07/08.20
THE WARREN REPORT
Andrew Warren is chairman of the British Energy Efficiency Federation
Government must not bottle it again Twice Government had the chance to ensure existing buildings are more thermally efficient. It now has a third chance which, in a climate emergency, it must grasp
T
hroughout this century, each government initiative has been accompanied by an economic impact assessment. The objective is simple. It demonstrates that what is being proposed is good value for money. This exercise is undertaken before formal decisions are taken by the Cabinet to proceed with a public consultation on the policy. Ideally, that consultation should provide useful suggestions on how to tweak the policy to improve it. And while not plebiscites, it is always worth establishing whether there is a broad consensus behind the proposals from participants. Overall, this practice offers a key definition of how participatory democracy should work. And so it does. Mostly. But this autumn the Government is set to consult on a topic that it has sought to establish public support for on three previous occasions. It has garnered that support. But then bottled the subsequent decision. The UK is committed to become a net-zero-emissions society within 30 years. Approaching 40 per cent of carbon emissions come from the buildings we live and work in. The majority of homes likely to be occupied in 2050 have already been built. So the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government is set to issue a public consultation into how best to ensure such existing buildings are made more thermally efficient. The three policy options available have long been established. It becomes a matter of providing a) financial incentives to persuade householders to improve the
energy efficiency of their homes. It is also a question of b) establishing when making such improvements should be mandatory. The often neglected (c) is making people aware of what you are doing, and why you are doing it. Essentially these options can be described as offering carrots, sticks and tambourines. They operate best when working in parallel. And by coinciding with the time when building work is most likely to be done to homes. The first of these times is when people move into a home. The other, by definition, is whenever existing occupiers decide to improve that home.
Current building regulations All additions - extending upwards, downwards or sideways are automatically required to meet the energy standards of the current building regulations: these are also set to be upgraded, to net zero carbon. But as of now, even though a building’s carbon footprint is being expanded, there remains absolutely no requirement to do anything simultaneously to ensure that the original home is anything like up to contemporary energy standards. This is not through want of trying. When the energy parts of the building regs were improved in 2006, in 2010 and again in 2013, there were proposals put forward to include such “consequential improvements” within the package. On each occasion, these were agreed by the then Cabinet. In both the earliest and latest exercise, the concept was actually included in the public consultation; positive reactions were received from 80 per cent, and then
‘We must trust that the realities of the climate emergency will ensure that this time round, sanity will at last prevail’
84 per cent of respondents. On the middle occasion, just one day before the consultation started, the new Minister (John Healey) decided to exclude any references to consequential improvements. Doing so required bowdlerising the obligatory economic impact assessment, cutting out any references to the viability of consequential improvements. Healey maintained subsequently that “the benefits didn’t justify the costs.” A year later, after Healey had left office, the Freedom of Information Commissioner eventually extracted the truth. It was that “consequential improvements” would have given the greatest proportional benefits to each household, with subsequent energy savings 2.3 times greater than any initial capital costs. The most recent public consultation, held in 2012 under Eric Pickles, did include the “consequential improvements” concept, together with its impact assessment. This identified well over £11bn in benefits to the overall economy from “consequential improvements”. Plus the accrual of over 130m tonnes of lifetime carbon dioxide savings. And, with the government’s then flagship policy set to be launched that autumn, some 2.2m more Green Deal contracts. Sadly, well after the consultation had concluded, consequential improvements fell foul of the Daily Mail. Dubbing it a “conservatory tax” (although it wasn’t a tax, and didn’t include the vast majority of conservatories), this high profile venal campaign persuaded Pickles to reverse his previous position, and reject the entire concept. Thus ensuring all the benefits, ecological and financial, that he had earlier championed, still continue to be lost. In a sane world, we would be sending the bill for the benefits forgone to these former ministers - whose determination to place personal prejudice before practical evidence is even now leading to more emissions and higher fuel bills. Instead we must trust that, in 2020, the realities of the climate emergency and the upcoming recession will ensure that this time round, sanity will at last prevail. Expanding an existing building will require consequential improvements to the original.
JULY / AUGUST 2020 | ENERGY IN BUILDINGS & INDUSTRY | 09
EIBI_0720_09_(M).indd 1
08/07/2020 12:45
