Building energy efficiency in Australia – a chat with Arup in Melbourne


I, until very recently, used to work for Arup, an international engineering consultancy. So I’m using this travel opportunity to visit the various Arup offices around the world. So far I’ve been to the Sydney and Melbourne offices, and I’ll be heading off to Brisbane soon.

In Melbourne I met with Nick Adams, who focuses on buildings projects and heads up the mechanical services team. We had a good chat about what’s been going on in the Australian building sector with regards to energy consumption, and the various initiatives that have landed on Australia’s shores which seek to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.

I have been to Melbourne before, when I was much younger, in 2001, and, coming from small town Cape Town, I was blown away by the glass skyscrapers. They really were the enduring memory of the city that I had.

There is a Building Code of Australia and the “goal of the BCA is to enable the achievement of nationally consistent, minimum necessary standards of relevant safety (including structural safety and safety from fire), health, amenity and sustainability objectives efficiently.” This Code outlines the minimum performance specifications that new buildings have to comply with, effectively setting the lowest possible bar. As energy efficiency becomes more topical, Adams says that these minimum criteria are not difficult to meet, but that the Code has started to have an impact on Melbourne’s skyline, as the minimum criteria for energy consumption and building envelope design are now impacting whether buildings can get away with floor to ceiling glass façades.

In 2005 the Green Star rating system was introduced in Australia, providing building owners with aspirational targets. This has helped to drag the industry forward, but, as we’ve seen in South Africa too, there are certain negative aspects to it which come through as the sector starts to settle and mature. This largely relates to the tick box nature of rating a building according to sometimes onerous lists. It also results in certain interventions being selected because they tick a box, but they may not necessarily have any significant real world impact.

More recently, the US rating system LEED is being used more frequently, particularly by multi-nationals who have used LEED in other countries. The UK’s BREEAM tool is not commonly used in Australia, even by UK based organisations.

More recently, another US performance standard, the Living Building Challenge, is picking up popularity. This focuses on a building’s beauty, sense of place and efficiency. It’s harder to check or rate than the other tools.

Another one is the Well Building Standard; this looks at the health of the building, the enjoyment that the tenants get from occupying the building and their “health and wellness [should be] at the center of design.” It’s a hard standard to comply with.

Lastly there is the Commercial Building Disclosure programme. This programme “requires energy efficiency information to be provided in most cases when commercial office space of 2000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease.” The aim is for prospective buyers or tenants to enter into a purchasing or leasing agreement fully informed. What this does is introduce the building’s electricity and energy consumption levels as a competitive element amongst building owners. Adams says that the real estate agents are latching onto energy statistics, and using this as promotional indicators for their clients.

Seems there’s a lot happening in this space.

[Thanks Nick for your time, and showing me the beautiful Melbourne skyline from your offices!]

The wind health issue being discussed in Australia

Last Friday I had a very interesting call with Ketan Joshi to help me get a bit of a better understanding on the background of the wind/health conundrum. Ketan works in renewable energy and is, by his own admission, biased towards renewables. He has, however, been following this issue actively, is very well-informed on the subject, and I’ve found the information and thoughts he’s been sharing on twitter very interesting.

I’ve never come across this issue before. In South Africa, where there is a lot of wind going up (3.3GW procured to date), a lot of the issues that are being faced are around the visual impact, potential impact on other infrastructure / activities (e.g. SKA/airport radars etc) or around technical considerations like grid connection or structural engineering & designs.

So, when I arrived in Australia and heard someone talking about the health impacts associated with wind I thought it was a joke. I laughed a literal LOL. But let’s unpack it a bit.

In 2009/10 a couple living in New York State, opposed to wind turbine installations in the area, her with a medical background, started looking into the potential health effects of wind turbines. Nina Pierpont hypothesised that people get sick when they live near a wind farm. Initially this was considered to be linked to ultrasound (high frequency sound), however this later changed to infrasound (20Hz or lower). She coined the phrase ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ and wrote a heavily criticised book on the subject. They claim that the book has been peer-reviewed, but I have read that the review team involved her husband (an anti-wind activist), a professor of literature and an ecologist and biologist. Many consider that the book was effectively self-published, and Joshi indicated to me that no journal would accept this study. More of this here.

There is so much written on the bad science used in this study; on the selection bias in play, on the small sample size used, on the dubious methods used to find respondents, on the conclusions reached etc. There is also a lot written about the dangers in writing an un-reviewed and un-interrogated study like this; as poor studies can still become used as a reference (or red herring) in what should be a sound, scientific and thoroughly researched debate.

In Australia, initially the main opposition to wind farms was linked to their visual impact, and opposition was led by landscape guardians who wanted to protect the existing vistas. In 2009/10, when Pierpont began writing about this syndrome, the focus of opposition to wind shifted quite drastically. Health concerns became the primary discourse; something surprising to many people in the industry. This raised the question as to what defines a medical condition, and placed this question at the feet of wind developers, who were alien to the concept.

I raised with Joshi that a responsible industry response would be to take claims of health impacts seriously, on a ‘first do no harm basis’ regardless of the merit of the initial study. He confirmed that the wind industry in Australia was involved in commissioning the first studies, to determine if there was any credence to these claims.

In 2011 a first enquiry was conducted into the impact of wind farms on the health of the local residents. This enquiry makes a number of references to Pierpont’s study, with notes from people criticising and supporting the study’s methodology and findings. Joshi indicated that this enquiry had a strong political thread to it, but what it did do was alert the federal medical and scientific bodies to the issue. Their interest is in determining if there is any credible evidence to support the claims, and they have therefore set out in commissioning research on this.

In Joshi’s view, there are three types of research that you can do:

  1. Conduct an acoustic based investigation. This would check whether there was a) any acoustic emissions that were known to be harmful and b) quantify the level of infrasound emitted by wind farms and compare this to other environments.
  2. Conduct an epidemiological study. This is a long-term study (i.e. a decade), based on a large sample of people. It therefore costs a lot of money, and you wait a while before any conclusive results are available. This raises the question of whether this is the best use of public funds. This question is for the medical authorities to decide on and should be out of political influence. Overhead power lines and mobile phones are other examples of where epidemiological studies have been proposed to determine long-term health impacts.
  3. Carrying out lab based assessments. This involves putting people into a lab and exposing them to the wind turbine noises and selectively exposing people to different levels of infrasound (with controls in place). This is considerably cheaper than option 2, and would possibly help to identify if there is a marked link between a person’s opposition to wind and their stress levels when exposed to wind audible noise and possible infrasound.

One of the questions apparently posed to the wind industry often is ‘if you have nothing to hide, why not do more research.’ Joshi’s concern with this is that it becomes a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If you support more research, the anti-wind lobby picks this up as admission that there are health impacts. If you don’t support it, you’ve got something to hide. His point is that supporting more research doesn’t mean that you believe the current agreement on the interpretation of results is incorrect and just because it’s good to do more research doesn’t means that an opinion or conclusion is wrong.

It’s difficult to do this type of research in such a heavily politically charged environment.

Finally, we chatted about Canada, and how both Australia and Canada seem to be walking down the same road, one before the other. In Canada, they have just completed a large-scale study (making use of options 1 and 3 above). The methodology was peer-reviewed before the study began. The results were released late last year. The findings? If you can hear the noise and if you’re against the wind farm development, you will experience symptoms of stress. They found no impact from infrasound.

The study has been rejected by the anti-wind farm movement as it was released, saying that the fact that they didn’t find anyone with issues means they didn’t carry out the study properly.

Joshi worries that this is a prediction of what will happen in Australia. No matter how thorough a study, no matter who conducts it, how impartial the investigative body, no matter how large the sample size, or how objective the methodology, findings not in accordance with the ‘wind turbine syndrome’ concept will be rejected outright. If the conclusion has been predetermined, what should the focus of the discussion really be on then?

[Thanks Ketan for your time – follow Ketan on (@KetanJ0). He’s a source of useful info on what’s going on in Australia]

REIPPPP Expedited Bid Submission RFP Part A, B & C key changes

This has probably being doing the rounds in South Africa since late last week, but for those that have not yet seen it:

Part A:

  • Expedited Bid Submission date 6 October 2015
  • “Returning Compliant Bidder” are exempt from submitting Land & Environmental sections:
    • if compliant in previous submissions
    • if using same Technology (i.e Onshore Wind)
    • same Contracted Capacity
    • intends to locate its Project on substantially the same Project Site
    • includes in its Bid Response, a completed Project Site scale drawing for its Project
    • submits a complete Appendix AA (Returning Compliant Bidder Declaration)
    • the Project layout may be different to what was previously submitted
  • Of the new 6300MW Third Determination that is due shortly, anticipated allocation:
    • Onshore Wind: 3000MW
    • CSP: 600MW
    • PV: 2200MW
    • Small hydro: 60MW
    • Biomass: 150MW
    • Biogas: 50MW
    • Landfill Gas: 40MW
    • Small projects: 200MW
  • MWs available for Expedited Bid Submission:
    • Onshore Wind: 650MW
    • CSP: 450MW
    • PV: 520MW
    • Small hydro: 40MW
    • Biomass: 100MW
    • Biogas: 25MW
    • Landfill Gas: 15MW
    • Small projects: 200MW
  • Following Expedited Bid Submission, if all MWs are allocated,  4700MW of the Third Determination will be available for future bid windows
  • Projects must be capable of beginning commercial operation before the end of 2019
  • Must be based on an estimated Financial Close date of mid-2016.
  • Price caps for onshore wind and solar photovoltaic have been re-introduced for the Expedited Bid Submission Phase.
    • Onshore Wind: R760/MWh (using a base date for CPI adjustment of 1 April 2015)
    • PV: R870/MWh
    • Only fully indexed price to be submitted.
  • Timetable
    • Last date for Registration of Interest (as per Briefing Note 23): 10 July 2015
    • Bid Registration Date: 08 September 2015
    • Last date for Department to issue Briefing Notes: 22 September 2015
    • Bid Submission Date: 06 October 2015
    • Preferred Bidder Announcement: 11 December 2015
    • Financial Close no later than: 31 July 2016
  • all shallow connection works will be completed on a self-build basis.
  • In the Expedited Bid Submission Phase any Bidder may include in its Bid Response, in addition to the time and cost estimate letter from the Grid Provider, an opinion from an independent engineer which confirms the feasibility of an alternative grid connection solution (“Grid Solution Opinion”) which could be applied in the event that the Bidder is a Competing Compliant Bidder.
  • Bidders should note that a decision by the Department to appoint them as Preferred Bidder on the basis of an alternative grid connection solution proposed by such Bidder, shall not entitle such Bidder to increase its Price, as a result thereof, at any stage in the procurement process.
  • If any Bidder includes in their Bid Response the involvement of any person: who is or who is Related to any other Government official or person with the ability to influence or to have influenced the decision of the Department with respect to the appointment of Preferred Bidders, such Bidder may, in the sole discretion of the Department, be disqualified.
  • Development Fee to be paid to Treasury (and not DoE)
  • Bid Response: a master and one hard copy

Part B:

Environmental Criteria

  • Provide a master and one hard copy of the FEIR

Financial Criteria

  • Equity finance requirements have been reduced:
  • No audited financial statement for last 3 fin years
  • No Letter of Confirmation of funds for Equity Finance
  • No net asset test or track record test
  • No Letter of Indicative Support from Alternative Funders

Technical Criteria

  • No compliance certificate for wind turbine model
  • No track record of contractor capability

Part C:

  • Only changes to cater for evaluation of fully indexed tariff only

[Thank you to Ian for sharing this with me]

Our Melbourne Tesla adventure

Yesterday we had the awesome opportunity to go for a ride in a Tesla (thanks Matt).

Matt is the proud owner of the second Tesla in Melbourne and is also able to boast being the first Tesla to require repair work after someone drove into him 36 hours after he bought it.  Gulp.

He took us for a drive yesterday, and allowed us to geek out hard.

DSC00043 DSC00044 DSC00045 DSC00054

DSC00038 DSC00040

Some fun facts:

  • Tesla currently has service stations in all the major cities in Australia
  • There are superchargers in Melbourne (x1) and Sydney (x2) (I didn’t ask about the other cities, but guessing they’re there too)
  • They’re planning on putting in extra superchargers between Melbourne and Sydney so that people can do the drive on both the 85kWh and 65kWh batteries
  • The use of superchargers is FREE so you can therefore get between the two cities without paying a cent (other than the coffees and your time…)
  • The car manages its speed itself.  For about 1km Matt didn’t have to touch any pedal.  There’s a camera that registers speed limit signs, and controls the speed accordingly.  You can choose how many car lengths you want to allow for between you and the car in front of you, and then it’ll mimic that car’s speed.
  • If you come to a red light and the car in front of you stops, it’ll stop, and then it’ll take off again when the car starts.  It can’t yet recognise red lights – so there is some intervention needed then…
  • There is regenerative breaking, and one of the meters on the dashboard shows you when you’re sucking power from the battery, and when you’re putting power back.
  • The car has a 3G sim card, and can connect to wifi.  It automatically downloads system updates.  That means that one day your car may not be able to recognise bicycles and the next it could.  Sky’s the limit.
  • They don’t include a spare tyre, and the tyre’s aren’t run on flat.  BUT if you have a flat, they’ll come and replace the tyre for you.
  • His car typically does about 400km on a single charge.  Costs him about $13 to fully recharge (if he doesn’t use the supercharger).  (For comparison – in our hire car we’ve been spending about $36 for the same kind of distance.)

Finally, I cannot express what the acceleration felt like when the lights change from red to green.  It is literally breathtaking.  Matt says he gets people in blinged up cars trying to take him on at the lights and he just eats them up.

In a country with such harsh speed enforcement, this fits in well.  ACCELERATE LIKE CRAZY, but then ease off at 60km/h. 🙂

Love love love it.

Australia’s renewable energy jobs – recruitment thoughts

A lot of the discussion I’m seeing in the renewables space, defending the RET, has been focusing around job creation. The Clean Energy Council, in their Sep 2014 briefing paper, estimates that any cut to the RET puts around 21,000 jobs at risk.

I spoke to Michael Green briefly this morning, from the Bradman Recruitment Group about renewables jobs in Australia to unpack this issue a little bit more.

The RET has, he says, been quite vital to the establishment of the industry from a jobs perspective. Since Abbott’s government started making noise about the review of the RET, investment in the industry effectively froze, as did recruitment. Business is starting to pick up again. The small scale sector hasn’t been affected, but solar utility scale jobs have been badly affected. Wind not so much.

While RET may have been the trigger for initial growth in this sector, there are other market supporters at the moment, including progress and increasing interest in storage systems and technologies.

What’s important to recognise is that there are jobs created that are not directly attributable to renewable energy, but that these come about through the development of a new sector, such as financial positions. These indirect jobs are harder to quantify, but they are nonetheless buoyed up by a thriving renewables industry.

I mentioned that in South Africa there’s a lot of interest from people in moving from existing sectors (say those working on typical infrastructure projects) into renewables, as it is a vibrant, young and ‘feel-good’ sector, and he agreed that this is also present in Australia. It has, however, been thwarted by unstable messages and plans from government, and he himself has previously cautioned people choosing to enter the field. Now, he feels, there is a bit more stability for people wishing to start a career in renewables. This links with the concern that Muriel Watt expressed when I met with her.

Michael also mentioned that international pressure has a role to play in Australia’s energy future, and the recent messages coming from the Pope regarding climate change could lead to some interesting discussions – particularly given that Abbott is catholic.  An internal conundrum there?

Thank you to Michael for your time this morning.

Australia’s Reverse Auction – the ACT renewable energy procurement programme

The ACT government has a target to meet 90% of its electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2020. As a means of achieving this target, the state has initiated a reverse auction system. This has captured my attention as it has a number of similarities with South Africa’s REIPPP Programme, and it involves moving away from a certification scheme towards a PPA arrangement.

Given that a number of people that I have spoken to have indicated that the RET large scale system does not provide any guarantee on the sale of electricity, and that investor confidence is a bit shakier than would be ideal (linked to federal government’s anti-renewable sentiment at the moment), the ACT’s programme seems to provide a stable and predictable procurement methodology for large scale renewables projects.

Below is a very brief overview of what has been procured to date, and the types of requests for proposals or expressions of interest have been issued.

Solar Reverse Auction:

The first round of procurement by the ACT government was for 40MW of solar generation potential. Issued in January 2012, this RFP has resulted in the selection of three solar projects, namely:

  • Royalla Solar Farm Pty Ltd (20MW)
  • Zhenfa Canberra Solar Farm One Pty Ltd (13MW)
  • OneSun Capital 10MW Operating Pty Ltd (7MW)

Royalla has been completed and was officially opened in September 2014. Zhenfa and OneSun are still to be constructed, and both have experienced planning delays.

More info on this can be found here.

Wind Reverse Auction

In 2014, a reverse auction for 200MW of wind was announced. Wind projects not exceeding 100MW could bid under this auction.

The programme had four key objectives, focusing on:

  • Local content/local economic development opportunities
  • Educational initiatives
  • Research & development initiatives
  • Global impact (i.e. the extent to which the project would influence the ACT being a centre of excellence or an export hub to the rest of the world)

Projects were assessed according to

  • local economic development contribution
  • price
  • community engagement processes
  • the extent to which the project developer or debt provider required guarantees on the sale of electricity at the listed feed in tariff

If projects were located outside of the ACT capital region, they needed to be within the top 20% of projects on price in order to be considered. If they met this threshold, they could be assessed according to the abovementioned criteria.

The three preferred bidders resulting from this programme were:

  • “Ararat Wind Farm Pty Ltd for a 80.5 MW proposal to be located north-west of Ballarat, Victoria. The project is being developed by RES Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of RES UK, a global renewable energy company.
  • Coonooer Bridge Wind Farm Pty Ltd for a 19.4 MW proposal to be located north-west of Bendigo, Victoria. The project is being developed by Windlab Ltd, a Canberra based renewable energy company.
  • Hornsdale Wind Farm Pty Ltd for a 100 MW proposal to be located south-east of Port Augusta, South Australia. The project is being developed by Neoen, a French based renewable energy company.[Source]

All three of these are therefore outside of the ACT capital region.

Some of the initiatives supported by this programme include the establishment of a masters programme in wind at the Australian National University and a wind training course at the Canberra Institute of Technology.

Next Generation Solar Auction

A request for expressions of interest has recently been issued for up to 50MW of solar technologies which incorporate some form of storage. “Energy storage can be in many forms including chemical (e.g. batteries), thermal (e.g. molten salts) or potential energy (e.g. pump and store hydro).” [Source]

Submissions are due on the 8th July.

Thank you to Dr Nathan Steggel from Windlab, Leah Howell and Guy Raithby-Veall from Arup and Wendy Moloney from Aecom for their time and input on this topic.

Capital Wind Farm near Canberra

Capital Wind Farm

I drove past Capital Wind Farm yesterday, on my way from Sydney to Canberra.  The wind farms in South Africa that I’ve driven past have been very small in comparison, with the larger projects further out from Cape Town than I have travelled recently.  So seeing the scale of this project yesterday was really great.  I lost track when trying to count how many turbines there were marching over the hills.

Below are some facts and figures that I blatantly took from here.

Total capacity 140.7 MW

Annual Production Approx. 450,000 MWh/year

Offtake Renewable energy requirements for Sydney Desalination Plant

Turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy Australia Pty Ltd

Grid operator TransGrid

Grid connection voltage: 330 kV transmission line

Australia’s renewable energy picture – a meetup with Muriel Watt, University of New South Wales

I met, this morning, with Muriel Watt, at the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, UNSW, for a quick discussion on some of the history of the renewable energy sector in Australia. She spoke of the road travelled by Australia, which has been vastly different to that in South Africa with very different drivers, and has helped me to get a better understanding of what the current energy picture in Australia looks like.

Renewables have been around in Australia for a while, with hydro in Tasmania and the snowy mountains and solar and wind systems installed in remote locations. It makes sense in a country this size, with towns and utilities so dispersed, for solar to be the preferred option for telecoms infrastructure, rail power etc. The concept of renewables is therefore not a new one.

In the early 1990’s, the only grid tied rules and regulations in place were for large scale power stations. Early on, effort was put into developing the necessary standards relating to grid connection and guidelines on contractual arrangements (taken up by most utilities). This helped, from early on, to reduce some of the softer, transactional costs associated with installing distributed renewables particularly when compared to other countries, like the USA.

Small scale solar

With this supportive policy in place, or under development, the initial solar PV priority was on building integrated PV, where it was foreseen that there would be the creation of a standardised module, suitable for local application. (For various reasons this has not been successful, and most systems installed are rooftop PV.)

Initially about an upfront grant was established for solar systems with a payment/MW for each system.  At up to A$8/MW, this represented a significant contribution for solar systems.  This was replaced by a ‘deemed’ energy payment for small scale systems, for an operational life of 15 years. For a specific location, dependent on the available solar irradiance, for each installation there would be a forecasted amount of energy that would be generated, and an upfront payment would be made accordingly, in an effective grant. This was implemented to reduce transactional costs associated with monitoring and verification.

Simultaneously, some states were implementing feed in tariffs. This meant that some systems were accessing the deemed energy payment and a feed in tariff.

It is within this context that the global financial crisis hit globally. Countries that had been previously investing in solar were no longer prioritising it, meaning that there was extra components/modules available. China also started to ramp up on module production. This, together with Australia’s currency being very strong against the dollar, meant that solar prices started to plummet locally, and there was a massive increase in demand for solar PV systems as a result.

This peaked in 2012, and state governments were the first to start to panic. Feed in tariff agreements represented commitments to pay a premium for each unit of energy generated by a solar PV system. Some of these agreements extended for 25 years. Others (like in New South Wales), had agreements which had a higher premium, but were for a shorter period (say 7 years).  Some are still offering feed in tariffs, but the scheme is being reviewed.

This massive boom in solar has resulted in a significant installation base, supporting local job creation.

Large scale renewables

In parallel to the small scale incentive scheme, the renewable energy target (RET) was established to promote the uptake of renewables. This mandated that utilities or retailers had to source a percentage of their overall generation from renewable energy sources. This would then be verified and they would be issued with a generation certificate for each MW of power generated. They could then sell these certificates on the open market. There is no guaranteed power for renewable energy and a lot of utilities have opted to generate their own renewable energy power. There is therefore a lot of risk on large scale project developers to invest in a project, where there is no guarantee that power will be purchased.

This target is also being reviewed.

The ACT government has initiated a reverse auction scheme, which guarantees the purchase of electricity from renewable energy generators, for a 20 year power purchase agreement. This has a cap of allocated capacity, which developers bid for, and projects are selected based on price. This means that the tariff payable for each kWh of electricity produced is lower, but the sale is certain. I’ll be meeting with people to discuss this programme specifically – more on this later, but it seems that this programme would have a lot of similarities with South Africa’s REIPPP Programme.

The political landscape in Australia is very interesting. Already I have had a number of indications that the coal lobby is incredibly strong and blatant, with heavy handed influence in government and vested interests at play. There is concern that a major shift in political commitments or priorities will impact the local market, and affect the number of viable local jobs. Given that Australia is a regional centre of excellence in small scale solar PV, it would seem a real waste if this sector was not seen as an asset.  As Muriel indicates, she is teaching capable, energetic and talented young people, who may not have a job to go to when they leave university.  She is confident, however, that the renewable energy sector will survive the ups and downs and changes in government.

I’ll also be looking into this more during my time here.

Thank you to Muriel for your time.

Muriel teaches in renewable energy policy and life cycle analysis of energy systems in the Centre for Photovoltaic Engineering at UNSW where she has worked since 1992. 

Australian PV Institute – live data portal

I went to a talk yesterday which focused on the future of solar in Australia (more on that to follow) but one of the incredible things that jumped out at me was that the speaker (Nigel Morris) referenced a live PV performance data portal.  This tracks PV energy being generated by state.  You can also see which areas have the highest PV penetration density, how much energy is generated annually, how many installations have been completed each month and year (to track market trends)  and it has a tool which allows you to zoom onto a building in your city to see how big the solar potential is there.

It’s a very interesting portal, and it’s clear that there is a lot of work that has gone into developing it.  The real value is that the generation data is available to allow these output graphics.  It’s really powerful when you can display the actual cumulative output for each state so well.

The portal can be found here:

Here’s what was generated on the 11th June.  Isn’t information beautiful?

APVI 11 June Snap

New REIPPP announcement – summary of all projects to date

I have gone and updated the table based on the latest announcement of the additional 13 projects.  I have done the best I could to allocate the projects to the right province – but I may have got some wrong.  Especially where there is not an easy to find EIA.  If you have better intel, please let me know and I’ll update accordingly.  I’ve called this series of projects 4.0 in the absence of a better name.


Via @imacza:

REIPPP Announcement