards the future.
For manufacturers the benefits are not so clear. Those named in the list are pleased to be involved. Baltimore Aircoil is a manufacturer of evaporative condensers and a recent addition to the register. Managing director Robert Macleod-Smith says: "We are pleased the Government has recognised the benefits of products like ours in the role they play in energy saving and hope this incentive will lead to a growth in the market for this type of technology.
"Because of the higher price of energy-efficient products they have traditionally been more difficult to sell, but without question the company has noticed a marked increase in interest in its condensers since our inclusion in the list."
It would seem the list falls short of naming all the technologies involved in building design. One particularly important area being building controls. Surely a building cannot function as efficiently as possible without effective control of the services?
The Building Controls Group (BCG) agrees. It believes that building controls should form an integral part of any energy saving technology initiative. Fred Ranson of BCG explains: "Of course we are upset not to be named in the list. It is quite disappointing not to be thought of as an important energy saving technology."
Interestingly, Ranson did not appear too concerned by not being considered: "It doesn't really matter that much anyway. I don't think it will affect the future much for us, buildings are always going to need controls."
Despite this, he noted that the scheme might be beneficial to other products. "For certain areas then, yes, I think it is important and will have an effect. In the boiler market for instance, there is now an added inducement both to purchasers and manufacturers."
Even though the Government has made clear what it believes to be the advantages of being part of the scheme, Ranson still feels it would not be a worthwhile venture to put forward a case for the addition of building controls: "We will not be applying to be included in the list. The scheme may well be a good idea but the fact remains that it would simply be too much trouble to set up. It would involve checking back through each specification to see which would be the best ones to put forward."
It would appear that the scheme has already attracted the attention of buyers looking for environmentally friendly plant, which is good news.
As for manufacturers, it depends on whether their product appears on the list. Those already named will undoubtedly champion the cause – those less fortunate may not. It remains to be seen how exclusion from the list will affect businesses. Some manufacturers will suffer as buyers look for alternative methods of providing services that are included on the list, with boiler manufacturers being the obvious example. Other manufacturers may not be so affected, as Fred Ranson pointed out – buildings will always need controls. Whatever individual manufacturers feel about the scheme it is set to cause major changes in the choice of purchase.
By its own admission the Government knows the list is incomplete. It will be interesting to see what additions are made in the coming months/years. It may have been a little premature to issue a list without first making sure that all categories are considered. Would the scheme have been more effective if everyone knew where they stood from the beginning? Possibly with a separate scheme for innovations yet to prove their effectiveness. Or, is it better this way?
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now holds sway over the scheme. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on its success. Next April 1st, a year on, we will be able to see if ECAs are successful or if it's the Government left looking the fool.
Source
Building Sustainable Design