Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

More about office energy standards

  • Comment
letters

Barrie Evans' review of the new econ 19 (aj 19.3.98) on energy standards for offices prompts a couple of responses.

First, on the need for submetering. The guide does suggest that submetering is worthwhile to allocate costs correctly, and the structure of the main tables with the split by end-use guides the reader towards collecting the data this way.

Second, on the issue of space-use intensification, where an office which is more efficient in space-use terms may be penalised for its higher energy use per square metre. The guide is meant for people to gauge their building's performance against that of the typical office in the market, with encouragement through the readily achievable good practice benchmarks.

We did consider normalising for occupation density and hours of use (which would have answered his comment), but past experience has shown that there is too much scope for the non-technical reader to misunderstand the figures. How does the designer benchmark an office intended for 50 people where later the actual occupancy varies between 10 and 45? There are some features whose energy consumption varies with the number of people, but many others which carry on regardless of the number of people actually present. So, on balance, we stuck with a less ephemeral denominator - the treated area.

Benchmarks are not rules, so there is nothing to stop the office building consuming more than the area-related figures if the increase can be justified. It's up to the reader to mount an argument which convinces the client and peers if he or she wants to adapt the econ 19 benchmarks. The appendices provide information which helps to do this.

In fact we would be very pleased if architects did have discussions with their clients about energy benchmarking in existing or proposed buildings, because it would raise the issue and keep it in their minds in future.

TONY JOHNSON

Project manager, brecsu

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.