Green buildings and sustainable cities – news and views

Subscribe to The Fifth Estate newsletter

NEWS FROM THE FRONT DESK: In the words of Bob Dylan, you don’t need to be a weather man to know which way the wind’s blowing.

In Australia, those winter winds are increasingly blowing through the blades of wind turbines. 

They’re blowing through the new, energy efficient industrial cooling fans of major colocated data centres, such as NextDC’s new M3 facility in Melbourne.

You can hear them through the open windows of curvy, aerodynamic new energy efficient buildings.

They rustled through the pages of the most recent State of the Environment report, which showed how much work still needs to be done to improve sustainability.

And, at the last election, they blew out the political careers of major party politicians who stood in the way of climate action, as we the people caused a wave of teal and green to roll in across the country – and all the way to Canberra.

Make no mistake. The winds of change are here, and they’re blowing in one direction: improved energy efficiency for buildings.

The Albanese government certainly knows which way the wind’s blowing. That’s why it recently passed a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, reaching net zero by 2050.

City of Sydney’s radical new planning controls for energy efficiency 

Down by Sydney Harbour, the Sydney City Council is setting its sails to catch the same breeze.

Next Monday, it will vote on new planning controls that will mandate higher energy efficiency standards for offices, shopping centres and hotels, which will increase to net zero emissions from energy use from 2026.

For offices and shopping centres, the new performance standards measure base building operational energy use (which excludes energy use by tenants), and whole building energy use for hotels.

Over four years of careful development and consultation, the council managed to win the support of big developers such as Stockland, Frasers Property Australia, Lendlease, Crown Group, Dexus and Mirvac.

The inclusion of shopping centres is a big win for the council. 

For years, the sector has strongly resisted being included in mandatory energy performance guidelines, such as the nationwide NABERS Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) program.

(The CBD program requires information on a building’s energy performance to be disclosed when larger commercial premises are sold or leased.)

In the past they’ve claimed that, because tenants already know their energy costs, they apparently have no need for comparative energy efficiency information.

But in more recent times, The Fifth Estate has noticed the attitudes of mall owners start to sway in the direction of sustainability.

Scentre, owners of the Westfield chain, are embracing renewables and installing solar arrays on their retail centre redevelopments.  

At some locations, such as Box Hill in Melbourne’s east, Vicinity is starting to rethink the traditional mall concept altogether, opting instead for mixed use precincts of Green Star rated buildings.

It seems the times, they are a-changin’.

Then again, as anyone who has visited Box Hill Central will tell you, it can get pretty windy in that part of Melbourne.

The winds of change can also be seen in two other big decisions that are likely to start blowing through the build environment sector.

ARENA’s mandate expands to energy efficiency and electrification of buildings

The mandate of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has been expanded to include energy efficiency and electrification for the first time. 

National ministers get with the program 

Then, this past Friday, federal and state energy ministers decided to put emissions into the national energy objectives. They’ve committed to a new national Energy Transformation Partnership – the first fully integrated national energy and emissions agreement.  

The two decisions mean that Australia’s energy markets now have the goal of net zero hardwired into them.

The transition from coal and gas to renewables will mean major investments in solar and wind infrastructure, grid-scale storage and the power grid. 

The switch from fossil fuel powered cars to electric vehicles is likely to put even more strain on the grid.

We can’t have one group of stakeholders getting face-to-face meetings with departmental secretaries and ministers, while another group gets pro-forma letters from the minister.

But those big capital costs for renewables can be reduced by making our buildings more energy efficient.  

Likewise, better quality public and active transport, as part of transit-oriented developments, can further cut the costs of making the clean energy transition. 

It’s a point the Property Council’s chief executive, Ken Morrison, astutely points out in his most recent blog.

“Buildings are the batteries capable of delivering enormous load flexibility to our energy system at little to no cost, through efficiency measures, shifting peak heating and cooling loads and soaking up excess supply when renewables are plentiful to store energy and provide EV charging,” Mr Morrison said.

After all, if the energy transition will require major  investment in the grid, then it also makes sense to encourage as much energy efficiency from buildings as possible.

“With the new energy policies now in place, this sets a platform for the property industry and other sectors to be encouraged to accelerate their powerful progress on energy efficiency,” he said.

We couldn’t agree more.

Over the past few months, there have been a few other clear signs from around the nation that the momentum is gathering – if only a light breeze at times.

Even though the results are underwhelming, Victoria – the state that’s most reliant on “natural” (methane) gas for cooking and heating – has recently run three enquiries on reducing its reliance on the toxic chemical. 

The state’s reliance on gas in buildings will be a factor at the upcoming November state election, and at least some changes are set to be implemented by the next state government.

While the next revision of the National Construction Code has now been delayed until at least the start of October, it is still set to increase the minimum energy efficiency standard for new homes from a 6 Star to a 7 Star NatHERS rating.

Like the Victorian gas reforms, it’s not what some advocates hoped for, but it is a step in the right direction.

So certainly there’s clearly a strong wind in the sails for net zero, a clean energy transition, and better energy efficiency for buildings. 

All that’s needed now is to get the right policies in place to make use of it.

The answers, my friend, may be blowin’ in the wind. 

But even if the turbulence turns to a tornado or a gale, it’s all too easy to foresee this opportunity being blown away by bad policymaking.

Even the best plans for improving building energy performance are likely to be undermined if developers aren’t on board. 

Politicians and bureaucrats need to appreciate that this is a difficult time for the construction and development sector.

Inflation is running wild. Immigration cuts during the pandemic have created massive skills shortages. The war in Ukraine and other factors have created a shortage of vital building supplies, including timber and aluminium.

Improvements in energy efficiency standards should come hand-in-hand with good faith commitments by governments to address the issues developers and builders face. 

Sure, Australia can’t fix the war in Ukraine. But it can create industry policies that promote the local production and manufacturing of building materials. It can streamline migration for people with skills in building and construction.

These underlying issues facing the industry must be addressed alongside any moves towards improved energy efficiency standards.

There are a few critical steps that politicians and public servants can make that will make a world of difference.

There needs to be wide and careful consultation before – and while – any new policies are made. 

That means not just speaking to developers and their lobbyists, but also other businesses in the built environment sector including planners, landscape architects, architects, consultants, builders, energy experts, academics, and community groups.

We can’t have one group of stakeholders getting face-to-face meetings with departmental secretaries and ministers, while another group gets pro-forma letters from the minister.

Ministers absolutely must resist the urge to listen only to the loudest voices in the room, as can so often happen in these matters.

The timeframes for changes need to be clear, and they need to be reasonable in the current circumstances. Developers should be given time to plan ahead, adapt and innovate.

Instead of expecting the industry to take a single great leap forward, it’s worth looking at implementing those changes in stages. 

Where there are upfront costs to industry, governments might see broad benefits in covering those costs. 

For the transition period, it’s a good idea for policymakers to take a close look at how Australian Building Codes Board chief executive Gary Rake plans to implement the next version of the National Construction Code.

He’s implementing two compliance pathways for the transition to the next version of the NCC: one for the old rules and another for the new rules. 

That way, industry leading green developers – some of whom are likely to already exceed the requirements in the new rules anyway – will be able to gain a first mover advantage.

The other important piece of the puzzle is enforcement. After all, you can make all the rules you want, but it won’t make a difference if people aren’t complying with them.

So there needs to be a strong watchdog – a David Chandler (NSW’s building commissioner) type – who’s willing and able to lay down the law around the new rules.

The slow one now will later be fast.

As the present now will later be past.

The order is rapidly fadin’.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

{{#message}}{{{message}}}{{/message}}{{^message}}Your submission failed. The server responded with {{status_text}} (code {{status_code}}). Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Learn More{{/message}}

{{#message}}{{{message}}}{{/message}}{{^message}}It appears your submission was successful. Even though the server responded OK, it is possible the submission was not processed. Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Learn More{{/message}}