Energy performance certification saga goes on

A few weeks ago I highlighted the results from the software and methodology applied during the energy performance certification process by the accredited assessors for the benefit of all concerned.

Soon after the publication of my letter in The Times, the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs ordered the suspension of the certification procedure on the grounds that the “methodology was under review”.

Assessors were even instructed not to issue any certificates until further notice.

In the absence of any public statement by the government, we felt compelled as the Labour Party to issue a press release on the subject to inform the public on this complex but highly relevant issue.

We had gladly acknowledged the fact that the methodology was being reviewed since we thought that the department concerned had recognised the anomalous results being obtained. But to my disappointment and that of several assessors who have contacted me since then, a media statement was issued through the Department of Information on April 8 informing the public that the review had been completed without any changes to the methodology.

In the said release, the director general, architect Karm Mifsud Borg, while admitting that the methodology gives more weight to the heating load, showed that he was still convinced that the best way forward was to continue using the current methodology without making any necessary and much-required changes.

In a departmental communication, assessors were instructed to follow the directions of the media release and were even warned to be very careful when recommending building improvements to improve energy consumption.

An example was given for shading, where the assessors were instructed to give particular attention to the orientation of the building.

In this regard, I agree with Mr Borg.

An architect and an engineer subsequently ran the software for a typical, energy-lean, Maltese building without any heating and cooling equipment installed.

It is common knowledge that the south-facing areas of buildings are most affected by solar gain.

Therefore, for this particular building they introduced shading in the southwest facing apertures and assumed that the building will be cooled by split type air-conditioning units and heated by an electrical heater as clearly instructed in the systems manual and replicated by the director general in his press release.

In the past years, having experienced long Mediterranean summers, architects have been introducing shading to reduce heat gains.

However, these experts that I contacted have confirmed that the result obtained by the proposed methodology gives a diametrically opposed picture.

According to the software results, it would be better to have south-facing windows, rather than shading.

Can anyone technical explain how this can be possible?

Can any self-respecting assessor be credible in suggesting to remove the shading from the south-facing walls?

Ironically the same Legal Notice requiring the introduction of energy performance certificates is accompanied by a technical guide document – known as Document F – which calls for reduced glazing in south-facing façades.

In this regard, it is evident that the review by the said department within the Ministry of Resources has not identified and addressed this situation.

After going through the methodology and software the experts I contacted suggest amending the erroneous assumption for the assumed heating method in buildings without permanent heating installed.

Assessors should assume that the same split type air-conditioning unit which by the same methodology is assumed to be cooling the dwelling, is used as a heat pump in heating the building when required.

We reckon that this is only fair and sensible and would remove the technical anomaly illustrated above.

Having a shading device on south-facing walls will actually result in a reduced energy consumption in line with common knowledge, and as someone wrly commented, as “simple calculations that can be done on the back of an envelope”.