Q.16 Response to Zero Carbon Consultation

There were a few very bad ideas in this years consultation on the definitionof zero carbon: Here is one of them with my response.

Question 16: Do you agree that this issue is renamed from ENE7 Low and Zero Carbon Technologies to ENE3: Renewable Technologies to better reflect the zero carbon hierarchy?

A:NO, renumbering Code issues is a very bad idea. Assessors have been working with the current numbering for some years now and there is a widespread understanding of the current arrangements. Renaming is acceptable, as the new name is similar to the old name, but renumbering will cause massive confusion to assessors many of whom will be using different Code versions on different projects at the same time. Errors will result from this renumbering if it goes ahead. We suggest the following naming and numbering system.

Current ENE issues

ENE1: Dwelling Emission Rate

2010 ENE issues

ENE1: Dwelling Emission Rate

ENE2: Building Fabric ENE2: Fabric Energy Efficiency
ENE3: Internal lighting ENE3: Energy Display devices
ENE4: Drying Space ENE4: Drying Space
ENE5: Energy labelled white goods ENE5: Energy labelled white goods
ENE6: External Lighting ENE6: External Lighting
ENE7: Low and zero carbon ENE7: Renewable Technologies
technologies
ENE8: Cycle storage ENE8: Cycle storage
ENE9: Home Office ENE9: Home Office
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s