Yes, the current requirement for a valid EPC with no outstanding recommendations for loft or cavity wall insulation should be maintained. These minimum insulation requirements are vital to make sure that properties are ready for the transition to low-carbon heat. Removing these requirements would create a number of risks, particularly for consumers who may see increased costs and worse outcomes as a result.

Firstly, if heat pumps are installed in properties with inadequate insulation, there is a risk that those heat pumps will have overly expensive running costs, as heat pumps are most effective in properties with a high thermal efficiency. Making sure that a home has adequate insulation prior to installing a heat pump is essential to safeguard consumers from potential energy bill increases. The current level of the energy price cap means that the unit price for electricity is almost 4 times higher than that for gas.1 Therefore, to ensure that consumers do not see higher prices, insulation minimum requirements are absolutely vital to provide the right internal conditions for heat pumps to run as efficiently and as affordably as possible. In this way, insulation has a crucial role to play to ensure that the transition to low carbon heat is a just one which does not result in increased costs for consumers. This is particularly relevant within the context of the current cost of living crisis.

Secondly, if a heat pump is installed followed by insulation, consumers may be left with a heating system that is not proportionate with the property’s reduced space heating demand and therefore has capital and running costs that are unnecessarily high. The installation of fabric efficiency measures prior to, or alongside, heat pump installation means a smaller, cheaper heat pump can be installed which will then operate at higher efficiencies over its system lifetime. For these reasons, a fabric-first approach has been incorporated into government policy and accepted as industry best practice for a number of years.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, if a home has an uninsulated loft and cavity walls, it could be losing over half of its heat through those two building elements.2 3 Hence, it is crucial that the current requirement for a valid EPC with no outstanding recommendations for loft or cavity wall insulation is maintained. Now is not the time to abandon the importance of a fabric first approach, which is the best way to reduce consumers’ bills and make sure that the transition to low carbon heat is affordable for all. Removing insulation minimum requirements in the middle of a cost of living crisis could have damaging impacts on consumers.

Consumer confidence is a crucial element of the transition to low carbon heat. The Government has set ambitious targets for the decarbonisation of heat, including to install 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, rising to 1.9 million per year by 2035.4 For these targets to be met, consumers must be on board. If residents find that their heat pump is overly expensive or incorrectly sized as a result of inadequate insulation, then this may have damaging effects on consumer confidence, which could hinder the uptake of heat pumps. Thus, the importance of a fabric first approach cannot be ignored, as insulation will be key to ensuring that the transition to low-carbon heat is as smooth and cost-effective as possible for consumers.

The NIA does not consider insulation requirements on EPCs to be a barrier to uptake.

As outlined in our response to Question 3, a fabric first approach to home decarbonisation is vital to ensure that the transition to low carbon heat is as smooth and cost-effective as possible for consumers. Therefore, we believe that the requirement for a valid EPC with no outstanding recommendations for loft and cavity wall insulation should be maintained.

The main issue preventing uptake of heat pumps via the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) is the level of grant funding being offered. This has been the main barrier to the success of the scheme thus far, not minimum insulation requirements on EPCs, We are pleased to see that the Government is taking steps to address this, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s announcement last month that the grant funding level will be rising to £7,500 from 23 October 2023.

The findings of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry into BUS, published in February 2023, found that the low level of grant funding was one of the main factors holding back the uptake of heat pumps via the scheme. 6 On average, the £5,000 grant offered by the scheme for an Air Source Heat Pump only represents approximately half of the installation cost. 7 Therefore, even with the BUS grant, households still face substantial remaining costs, which has deterred many from applying for the scheme. As a result, the Committee recommended raising the grant level to address low uptake8 , which the Prime Minister has now implemented in a move that has been welcomed across the home decarbonisation industry.

Since the Government is already removing the main barrier holding back the success of the scheme, there is no need to also remove minimum insulation requirements, particularly due to the risks associated with such a move. As mentioned in our answer to Question 2, the removal of insulation requirements would create substantial risks, including raising energy costs for residents and damaging consumer confidence in the transition to low carbon heating.

The main issue preventing uptake of heat pumps via the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) is the level of grant funding being offered. This has been the main barrier to the success of the scheme thus far, not minimum insulation requirements on EPCs, We are pleased to see that the Government is taking steps to address this, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s announcement last month that the grant funding level will be rising to £7,500 from 23 October 2023.

The findings of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry into BUS, published in February 2023, found that the low level of grant funding was one of the main factors holding back the uptake of heat pumps via the scheme. 6 On average, the £5,000 grant offered by the scheme for an Air Source Heat Pump only represents approximately half of the installation cost. 7 Therefore, even with the BUS grant, households still face substantial remaining costs, which has deterred many from applying for the scheme. As a result, the Committee recommended raising the grant level to address low uptake8 , which the Prime Minister has now implemented in a move that has been welcomed across the home decarbonisation industry.

Since the Government is already removing the main barrier holding back the success of the scheme, there is no need to also remove minimum insulation requirements, particularly due to the risks associated with such a move. As mentioned in our answer to Question 2, the removal of insulation requirements would create substantial risks, including raising energy costs for residents and damaging consumer confidence in the transition to low carbon heating.

Energy Company Obligation schemes: Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) and Reduced Data SAP (RdSAP) amendments – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Closing Date: 11 September 2023
Response submitted by: National Insulation Association
For more information, please contact: info@nia-uk.org

About the National Insulation Association
The National Insulation Association (NIA) represents the insulation industry in the UK with a member base comprised of installers, system certificate holders, and manufacturers who provide a wide range of insulation solutions for homes and buildings. The NIA and its members are fully committed to maintaining and raising standards within the insulation industry.

The NIA agrees with the proposal to update legislation so that only SAP10.2 should be used, subject to the appropriate transition period.

An update to the SAP2012 framework is long overdue. SAP10.2 is more accurate than the existing SAP2012 framework, and is based on more up-to-date and reliable information. This is especially important given recent large fluctuations in energy prices. Therefore, SAP10.2 will result in more reliable energy performance data, which is beneficial for residents and retrofit businesses.

SAP10.2 will also better support the decarbonisation of homes. By providing a reduced value for the carbon emissions of electricity, it provides a greater incentive to install low carbon, electrical systems. This is an important update, which should help to facilitate and accelerate the transition to net zero homes.1 Since SAP10.2 is already in use across England, Scotland and Wales, industry should be capable of adapting to its use within ECO4 and Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) retrofits, especially given the proposed six month transition period.

Yes, we agree with the proposed six-month transition period. As this is the completion timeline for ECO4 projects that include a district heating element, this is an appropriate length for the transition.

3.1) The NIA’s top preference is Option 2. This option minimises the transitional impact associated with updating from RdSAP2012 to RdSAP10.2 and it also avoids the administrative issues associated with operating two versions of RdSAP concurrently. We disagree with Option 3 because it risks a significant number of properties becoming ineligible for ECO4 funding, which in turn would result in lost business for the industry. It would also mean that fewer households can benefit from vital energy efficiency upgrades. This is an outcome that must be avoided. Modelling carried out by an NIA member, based on 5 different property archetypes with differing retrofit scopes, shows that RdSAP10.2 lowers both properties’ pre- and post-retrofit scores when compared to RdSAP2012. This decrease is particularly significant in projects that include renewables. Under Option 3, many retrofits will need to be evidenced using RdSAP10.2. There is a substantial risk that some of these retrofits will no longer meet the ECO4 Minimum Requirement (MR), particularly those that would have achieved a post-retrofit SAP band of mid to low C. Furthermore, the hard stop in Option 3 is too risky for installers, as a transition period is essential to effectively adjust to the changes to RdSAP. In practice, installers would avoid carrying out work on properties where their modelling shows that the post-retrofit SAP band will be close to the MR, as there is a risk that the project will not meet the MR when converted to RdSAP10.2. This will mean that many households miss out on energy efficiency measures because of the uncertainty involved in Option 3. Changing the goalposts for eligibility and evidencing overnight without any transition period would be disastrous. This would make a lot of projects ineligible and create dangerous confusion among installers. This would have a significant detrimental impact on scheme delivery. The NIA also has concerns about the workability of Option 1. Under this option, two versions of RdSAP would be running concurrently, which would place a large administrative burden on TrustMark and Ofgem as scheme providers. The software is not designed to support two versions of RdSAP running at the same time. Therefore, we have concerns that under Option 1, inadequate infrastructure and extra administrative complexity may delay projects and create bottlenecks within schemes. This will have damaging effects on both residents and installers. There is also a risk that having two versions of RdSAP running concurrently will create unnecessary confusion among installers.

3.2) The NIA does not have a second preference, as we believe that Option 2 is the only viable option. Neither Option 1 or Option 3 are practical or workable solutions for the reasons outlined in our response to Question 3.1.

Yes, we agree that 3 months is a sufficient period to allow the completion of retrofits following the introduction of RdSAP10.2. Within ECO4, the majority of projects are shorter than 3 months. There may need to be some flexibility within this, as some complicated, multi-measure retrofits, particularly ones that may include a change of heating system, may have longer lead times. However, for most retrofits carried out under ECO4, 3 months is an appropriate timeframe. As GBIS is primarily a single-measure scheme, we do not foresee any issues with completing retrofits in 3 months under this scheme.

If RdSAP10.2 is introduced into other schemes, such as SHDF, which include large scale retrofit projects, then the transition period may need to be longer than 3 months. This is something the Government will need to consider when it introduces RdSAP updates into other schemes. However, considering most ECO4 installations are small retrofit projects, a 3 month period to allow completion should be achievable

While we agree that Option 2 is the only viable option, we recognise the risk that some ECO4 retrofits may not achieve the MR once converted to RdSAP10.2, which will normally result in a lower SAP rating. It is vital that this risk is mitigated as much as possible, so that vulnerable households do not miss out much-needed energy efficiency upgrades and installers do not lose out on business.

We believe that the consultation’s proposal for installers to pre-lodge a post installation EPR based on RdSAP2012 to prove that they would have met the MR is a sensible approach to minimise this risk. Installers will generally carry out their own modelling before embarking on a retrofit project to forecast expected outcomes and ensure that they will meet the MR. This should provide sufficient evidence that a project would have met the MR, as long as, once the install is completed, installers verify that they have installed the measures included in the EPR.

Lowering the MR by half a SAP band is also a viable option. Although it is not as accurate or dwelling-specific as a pre-lodged EPR, it is a fairly simple approach which would not add much administrative complexity. It would also mitigate the risk of projects failing to meet the MR.

Under Option 2, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) would need to publish its conversion methodology, which would enable installers to quickly and easily convert pre-retrofit SAP ratings from RdSAP2012 to RdSAP10.2. To ensure that the change from RdSAP2012 to RdSAP10.2 runs as smoothly as possible, it is important that the BRE publishes this conversion methodology well in advance of March 2024 (the expected changeover date). Before the RdSAP updates come in, energy efficiency businesses will need time to gather existing data points and then go through existing EPCs, converting them to RdSAP10.2. Thus, it is critical that the Government decides on an approach and the BRE publishes its conversion methodology as soon as possible so that industry has sufficient time to prepare and adapt to the changes.

Yes, we agree with this proposal, as updating scoring methodology at this stage would create extra administrative complexity, which could impact upon scheme delivery.

We have concerns that the RdSAP and SAP updates will lead to properties being excluded from schemes. While we agree that an update of RdSAP and SAP is needed, it is vital that the Government implements the changes in a way that will mitigate the number of households being excluded from schemes.

As previously discussed in our response to Question 5, there is a risk that properties which would have achieved a post-retrofit score of mid to low SAP band C under RdSAP2012 may now drop into band D under RdSAP10.2. This could lead to a significant number of previously eligible properties now missing the MR. For installers, it will be too risky to treat marginal properties that may no longer meet the MR under RdSAP10.2 In practice, this could mean lots of vulnerable households are excluded from energy efficiency upgrades.

In order to achieve the scheme’s delivery targets and the UK’s net zero targets, it is important that energy efficiency upgrades are delivered to as many homes as possible. The UK has some of the least energy efficient properties in Europe2 , with many properties in urgent need of upgrade. According to the Office for National Statistics, 704,000 properties in England are still rated E, F and G.3 It is vitally important that the RdSAP/SAP update does not result in vulnerable, lowincome households missing out on much-needed support. National Energy Action’s latest estimates show that there are currently 6.6 million households in fuel poverty.4 As a result of energy price rises over the last year, millions of households across the UK are now struggling to pay their energy bills.

Thus, the Government’s primary consideration when implementing these changes must be to mitigate their impact on vulnerable, fuel poor households. As such, it is crucial that they take steps to ensure that as few households as possible become ineligible for energy efficiency support as a result of RdSAP/SAP updates. To minimise this risk, the NIA supports the Government’s proposed mitigation options, such as enabling installers to pre-lodge a postinstallation EPR and lowering the MR by half a SAP band.

Another issue which could arise from the updates to RdSAP/SAP concerns their interaction with the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES). Since RdSAP10.2 generally leads to lower SAP scores than RdSAP2012, there is a risk that some private rented properties, which would have previously achieved MEES under RdSAP2012 may now no longer be compliant under RdSAP10.2. For instance if a landlord has upgraded their property to a SAP band of mid to low C in order to be compliant with proposed changes to MEES, there is a chance that a new EPC carried out using the RdSAP10.2 methodology would give the property a SAP rating of D, thus meaning the property will no longer be compliant once MEES rises to EPC C. While the NIA is supportive of MEES and efforts to raise levels of energy efficiency levels in the private rented sector, we would urge the Government to consider the interaction between RdSAP changes and MEES. This includes offering support where necessary to landlords and tenants to ensure that as many as properties as possible remain compliant with MEES.

Call for evidence – Committees – UK Parliament

Closing Date: 25 August 2023

Response submitted by: National Insulation Association

For more information, please contact: info@nia-uk.org

About the National Insulation Association

The National Insulation Association (NIA) represents the insulation industry in the UK with a member base comprised of installers, system certificate holders, and manufacturers who provide a wide range of insulation solutions for homes and buildings. The NIA and its members are fully committed to maintaining and raising standards within the insulation industry.

Homes in the UK account for 26% of greenhouse gas emissions and are amongst the least energy efficient in Europe.1 The NIA therefore believe ambitious targets need to be set to address this. This includes the following policy changes:

1. Additional funding and long-term commitment to existing grant and loan schemes. This will ensure wider access for homeowners and landlords to energy efficiency measures. Across all available schemes, low and high-cost measures should be offered to ensure the most appropriate solution is provided to households. Insulation should be prioritised as it supports a fabric first approach, which significantly reduces heat loss from a building and reduces energy bills, whilst also minimising exposure to health hazards. The NIA suggests that though insulation measures should be made available to a wide pool of applicants, given the size of the challenge to decarbonise housing, the worst-first approach can be helpful to ensure households with the lowest EPC ratings and those in fuel poverty are improved quickly. Requirements for suppliers taking part in the schemes must be monitored to ensure their continued contribution, with suitable consequences for targets not being met. Clear and straightforward pathways to funding for applicants and installers will avoid delays, which have historically reduced the effectiveness of these schemes. To prevent the ‘stop-start’ nature that has previously disincentivised engagement from industry, the Government must set out clear processes for engagement with minimal administrative burdens.

2. Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) for both new and existing homes. The Government has proposed a target for the Private Rented Sector (PRS) to reach a minimum EPC Band C by 2028 (for existing tenancies2 ), which the NIA supports. However, this should be expanded to cover all housing tenures to ensure progress in energy efficiency. Enforcement of these standards is a crucial aspect of the policy changes that the NIA would like to see. The NIA urges the Government to release the results of the consultation on MEES in the PRS as this would push forward progress and set a framework to follow across other tenures.

3. EPC reform to facilitate energy efficiency upgrades across the UK. The recent Scottish EPC reform consultation set out some important changes that will support the accurate assessment of EPCs, including a new set of metrics for domestic and non-domestic EPCs and greater focus on the fabric efficiency of the building. The NIA supports the use of these metrics and hold the view that by focusing on fabric efficiency the number of homes with poor energy efficiency can be reduced.

1. Poor scheme design. The under-delivery of government-backed retrofit schemes is a result of poor scheme design. Often governments design a scheme to achieve their own political goals, but do not engage enough with the supply chain to make sure that the scheme is deliverable. To avoid this, earlier consultation with key stakeholders who are directly involved in scheme delivery, such as retrofit businesses, is needed. This is important as delivery organisations are often consulted too late in the process, at which point there is little opportunity to influence and improve the design of schemes.

2. Schemes are too short. Another common issue is that retrofit schemes are too short-term, which prevents them from being a success. Manufacturers, installers and the wider supply chain need to invest and prepare for a scheme. For many businesses, this investment is not economically viable for a short time period. There is a lot of paperwork and onboarding involved with working on government retrofit schemes, which is not always straightforward. It also costs a lot in product development and certification for manufacturers and installers. Therefore, if businesses deem the scheme to be too shortterm, they will not invest. Hence, longer term schemes are vital to give industry the certainty and stability to invest in the materials and training required for scheme delivery. Schemes are often finalised and enacted into law only a matter of months (sometimes less) before they are due to commence. This short timeframe does not give the supply chain sufficient time to ramp up and prepare itself to deliver schemes. In the case of ECO4, delays meant that households missed out on over £32.6 million of predicted bill savings, according the ECIU.3 .The delay also had very damaging effects on the insulation industry. Therefore, the NIA would like to see more notice given between the announcement of retrofit schemes and their start date.

3. Schemes require a lot of administration. The NIA appreciates the need to ensure compliance and high-quality work. However, the administrative burden associated with certain aspects of government retrofit schemes can exclude some businesses from engaging. Many new and smaller businesses do not have the knowledge or experience to support the administrative element of the schemes. This limits the scope of delivery because there is not enough competition or volume in the market. While we recognise that some level of administration is necessary to safeguard quality standards, smaller businesses and new entrants need to be supported through the administrative process to ensure that they are not excluded. To deliver the volume of installs needed to reach net zero, the retrofit industry will have to expand massively. Therefore, it is crucial that new businesses, especially those operating according to industry best practice, are supported in their mission to deliver high-quality retrofit.

4. Availability and cost of retrofit assessment/coordination. Skills shortages are common obstacles for government retrofit schemes, particularly when it comes to finding enough highly skilled retrofit assessors and coordinators. For example, the design of the Great British Scheme Insulation (GBIS) as a single measure scheme makes it difficult for jobs to be profitable. All measures delivered under GBIS require a retrofit assessment prior to install. However, the high cost of retrofit assessments and the difficulty of finding qualified assessors means that it is often not profitable for businesses to deliver a single measure to a property. Therefore, the NIA would like to see a focus on multi-measure schemes that deliver whole house retrofit. This will result in greater energy and cost savings for residents and make jobs more profitable for participating retrofit businesses.he volume of installs needed to reach net zero, the retrofit industry will have to expand massively. Therefore, it is crucial that new businesses, especially those operating according to industry best practice, are supported in their mission to deliver high-quality retrofit.

The Future Homes Standard 2025, particularly the changes to Part L and F of the Building Regulations, will provide the baseline for improvements in the sector. It will aim to ensure that new homes produce 75-80% less carbon than existing ones. Whilst the NIA supports this, attention must also be paid to the 28 million existing homes that have inadequate levels of energy efficiency. Currently, 50% of dwellings have an EPC of D or lower according to the English Housing Survey 20224 , meaning that residents have higher energy bills and are more likely to be exposed to negative health impacts of cold homes. The NIA believe that both the worst first and fabric first approach should be followed to address the need for investment in existing homes. Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) across all housing tenures are also a key regulatory lever that will drive progress towards more energy efficient housing.

Continued Professional Development and accreditation is vital to ensure that new technology used to insulate homes is safe and effective and does not result in unintended consequences. Local training programmes, qualification and apprentice schemes need to be made available to incentivise younger generations to enter the industry and upskill the existing workforce. This will address the need for a larger workforce to decarbonise housing and stimulate innovation.

However, even where innovative technologies have been proven to be safe and effective, there are still numerous barriers to their large-scale deployment. Therefore, the NIA would like to see greater government support for innovative measures. One of the most accessible routes for innovative technologies is via the “Innovation Measures” mechanism included within some government energy efficiency schemes. The NIA would encourage government to increase its support by raising the cost cap within government schemes and streamlining the process by which a new technology can be formally accepted as an Innovation Measure. The development of new solutions will be key to unlocking greater energy savings and accelerating the transition to net zero. Hence, it is vital that the industry has the support needed to foster ingenuity in the sector.

The current level of consumer protections for low-carbon home technologies varies, with those receiving installations outside of publicly funded schemes often subject to lower standards and protections. The Competition and Market Authority’s 2023 report on Consumer Protection found that while government schemes follow standards such as PAS 2035/2030 offering relatively strong consumer protections, for products installed outside of these schemes the level and robustness of the protections is lower. The report highlighted the risk that consumers can be put off from buying low carbon products as a result, particularly ‘able-to-pay’ customers who are not eligible for existing fuel poverty schemes despite a genuine need for support.

This barrier to uptake of energy efficiency products is concerning as it makes customers reluctant to invest, while increasing the potential of poor-quality installs, which damages consumer confidence further. The NIA is committed to maintaining and raising standards across the insulation industry. Therefore, we support robust consumer protections as they build trust in the sector and in emerging technologies. Uptake of low-carbon home technologies on an enormous scale is required to reach net zero in homes. For this to be achieved, consumers must have confidence in both the quality of low-carbon products and the quality of installations. It is important therefore, that these protections are clearly communicated, straight forward and readily available for the benefit of both installers and consumers alike. As installers are often the first point of contact for consumers when they learn about new technologies, it is important that installers can communicate their protections effectively. Therefore, the NIA advocates for robust protections, working in conjunction with high quality standards. This is the best way to protect consumers and ensure that residents can benefit from the financial, health and environmental benefits of high-quality retrofit.

The most effective way to ensure that the public can afford the switch to decarbonised heating is by following the fabric-first approach. Insulation can significantly decrease the heat demand of a property and cut heating costs. According to research by the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, raising the EPC of a property by one SAP band from D to C can reduce space heating demand by 20%.5 Insulation is the most effective way to make home heating affordable because it reduces energy demand and energy bills.

However, taking a fabric-first approach is especially important when it comes to the installation of low-carbon heating systems, such as heat pumps. Heat pump efficiency is dependent on the flow temperature at which it operates, running at higher efficiencies when the flow temperature is lower. However, a property can only be adequately heated at low flow temperatures if it has a high thermal efficiency. Therefore, the installation of fabric efficiency measures prior to, or alongside, heat pump installation means a smaller, cheaper heat pump can be installed which will then operate at higher efficiencies over its system lifetime. If low-carbon heating is installed and then insulation added afterwards, consumers may be left with a heating system that is not proportionate with the property’s reduced space heating demand and therefore has capital and running costs that are unnecessarily high. It is vital that properties are as insulated as much possible before installing low-carbon heating systems to ensure they are sized correctly and cost less to run.

The Government has set ambitious targets for the decarbonisation of heat including to install 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, rising to 1.9 million per year by 2035. The NIA support these targets but, for the transition to low-carbon heat to be achievable and cost-effective for consumers, it must be accompanied by a national insulation programme of similar scale and ambition. This will ensure homes are ‘retrofit ready’. As part of this national insulation programme, the Government must consider more policies to support and incentivise the installation of energy efficiency measures, particularly in the “able to pay” sector, for instance by supporting innovative green finance mechanisms and leveraging private investment. This support should be combined with a public information campaign to raise awareness of the financial, health and environmental benefits of insulation. Insulation will safeguard consumers from increased heating costs, thereby ensuring a just transition to low-carbon heat, especially for those vulnerable groups most at risk of falling into fuel poverty due to energy bill increases.

The NIA recognises that EPCs are a useful framework to facilitate energy efficiency improvements. However, the current framework was created 15 years ago when the retrofit landscape was very different.6 Therefore, we believe reform is needed to modernisation the framework and make it fit for a Net Zero context.

To this end, the Scottish Government’s recently published consultation on EPC reform is encouraging and offers some useful proposals. It proposes to introduce three separate headline metrics: a fabric rating, a cost rating, and heating system type.7 This provides consumers with a more detailed information breakdown on the performance of different aspects of their home, which will help consumers to make informed decisions about the best route to improving the energy efficiency of their homes. The NIA supports the introduction of similar reforms across the UK.

A fabric-first approach is widely accepted across government and industry as the most effective approach to retrofit. To reflect this, we would like to see fabric efficiency given more weighting within EPCs as a necessary first step towards decarbonising homes. Fabric efficiency should also be more clearly signposted on EPCs to give consumers a clear idea of their property’s current fabric performance and how this can be improved. The Scottish Government’s proposals to include fabric efficiency as one of three headline metrics on EPCs are welcome in this regard.8

An additional improvement to the EPC framework includes more regular trigger points for assessment. Currently, EPCs are valid for 10 years. However, the energy efficiency landscape is constantly changing as new policies and targets are introduced to drive the transition. The NIA support reducing the validity period of EPCs and introducing additional trigger points for EPC assessment to encourage engagement with current technology. Trigger points include:

• Major renovations, including extensions
• Minor renovations, including replacing windows
• Marketing of a property
• Applications for green finance.

This would allow a more up-to-date and greater coverage of EPC data across the housing stock. It would also provide a more accurate picture of the UK housing stock and its energy performance for policymakers, businesses, and consumers. The Government must support industry to train new energy assessors and upskill existing workers, to increase the number of skilled energy assessors. This would improve the accuracy of EPCs and thereby increase consumer confidence in the reliability of the EPC framework.

All levels of government have a role to play in delivering energy efficiency schemes. Central government is best placed to set direction in terms of policy and scheme design. This should always be done through early dialogue with those who implement schemes, particularly local authorities and retrofit businesses.

Funding for energy efficiency schemes should also come primarily from central government, alongside some match funding from LAs. However, the private sector also has an important role to play in funding energy efficiency schemes, something has not yet been fully explored in the UK. Some international energy efficiency schemes, such as the PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) scheme in the US9 and the KfW loans and grants scheme for energy efficiency refurbishment in Germany10, have already been successful in attracting private investors into the retrofit sector.

By leveraging investment from the private sector, these international schemes, have been able to deliver large numbers of energy efficiency measures to households, particularly in the ‘able to pay’ sector, in a cost-effective manner. The Residential PACE scheme in the US has funded energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades worth a combined $4.2 billion (as of 2019), while at the same time remaining revenue-neutral for local municipalities.11 In this way, private sector funding can pave the way for retrofit at scale.

When it comes to the implementation of energy efficiency schemes, this is usually most effective at a local or regional level, as most energy efficiency work is carried out by local installers; therefore, it makes sense for implementation to be devolved to local authorities and other local actors. Local authorities have a more detailed and nuanced knowledge of their local housing stock. However, there has historically been issues with a lack of resources to efficiently deliver schemes and a need for technical support to meet funding application deadlines. Without this there is a risk of delay which can have negative impacts on scheme reputations for consumers and industry. The Government need to be aware of this and provide additional support to LAs where needed.

• 1 Office for National Statistics (2022) Climate change insights, families and households, UK: August 2022
• 2 Energy Saving Trust (2022) Landlords: how to make your property more energy efficient
• 3 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (2022) Government delay to home insulation scheme could cost 56,000 homes £600 each
• 4 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2023) English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: energy
• 5 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (2022) Insulation and gas prices: Households are paying the price for slow progress of insulating homes
• 6 Nexus Energy Solutions (2023) The History of the Energy Performance Certificate
• 7 Scottish Government (2023) Energy Performance (EPC) Reform Consultation
• 8 Scottish Government (2023) Energy Performance (EPC) Reform Consultation
• 9 Department of Energy, Property Assessed Clean Energy Programs
• 10 Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, KFW Loans and Grants for Energy-Efficient Refurbishment and New Construction
• 11 Department of Energy, Property Assessed Clean Energy Programs