Countdown to Low Carbon Homes- Research Report

Countdown to Low Carbon Homes Delivering community scale retrofit of home energy improvements October 2014

RESEARCH REPORT

AUTHORS

December 2014

Anthi Charalambous

Gregoris Panayiotou

Audrey Healy

Grigoris Papagiannis

Maria Ioannidou

Dimitris Tampakis

Catrin Maby

The Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project is a partnership of: Severn Wye Energy Agency An independent charity and not-for-profit company established in 1999 to promote sustainable energy and affordable warmth through partnership, awareness-raising, innovation and strategic action. With a focus on local and regional action, it works from its two office bases, in Gloucester in South West England and Llandrindod Wells in mid Wales.

Catrin Maby (CatrinM@severnwye.org.uk) Sam Evans (SamE@severnwye.org.uk)

The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki The largest University in Greece and in the Balkans with 95,000 students, 2,300 teaching and research staff and 1,800 technical and administrative staff.

Founded originally in 1926, it is highly recognised internationally, participating in more than 35 international academic associations and collaborating with more than 1,200 Universities worldwide.

Grigoris Papagiannis (gpapagia@auth.gr) Dimitris Tampakis (tampakis@otenet.gr)

Cyprus Energy Agency A non-governmental, non-profit organisation established in 2009 with co-financing from the European Commission through the “Intelligent Energy for Europe� programme and the Cyprus Union of Communities. The objectives of the Cyprus Energy Agency are to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport and mobility. It is based in the capital, Lefkosia.

Anthi Charalambous (anthi.charalambous@cea.org.cy) Maria Ioannidou (maria.ioannidou@cea.org.cy)

LEGAL NOTICE: Neither Severn Wye Energy Agency nor any person acting on behalf of Severn Wye Energy Agency is responsible for any use which might be made of the following information.

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION

3

1.1 What are ‘home energy improvements’?.................................4 1.2 Benefits of making home energy improvements...................4 1.3 Issues and challenges..................................................................5 1.4 Project aims and objectives........................................................6 1.5 Acknowledgements......................................................................8

2. BACKGROUND

9

2.1 The European policy context................................................... 10 2.2 Wider benefits of home energy improvements................... 14 2.3 Drivers and barriers................................................................... 16 2.4 Financing home energy improvements................................ 20 2.5 Energy user behaviour.............................................................. 23 2.6 The background in each country............................................ 24 2.7 Summary of background.......................................................... 43

Table of contents continued over...

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 1

CONTENTS 3. METHODOLOGY

45

3.1 The common approach............................................................ 46 3.2 The approach in Cyprus............................................................ 48 3.3 The approach in Greece............................................................ 52 3.4 The approach in the UK............................................................ 59 3.5 Research limitations ................................................................. 68

4. RESULTS

71

4.1 Cyprus.......................................................................................... 72 4.2 Greece.......................................................................................... 87 4.3 United Kingdom....................................................................... 112

5. CONCLUSIONS

191

5.1 Considering retrofit – reasons and triggers ........................ 192 5.2 Considering retrofit – obstacles............................................ 194 5.3 The role of impartial advice .................................................. 196 5.4 Planning works ........................................................................ 197 5.5 Undertaking improvements .................................................. 199 5.6 Maximising the savings .......................................................... 201 5.7 The community scale delivery model................................. 203 2 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 What are ‘home energy improvements’?.................................4 1.2 Benefits of making home energy improvements...................4 1.3 Issues and challenges..................................................................5 1.4 Project aims and objectives........................................................6 1.5 Acknowledgements......................................................................8

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 3

1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 What are ‘home energy improvements’?

In this research report the term ‘home energy improvements’ is used in a general sense to describe a range of possible physical improvements that may be made to the fabric and services of an existing home, with a beneficial impact on energy use or utility, such as improved thermal comfort, increased energy efficiency, or a reduction in energy costs, energy consumption or associated carbon emissions.

The measures that might be involved include thermal insulation, more efficient appliances or improved controls for heating, cooling, hot water and lighting, a switch to a lower carbon fuel or household scale renewable heat or power.

The term ‘retrofit’ is used to describe adding such measures to existing buildings, and has become a standard term in the energy efficiency industry.

1.2 Benefits of making home energy improvements Buildings account for 40% of total energy demand across the European Union1. Improving the energy efficiency of the existing stock is a valuable opportunity to reduce collective emissions and represents at least 17% of the EU’s energy saving potential2. Residential buildings comprise 75% of the total stock across Europe. Of the entire building stock, homes are the biggest consumers of energy: in 2009, they were responsible for 68% of the total final energy use in buildings3. Over 40% of Europe’s entire housing stock was built before the 1960s, before some countries started introducing building standards4. Widespread retrofit offers the opportunity to improve a significant proportion of the overall housing stock and bring it closer to current and future standards.

The energy performance of homes has a role to play in the achievement of several policy objectives: mitigation of the risk of climate change, reduction in levels of ‘fuel poverty’, and increased energy security. Associated benefits of improved energy performance of homes include occupant health and comfort, consumer ability to spend money saved from energy bills on other things, and the social and educational benefits of having more usable living space.

Making the necessary improvements increases economic activity within building trades and supplies. Catalysing retrofit on a wider scale has the potential to invigorate the ‘green’ economy and create new employment as well as offering new and expanded markets to sustain existing jobs.

1

‘Energy efficiency: delivering the 20% target’, Commission of the European Communities (2008) http://eur-lex.europa.eu

2

‘Policy Report: Contribution of Energy Efficiency Measures to Climate Protection within the European Union until 2050’ (2012), Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety: http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-media/docs/e/ de/publikationen/BMU_Policy_Paper_20121022.pdf

3

‘Europe’s Buildings Under the Microscope: A country by country review of the energy performance of buildings’, Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) 2011

4 Ibid

4 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

1.INTRODUCTION 1.3 Issues and challenges Direct experience of working with owner-occupiers and installers indicates growing concern about energy costs and climate change, and interest in improving energy efficiency. However, in practice, there are both opportunities and barriers, including practical, financial, aesthetic and regulatory factors.

To date, government programmes and commercial markets have tended to focus on measures delivering the quickest financial and carbon returns, resulting in selective delivery of mainly single measures. These tend to be the measures that involve the least time and labour, typically those that require little additional building work or ‘finishing’ and which are also generally the least disruptive for the homeowner. Achieving carbon and fuel poverty targets requires a more comprehensive approach, including the full range of thermal insulation, and efficient heating, cooling, water heating, lighting and domestic appliances – as well as renewable heating and home generation technologies. It also requires specific attention to the details of older buildings.

Given the costs and disruption involved for homeowners – and the need to access finance for refurbishment – this will not happen overnight. An important contribution is likely to come from ensuring that ‘trigger point’ opportunities to incorporate energy improvements offered by general home repairs, maintenance and improvements are realised in practice. Homes are often a ‘work in progress’ and improvements can be part of an ongoing process. When households wish to improve their homes they will typically contact (generally small) local companies or sole traders providing home repairs and improvements. These local businesses tend to be the first port of call for homeowners, so are well placed to identify opportunities to include energy improvements; they are key actors and influencers in the process. Adopting new technologies may carry risk for small businesses, however, and building their knowledge base and learning new skills (and in particular gaining accreditations that may be required) incur time and expense; this can be a barrier to being able to offer energy related improvements as part of their general portfolio of services and products.

As such, a starting point for the project was an awareness that practical delivery of deep carbon cuts through retrofit is complex and primarily delivered on a bespoke level by a localised supply chain. Scaling up might be achieved by starting at this level and building on it, overcoming practical barriers step by step. This also has the benefit of supporting the local economy and increasing capacity, as opposed to ’cherry-picking’ profitable measures by larger companies with no long term local presence.

Current thinking on cost reduction and scaling up retrofit tends to focus on area-based approaches (a limited area, street by street) as the solution, to ensure logistical benefits and economies of scale. These approaches depend on being able to carry out substantial works within a relatively short time. Applying this type of approach to private sector housing is difficult though, as it requires leverage of investment by property owners, as well as willingness to accept the disruption of building works which is common to all tenures. For high deprivation areas there may be enough subsidy provided and benefits in improvement in living conditions to overcome these barriers, but this is unlikely to be the case elsewhere.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 5

1.INTRODUCTION The complex and often fragmented nature of the retrofit process can be a challenge for the private homeowner, comprising several basic elements for which they may need to go to different providers: bespoke energy advice, installation of measures and/or upgrade of existing ones, and raising the finance to pay for such works. Another crucial element of retrofit is post installation user behaviour; that is, ensuring the improvement actually saves the energy and/or delivers the improved comfort it is meant to.

Finance, time and disruption to everyday life often prevent households from making lots of improvements at once; many households incorporate improvements step by step when resources allow. Ensuring that changes made over time are holistic and complementary is a challenge for any household.

In an era of increasing financial austerity, grant funding for home energy improvements is on the decline and the emphasis is increasingly shifting towards loan finance. A key aspect of making retrofit a more joined-up, straightforward process involves being able to signpost households to trustworthy sources of finance as well as grant funding. Flexibility and choice are important for homeowners, both in terms of measures that can be financed and the repayment terms on offer.

1.4 Project aims and objectives The Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project (2012-14) was set up to research, develop and communicate an integrated practical delivery approach to community scale retrofit of energy improvements to buildings, with a particular focus on homes and delivery by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

This research report forms one of three project outputs, the other two being a set of case studies charting the journeys of households in Cyprus, Greece and the UK that made energy improvements to their homes, and a guidance toolkit for community scale delivery of home energy improvements.

Potential audiences for outputs from his project include those with an interest in effective delivery of home energy improvements, and achievement of energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction targets, such as policy-makers at all levels, local and regional authorities, energy agencies, housing providers, energy efficiency and building industry trade bodies, community and environmental organisations.

By exploring the whole ‘retrofit journey’ from planning stage, to implementation and post installation energy use, the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project aimed to find ways to make domestic retrofit easier, more mainstream and attractive, in ways that benefit local businesses. To do this, the project partners worked with households, installers and other key decision makers involved in domestic retrofit in their communities to gather evidence on the situation at a local level.

By working in three diverse regions in Europe, the partnership gained a broader perspective as well as scope for exchange of knowledge and experience.

This work informed the development of practical delivery models for the retrofit of buildings.

One of the three project partners developed and trialled a model that could be rolled out at a community scale, linking in with local businesses.

6 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

1.INTRODUCTION Finance for measures Planning, building control

Suppliers of energy efficiency materials and products

Home owners Installers

Energy advice Intermediaries: community groups, local media, local authorities, health and social care agencies Diagram 1: Key elements in the community scale retrofit delivery model

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 7

1.INTRODUCTION 1.5 Acknowledgements The Cyprus Energy Agency would like to express gratitude and thanks to the members of the Focus Group and the Installers Group who supported the implementation of the project in Cyprus. The Cyprus Energy Agency is also thankful to the homeowners for their collaboration.

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki would like to thank all homeowners who participated in the research for their collaboration and all those who contributed to the research.

Severn Wye Energy Agency would like to thank all the households, installers, tradespeople, suppliers, local authority personnel and advisors that participated in this project, and to extend particular thanks to the following contributors: Aniko Dobi-Rozsa at Global Environmental Sustainable Business; Dr Alice Owen at the University of Leeds; Dr Gavin Killip at the University of Oxford; Paul Ciniglio at First Wessex; Sian Ferguson at the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts;

Caspar Helmer; Jackie and Ian Tuckett; Jane Laurie; Richard and Mary Spears; Angie Bennett; Linda Bailey;

Heather Watts at Scottish Power;

Jackie and Stan Sims;

Maria Hickman, Barry Wyatt, Dan Shoesmith, Emma Quest and Susie Phelps at Stroud District Council;

Peter Fox;

Vincent Albano at Wiltshire Council; Lorraine Drew at Forest of Dean District Council; Debby Paice, Colin Martin and Calum Allan at South Gloucestershire Council;

Brian Jordan; Bob Dale; Gary Twist; Pauline Winstanley.

James Clapham;

Finally, Severn Wye would like to thank the staff that worked on Countdown to Low Carbon Homes and helped to develop the local delivery model:

David Cheffings;

Sam Evans;

Dez Rolfe;

Neil Towler;

Jane Leigh;

Jemma Stephenson;

Simon Pickering;

Paul Sheridan;

Vicky Redding;

Matt Williams.

Perdita Dawson;

8 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The European policy context................................................... 10 2.1.1 European carbon reduction targets....................................................................................10 2.1.2 Targeting homes.....................................................................................................................10 2.1.3 Targeting homeowners..........................................................................................................12 2.1.4 The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive...............................................................12 2.1.5 Energy Performance Certificates.........................................................................................13

2.2 Wider benefits of home energy improvements................... 14 2.2.1 Tackling fuel poverty..............................................................................................................14 2.2.2 Local employment..................................................................................................................15

2.3 Drivers and barriers................................................................... 16 2.4 Financing home energy improvements................................ 20 2.5 Energy user behaviour.............................................................. 23 2.6 The background in each country............................................ 24 2.6.1 Cyprus.......................................................................................................................................24 2.6.2 Greece.......................................................................................................................................29 2.6.3 The UK.......................................................................................................................................34

2.7 Summary of background.......................................................... 43

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 9

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The European policy context 2.1.1 European carbon reduction targets The European Union has committed to reducing overall levels of carbon dioxide by 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels1. This target is one of several which make up the climate and energy package, a set of binding legislation which aims to ensure the European Union meets its climate and energy targets for 2020. Known as the “20-20-20” targets, they set three key objectives: • A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.

• Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%.

• A 20% improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency2.

It is estimated that meeting the 20% EU renewable energy target could have a net effect of creating around 417,000 additional jobs, whilst achieving the 20% energy efficiency improvement by 2020 is forecast to boost net employment by around 400,000 jobs3.

2.1.2 Targeting homes Buildings are a target for carbon emissions reduction targets because they are a prime source of carbon dioxide (CO2) the major greenhouse gas (GHG) responsible for climate change and the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. In 2006, 77% per cent of total CO2 emissions in buildings across the EU-154 were generated by homes while 23% were generated by commercial buildings5. In 2011, emissions of CO2 from residential buildings accounted for 8.9% of Europe’s total GHG emissions6. These figures may differ from country to country depending on the fuel and method used for the production of energy7.

In 2010 the total number of homes in the EU-27 was around 204 million: • • • • • •

19.6 % in Germany 13.2 % in Italy 13.2 % in France 12.3 % in UK 8.2 % in Spain 6.5 % in Poland

• 3.6 % in the Netherlands

1

Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy#Consumption

2

European Commission, Climate Action http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.

3

European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

4

The number of member countries in the European Union prior to the accession of ten candidate countries on 1 May 2004.

The EU15 comprised: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Source: OECD http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6805

5

Petersdorff, Carsten, Thomas Boermans, and Jochen Harnisch. Mitigation of CO₂ emissions from the EU-15 building stock.

Beyond the EU directive on the energy performance of buildings (9 pp). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 13.5 (2006): 350-358.

6

EEA. Annual European Community greenhouse inventory 1990-2011 and inventory report 2013, EEA technical report no. 8, Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat, Luxembourg: European Environment Agency, 2013

7

Ding, Y. D. J. G., et al. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Vol. 881.

10 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND The remaining 23.4 % of total homes are spread among the remaining European countries8.

Diagram 2 compares the number of dwellings with the total amount of energy consumed by households across the EU.

Diagram 2: Final energy consumption and number of dwellings in EU-27 countries As diagram 2 shows, the countries with the highest final energy consumption in residential buildings (in million tonnes of oil equivalent or Mtoe) are: • Germany (60.3 Mtoe) • France (41.5 Mtoe) • UK (40.6 Mtoe) • Italy (27.9 Mtoe) • Poland (18.2 Mtoe) • Spain (15.2 Mtoe) • The Netherlands (9.2 Mtoe) The countries with the highest energy consumption are those with the largest numbers of homes.9 Using the year 2000 as a baseline, it is estimated that Europe’s total residential building stock will increase by 2.5 times by 206010. Although new homes are generally built to much higher energy performance standards, ways still need to be found to significantly reduce emissions produced by existing buildings – in particular, homes. Without addressing the existing housing stock, this projection has alarming implications for meeting future carbon reduction targets.

8

Dol, Kees, and Marietta Haffner. Housing statistics in the European Union 2010. Delft University of Technology (2010).

9

Uihlein, Andreas, and Peter Eder. Policy options towards an energy efficient residential building stock in the EU-27. Energy and Buildings 42.6 (2010): 791-798.

10 Ibid

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 11

2. BACKGROUND 2.1.3 Targeting homeowners Tenure is crucial for retrofit as it greatly influences the ability to invest in energy improvements.

Homeowners are a key target group as they not only have a greater ability to implement retrofit measures but they also comprise the largest tenure group across Europe. In 2012, 70.6% of people across Europe lived in an owner-occupied home. Greece has one of the highest owner-occupier rates in Europe, with 75.9% of the population owning (either outright or with a mortgage) their home11. In Cyprus the proportion of owner-occupiers is 73.3%. Of the three countries the rate is lowest in the UK at 66.7%, which is also lower than the European average12.

However, the owner-occupier rates of all three nations are around the European average, highlighting the potential transferability of lessons from this project to other EU countries.

2.1.4 The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive A key instrument for improving the energy performance of buildings is building energy codes or regulations. These form the main mechanism through which energy-related requirements are incorporated into the design of new buildings, and potentially also the retrofit of a building.

The primary European policy driver for improving the energy efficiency of buildings is the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)13. First published in 2002, the Directive’s main aim is to encourage the improvement of the energy performance of buildings across the EU through cost-effective measures. It requires: • A common methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings.

• Minimum standards on the energy performance of new buildings and existing buildings that are subject to major renovation.

• Systems for the energy certification of existing and new buildings and – for public buildings – prominent display of this certification and other relevant information. Certificates must be less than five years old.

• Regular inspection of boilers and central air-conditioning systems in buildings and an assessment of heating installations in which the boilers are more than 15 years old.14 • That when a building or building unit is offered for sale or for rent, the EPC must be included in advertisements in commercial media.

• That when buildings or building units are constructed, sold or rented out, the certificate is shown and then transferred to the new tenant or prospective buyer.15 Although some Member States had minimum requirements for the thermal performance of building envelopes, the EPBD is the first major attempt to introduce a general framework for establishing building energy code requirements based on a “whole building” approach.

11 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics 12 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics#Database 13 2002/91/EC (revised in 2010 -2010/31/EU) 14 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091 15 European Commission legislation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

12 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND Furthermore, the re-cast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) stipulates that from 2019 onwards ‘all the new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings’ (nZEB) and by the end of 2020 ‘all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings’.16 Widespread adoption and application of stricter building codes has huge potential for achieving significant carbon reductions. In Denmark, three quarters of the building stock was built before 1979, when national building codes were introduced. A Danish study produced a series of energy saving measures with a financial methodology for assessing them and applied them to two typical buildings. The results identified potential for a reduction in space heating of around 80% over 45 years (until 2050)17. If applied to the wider building stock, this could result in considerable energy and carbon savings.

Similarly, in Greece around three quarters of the existing building stock was also built before 1979. This proportion has little or no insulation and consequently, comprises the most poorly performing buildings. During the first decade of the implementation of the Greek Buildings Thermal Insulation Regulation (GBTIR) in the 1980s, most buildings were insufficiently insulated due to a range of factors including poor building practices, little experience of insulating correctly, a shortage of materials and higher costs. The situation improved during the 1990s; however, buildings constructed during this decade can only be considered as partially insulated.

Buildings constructed after 2000 are well insulated according to the requirements of GBTIR. These buildings have an average yearly energy consumption of 260 kWh per square metre, 65% of which is for space heating21.

EU Member States are required to put the necessary measures in place to ensure that when buildings undergo major renovation, the energy performance of the building (or the renovated part) meets minimum energy performance requirements aligned to the EPBD where feasible18.

When a significant part of a building (or a technology affecting the energy performance of the building) is retrofitted or replaced, Member States have to ensure the energy performance of the building element meets minimum energy performance requirements where technically, functionally and economically possible.

The 2010 update to the EPBD included an emphasis on the long term energy consumption of buildings. Each European Member State is tasked with defining the term ‘major renovation’.

It can be defined either in terms of a percentage of the building envelope or in terms of the building’s value.

2.1.5 Energy Performance Certificates Article 4 of the EPBD requires that Member States ensure that an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) is made available to the owner or prospective tenant when a building is built, sold or rented out. The main purpose of the EPC is to provide useful information on the cumulative energy performance of the building. The ratings of buildings are based on calculated consumption (the asset rating) of primary energy use per year (kWh/m²/year) for typical use

16 Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE): http://www.bpie.eu/nearly_zero.html#.VCp3EE0tDIU 17 Tommerup, Henrik, and Svend Svendsen. Energy savings in Danish residential building stock. Energy and Buildings 38.6 (2006): 618-626.

18 European Commission http://www.epbd-ca.eu/

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 13

2. BACKGROUND of the building and according to the building type. The energy label classifies the buildings on an efficiency scale ranging from A (high energy efficiency) to G (poor efficiency). The EPC also provides information about the estimated CO₂ emissions resulting from the calculated energy consumption, and the calculated energy that comes from renewable sources. The EPC has to be accompanied by the recommendations report, which includes a list of suggested measures and their costs.19

2.2 Wider benefits of home energy improvements 2.2.1 Tackling fuel poverty Scaling up levels of domestic retrofit also offers the opportunity to improve the condition of the existing housing stock. Living in cold, damp conditions can pose health problems for the frail and vulnerable, especially during the winter period. In general, more people die in the winter than the summer. Called ‘excess winter mortality’, this phenomenon is common across countries – even those with hot summer temperatures – and can range from 5% to 30% additional deaths over the winter period20. A 2003 study found that excess winter mortality was highest in southern Europe, Ireland and the UK, with Scandinavia and other northern European countries relatively unaffected.21 Although different factors contribute to excess winter mortality rates, the same study found that “…available data on cross country thermal efficiency standards in housing indicate that those countries with the poorest housing (Portugal, Greece, Ireland, the UK) demonstrate the highest excess winter mortality.”22 The author claims that “If the ability of a population to protect themselves from cold spells is a key factor in such pronounced seasonality in Southern and Western Europe…then it would seem that improving the thermal standards of housing could be an effective preventative intervention in curbing excess deaths.”23 Using retrofit to address fuel poverty offers the opportunity to improve living conditions for people on low incomes (who are increasingly likely to live in poor quality housing) and increase the efficiency of the poorest quality housing stock, thereby saving carbon emissions. Certain groups are also more vulnerable to the health impacts of fuel poverty, so improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock also offers opportunities to reduce rates of excess winter mortality and healthcare costs.

A 2007 study investigated the relationship between the energy performance and the socioeconomic characteristics of homes using a sample of about 1,110 households across the Athens city-region. The study found that when oil prices rose, this sparked an increase in the number of

19 http://www.epbd-ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-2011/Cyprus.pdf 20 Healy J D (2003), ‘Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors’, J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57 :784–789 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732295/pdf/v057p00784.pdf 21 Cyprus was not part of this study. Healy J D (2003), ‘Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors’, J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57 :784–789 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732295/pdf/ v057p00784.pdf 22 Healy J D (2003), ‘Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors’, J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57 :784–789 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732295/pdf/v057p00784.pdf 23 Ibid

14 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND households in fuel poverty. Not surprisingly, it also found that the income of the occupants was instrumental to the quality of the dwellings, their thermal efficiency and energy consumption and that low income families were more likely to live in old, poor quality buildings24.

However, improving the energy efficiency of the homes of households at risk of or in fuel poverty may not necessarily result in lower overall energy consumption. This is because benefits of increased efficiency include the ability to afford to heat the home to a more comfortable level.

Therefore those in fuel poverty may benefit in non-financial ways from a more energy efficient home – that is, they can keep themselves warmer, so energy consumption may not reduce.

There are other, potential ‘rebound’ effects that mean that the complete expected reduction in consumption from energy efficiency is not always realised in practice25.

2.2.2 Local employment Any increase in retrofit activity among homeowners presents business opportunities for the trades involved with retrofit, with the potential to benefit the many small building trades companies that are primarily active at local level, and which are often the first port of call for homeowners wishing to improve their properties. A 2010 study of the potential impacts of a large scale, ‘deep’26 retrofit programme on employment in Hungary showed that up to 131,000 new jobs could be created by 202027.

However, the sometimes complex nature of sustainable energy retrofit can also work against trades and micro businesses. Existing homes draw on a wide range of technologies and measures, requiring different areas of expertise, and SMEs may need to have specific accreditations to install these, which require time and money to obtain. Smaller firms also need to market their services to the public which – in a crowded marketplace with large companies offering ‘one stop shop’ retrofit services – also requires additional resource.

On a practical level, retrofit becomes more complex when multiple technologies and trades are involved. This can be a challenge for both the installer and the homeowner. However, there is scope for trades to work together effectively. A 2011 study on the Flemish construction sector, found that despite acknowledged gaps in knowledge trades expressed a willingness to collaborate, providing a suitable platform could be developed for this purpose28.

Countdown to Low Carbon Homes aimed to develop a replicable delivery model for retrofit, in which small businesses and trades play a key role, including seeking ways to link home owners to local businesses to install measures, and facilitate exchange of knowledge and experience of products, training and achieving accreditations.

24 Santamouris, M., et al. On the relation between the energy and social characteristics of the residential sector. Energy and Buildings 39.8 (2007): 893-905.

25 ‘The Rebound Effect – An Assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy’. UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) (2007) 26 Refers to retrofits that have the potential to save 75 – 90% of heating and cooling energy consumption of a building 27 ‘Employment Impacts of a Large-Scale Deep Building Energy Retrofit Programme in Hungary’, Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy – Central European University and European Climate Foundation (2010) http://3csep.ceu.hu/sites/ default/files/field_attachment/project/node-6234/englishexecutivesummary.pdf 28 Cre et al: ‘Developing an integrated offer for sustainable renovations’ (2011)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 15

2. BACKGROUND 2.3 Drivers and barriers In addition to directives, regulations, building codes and incentives encouraging households to improve the energy performance of their homes, homeowners themselves also need to be willing and able to undertake such improvements. Regardless of country, large scale retrofit depends on human factors, which on a basic level include: • Recognising that improvements are actually needed.

• Knowledge and understanding of what improvements are required.

• Ability and willingness to invest in such improvements.

• Capacity to deal with any short term upheaval and change while the work is being done.

A growing body of literature examines why households choose to invest in energy efficiency improvements. The studies are too numerous to cover in detail here, but they encompass a wide variety of factors. The following list is not exhaustive but includes some of the most commonly cited factors.

Retrofit is more likely to happen – whether to a home or a non-domestic building – if the infrastructure or ’choice architecture’ is in place to do it. Retrofit relies on a few core elements: • Impartial energy advice to: ˚˚ identify relevant measures for each situation ˚˚ quantify potential savings to set against the initial cost of works and impact on energy performance rating ˚˚ help and encourage homeowners through the steps to getting works done ˚˚ support the homeowner’s understanding of how their behaviour can be adapted to maximise the benefits of improvements.

• Access to trades and installers capable of carrying out the work.

• Access to finance for the cost of carrying out works.

Motivation is described as “the reason for a behaviour or a strong internal stimulus around which behaviour is organised.”29 Motives can be hidden, visible, unconscious or conscious.

Three strands of motivation have been identified; care for one’s own needs, care for the needs of others and care for the needs of the non-human world30. People tend to value their own needs above those of others and the environment31. This may help to explain why improving comfort is a reason often cited for making energy improvements. A survey for the UK’s network of Energy Efficiency Advice Centres found that the main reasons for installing energy efficiency measures were to save money and increase comfort32.

29 Wilkie W L (1990), ‘Consumer Behavior’ 2nd edition, quoted by Agyeman J and Kollmuss A (2002) 30 Stern, P.S., Dietz, T. & Karlof, L. (1993) Values orientation, gender, and environmental concern, Environment and Behavior, 25(3), pp. 322–348.

31 This is not always the case though; people have varying levels of care for others and the environment.

32 ‘Improving the energy performance of UK households. Results from surveys of consumer adoption and use of low and zero carbon technologies’. Caird, Roy and Herring (2008). The British Social Attitudes Survey (2009) found that people’s main reason for making energy efficiency improvements to their homes was financial with 71% saying they would consider doing this to reduce their energy bills. Ibid.

16 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND However, at a wider level, a recent study by the Royal Society of Arts in the UK on public attitudes towards climate change found that while two thirds of the UK population accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, they ‘deny’ some or all of the feelings, responsibility and agency required to deal with it. One crucial motivation for retrofit – taking personal responsibility for the carbon footprint of one’s home and acting to reduce it – is relatively weak among the wider public. The study argues that part of the problem lies in the ‘mis-framing’ of climate change as an external, primarily environmental issue when in fact it runs through every aspect of human life and – if allowed to escalate at current levels – will have multiple negative impacts for society. Interestingly, just over a third of respondents (36%) said they would do more to tackle climate change if they knew how. The authors identify this segment of the population as an audience receptive to tangible, practical ways to take responsibility for and reduce their carbon emissions. 33 A household will not invest in energy improvements if it does not perceive a need for them.

In the 2011 national survey of public attitudes to housing, 37% of UK owner occupiers said they did not think anything needed to be done on their home to make it more energy efficient34.

Obviously this cannot be verified and no further questions were asked requiring the respondents to qualify their response.

A 2013 study found that certain ‘background’ conditions can help to explain why households start considering retrofit. They include: competing pressures on space in the home and how it is used, a misalignment of how they envisage their home compared to how it actually is, whether the household is receptive to ideas on changing their home, if anyone in the household has physical needs (or is expected to in the future) which need to be accommodated, and lastly whether households are aware of a need to adapt the physical arrangement or material surroundings of their homes35.

Knowledge and understanding of, and trust in, retrofit Lack of understanding is an obstacle to retrofit; in the same survey 14% of UK owner occupiers surveyed said the main reason they did not consider it was because they did not know enough about it. Lack of trust in the effectiveness of energy efficiency improvements is another factor with 5% expressing scepticism in the efficacy of such changes36.

33 Rowson (2013) Royal Society of Arts, ‘A New Agenda on Climate Change; facing up to stealth denial and winding down on fossil fuels’ 34 ‘Public attitudes to housing in England’ 2011 – Department of Communities and Local Government. Report is based in module of British Social Attitudes Survey commissioned in 2009. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ publicattitudeshousing 35 ‘Understanding Homeowners’ Renovations Decisions: Findings of the VERD Project’ – Wilson, Chryssochoidis and Pettifor (2013) 36 ‘Public attitudes to housing in England’ 2011 – Department of Communities and Local Government. Report is based in module of British Social Attitudes Survey commissioned in 2009. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ publicattitudeshousing

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 17

2. BACKGROUND Awareness of and attitude to financial implications of making home energy improvements A 2009 UK survey found that 74% of owner occupiers would be willing to make their home more energy efficient in order to bring down their energy bills37. However the same survey found that the upfront cost of improvements was the main barrier with 35% of respondents citing this as the biggest obstacle.

The same survey found that households on lower incomes are less likely to consider making energy efficiency improvements compared to households on higher incomes. Only 58% of those in the lowest income quartile38 said they would consider such improvements, while 71% of those in the second lowest quartile, 78% of those in the second highest quartile and 86% of those in the highest quartile39 would consider investing in improvements. This is an issue because those on lower incomes are more likely to live in poorer quality housing and be at greater risk of fuel poverty. These findings were corroborated by a 2014 German study which found that homeowners who can afford energy efficiency improvements, for whom it is financially profitable and for whom there is a favourable opportunity to make them, are more likely to invest in such improvements40.

Payback times on energy efficiency investments play a major role. Other research indicates that if choosing between an item that is energy efficient and one that is not, the person will only opt for the energy efficient item if it pays back in a short time41. Economic incentives have helped to boost take up of renewables, because they helped to shorten payback times.

A 2006 survey found that when deciding whether to install home energy efficiency measures, perceived cost significantly outweighed expected energy savings – in particular with insulation, despite the fact that insulation is the energy reduction measure that can generally deliver the biggest energy savings42. The lack of awareness of the potential for energy savings is a clear barrier, and the lack of specific information as regards the individual home enabling the homeowner to assess savings against costs – exacerbated by the fact that deep retrofit costs can be very high.

Even if provided with this information, the assumption that people behave in a financially rational way (the ‘rational choice’ model43) is not always borne out by reality. The phenomenon known as ‘hyperbolic discounting’44 illustrates this. The term describes the way that people discount future gains and are more likely to opt for a small reward today over potentially,

37 Ibid 38 Yearly income of £12,000 or less.

39 Yearly income of £44,401 and above.

40 Achtnicht,M.,Madlener,R., Factors influencing German house owners preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.006i 41 Kollmuss A and Ageyman J (2002) ‘Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro environmental behaviour?’ Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8, No. 3 42 Policies for energy efficiency in the UK’. Report prepared for DEFRA by Oxera Consulting. 2006 43 This is based on three assumptions: 1) decisions are made in a stable state and our preferences are fixed; 2) individuals have access to all the relevant information bearing on the decision; and 3) they are fully able to process this information in order to reach the optimal (utility maximising) decision. Adapted from Darnton A (2008) ‘Reference Report: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses’ http://communitypathways.org.uk/files/docs/biblio/hmt_gsru_Bchange_refreport_ad0708.pdf 44 Ibid

18 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND bigger rewards in the future45. The lower the person’s income, the more likely they are to opt for a reward now over larger, long-term gains. In terms of retrofit, this explains why the upfront cost of installing energy efficiency measures deters many people despite the fact that such measures are likely to accrue over a long period of time and outweigh the initial outlay46.

The perspective of homeowners and their attitude to investing in their home is also affected by the time that they expect to live there – in simple terms if the time it takes to recover the cost of investment in energy saving is longer than the occupant expects to stay there, the economic arguments will tend to be a barrier rather than an incentive to make improvements. That is, unless there is a level of confidence that the improvements will be reflected in the value of the home. This equation may however be re-balanced by the addition of further financial incentives such as tax credits.

Trust is also a barrier with 8% of owner occupiers questioned saying they didn’t “trust the people selling me these improvements”. The wording indicates scepticism towards what is perceived as commercially driven improvement ‘advice’. A 2014 German study found that energy improvement measures recommended by an independent energy adviser have a greater likelihood of being adopted47. It also found that energy advice and audits can address information gaps and issues with uncertainty, which the respondents had frequently cited as crucial barriers to retrofit48. Other barriers include lack of trustworthy information or knowledge of reliable brands (for renewable technologies)49.

Attitudes and values shape most of our intrinsic motivation. This begs the question of what shapes our values – our family, culture, society? Life experiences play a part, and one Norwegian study found that factors including childhood experiences in nature, role models, family values and first-hand experience of environmental destruction, all help to shape how we relate to and value the environment50. However, they are often not an accurate indicator of behaviour due to the ‘value-action gap’; the difference between what people say and what they actually do in practice51.

One reason why attitudes often do not correlate to behaviours – the ‘action value gap’ – is because people will generally opt for pro-environmental behaviours that are the least costly, quickest and easiest to carry out52. Cost is not purely financial; it may be cost in terms of time,

45 ‘Behaviour change and energy use’ Cabinet Office (2011) http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/behaviour-changeand-energy-use 46 Ibid 47 Achtnicht,M.,Madlener,R., Factors influencing German house owners preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.006i 48 Achtnicht,M.,Madlener,R., Factors influencing German house owners preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.006i 49 SEA/RENUE study (2005) for the Department of Trade and Industry quoted in ‘Improving the energy performance of UK households. Results from surveys of consumer adoption and use of low and zero carbon technologies’. Caird, Roy and Herring (2008) 50 Chawla L (1999) ‘Life paths into effective environmental action’, the Journal of Environmental Education 31(1) 15-26 51 Blake J (1999) ‘Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience’. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278 52 Diekmann A and Priesendoerfer P (1992) ‘Persoenliches Umweltverhalten: Die Diskrepanz zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit’ Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 44 226-251. Quoted by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 19

2. BACKGROUND upheaval and effort. Severn Wye’s Target 2050 project found in its retrofit work with households that the measures that deliver the most benefit are not necessarily the same as the measures that are installed, even when the householder has received detailed advice and has considered the ‘payback period’53. The project found that potential disruption levels also play an important part in what retrofit measures people opt for.

Locus of control describes a person’s perception of whether they have any ability to bring about change through their behaviour54. People with a strong internal locus of control believe they have the ability to bring about change through their actions. Those with a strong external locus of control believe that although their actions matter, change can only really be catalysed by the actions of those more powerful than them such as multinational corporations and the government. People with a strong external locus of control are less likely to make personal sacrifices to minimise their environmental impact.

Responsibility and priorities which are influenced by our values, attitudes and locus of control.

People prioritise their responsibilities; for most their primary responsibility is for their wellbeing and that of their families. If environmentally positive behaviours chime with personal priorities (such as buying organic food for health reasons), this increases the motivation to do them. If making sustainable energy improvements to one’s home brings down energy bills and improves the quality and comfort of the home, people are more likely to make them – if they have the means to do this.

2.4 Financing home energy improvements Externally the key factor is the availability of finance, the right amount, at the right time and on the right terms. Looking at this from the perspective of the background and current situation in Europe, it is possible to set out a handful of broad categories to describe schemes or ‘products’ for financing retrofit of existing homes, within each of which there is nevertheless considerable variation.

There can be significant interaction and overlap between the different approaches, and further investigation indicates that many of the more developed programmes in themselves feature a mix of products to cover different tenures, household incomes and characteristics, and age or built form of housing. Within the mix can be found national, regional and local programmes, and public, private and third sector provision. This might in practice form a comprehensive approach within any one region or country, but can also be seen as presenting a confusing mix of policies and interactions. A stop-start approach , where sources of capital dry up or end due to policy changes, rather than because the ‘job is done’, tend to cause instability in the market and confusion and mistrust amongst potential recipients. A typical problem is where a measure with a reasonable rate of return has been grant aided previously, and loan terms look unfavourable by comparison.

From the strategic perspective, particular challenges are in sourcing sufficient finance to achieve deep retrofit at scale.

53 ‘Target 2050 – future proofing homes in Stroud District and beyond’. (2011) Severn Wye Energy Agency 54 Newhouse N (1991) ‘Implications of attitude and behaviour research for environmental conservation’, Journal of Environmental Education 22(1) 26-32. Quoted by Kolmuss and Agyeman (2002)

20 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND The most significant divisions in terms of target group appear to be: • Whether owner occupied or rented. Owner occupied homes do not face the landlordtenant conflict where the tenant benefits from the return of the investment made by the landlord.

• Whether single or multi-family homes (more typically thought of as ‘houses’ or ‘blocks of flats’ in the UK). A variation on this is the two family home arrangement found in some countries – an individual house purpose-built as two independent units. The legal system can make it very difficult in case of multi-family homes which might prevent refurbishments.

Achieving 100% agreement between homes in a multi-family block can be challenging. There are legal systems in countries where only 50% +1 of homeowners need to be in favour of the refurbishment. However, those who were against it might challenge the implementation.

• Household economic status either in terms of income and ability to make repayments, or eligibility for public sector support. Those who would benefit from the energy cost savings the most are often the ones who cannot afford it.

• The mortgage value of the home against which lenders can provide financing. There are certain types of properties which are available only for cash buyers and against which a mortgage cannot be taken out. They include pre-fabricated buildings built after 1945 originally constructed to provide temporary accommodation for families which then were not demolished and are still used today, or homes that cannot be insured, for example homes at risk of flooding. The mortgage value is calculated by the lender and usually represents the lowest possible market value of the house in case of emergency sale were the bank to repossess it.

Broad categories of types of financial support are: • Grants: typically tailored to fit the needs of different income groups and/or set at levels designed to incentivise matching private investment.

• Loans or advances: which may take the form of personal loans, mortgages or mortgage extensions, or advances – for example against savings in fuel bills.

There is a very wide range, from a mortgage right through to microcredit (avoiding the administrative cost and bureaucracy of conventional loans). Critical issues affecting who can use these and what they can use them for in practice include the costs to the ultimate beneficiary (for example for set-up, administration, interest applied), maxima and duration of loan. On the finance provider side, securitisation and guarantees are highlighted.

The challenge is to develop and sustain a product which is attractive to both lenders and borrowers and covers the needs of deep retrofit, not just the quick return measures.

However, financing deep retrofit measures with long payback times can be difficult for private lenders as they cannot raise long term financing from the capital market to match the payback time, or the cost of funding becomes too expensive.

• Tax Credits: for example against income tax, local or property taxes, value added tax (VAT)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 21

2. BACKGROUND • Third party finance/energy performance contract: where a third party provides the capital finance for an energy performance improvement and takes (all or part of) the resulting income stream as repayment; for example through energy savings or payments for (sale of supply from) on-site generation. Third party finance is not common in the housing market, mainly because the end-users are large number of small entities, therefore spreading the energy cost savings.

• Feed in tariffs: the provision of guaranteed feed in tariffs for on-site renewable energy generation, or the provision of a similar payment for renewable heat (as in the UK Renewable Heat Incentive). Whether financed through the public purse or the fuel suppliers themselves, this offers an income stream to the investor and so features as a specific financial product.

The most commonly used policies within the EU to encourage private sector investment in energy efficiency refurbishments are preferential loans where the government subsidises the interest rate (this can be done in various ways) and credit risk guarantees where a loan guarantee fund is available to share the risk of energy efficient investments with the investor.

The Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund (RRGF) is an example of the credit risk guarantee approach.

There are many examples of soft loans with subsidised interest rates, such as the German CO₂-Building Rehabilitation Programme, administered by KfW (KfW Bankengruppe).

Globally, Germany is one of the few countries with a large scale, long term energy efficiency refurbishment programme for housing. The KfW programme is the government’s flagship policy and a nationally recognised brand. KfW issues loans below market rates and in some cases grants are also provided, with the programme currently providing loans of up to €75,000 per property. The policy has evolved over time and until 2011 the programme was funded 100% from federal sources. KfW also offers a reduction of the loan repayment if the project meets the criteria promoting complex measures with higher savings – so incentivising a more ambitious approach by home and building owners, to achieve deeper carbon and energy savings.

There are fewer examples of guarantee schemes. RRGF has been successfully implemented in Hungary and in various other new member states including Estonia (where the credit risk guarantee is coupled with an interest rate subsidy).

Key elements of the RRGF are: • 0 – 10% own equity from homeowner, 90 – 100% loan from the bank.

• 5 – 20% portfolio guarantee to mitigate risk.

• Not based on mortgage or personal income, relies on energy cost saving potential.

• Available for town houses and blocks of flats.

• Loan is attached to the property and paid through the maintenance charges, but not the energy bill.

• Low cost of borrowing.

• Simple loan application forms.

• 5-10 days‘ decision time on loan eligibility.

22 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND There are important lessons to learn from these and similar programmes. Large scale and long term energy efficiency programmes rely heavily on public funding. The changing policy environment can be confusing and prevent the market from developing schemes leveraging available subsidies. Available funding schemes usually do not provide 100% of the funding required for the refurbishment. Households tend to rely on the cheapest available funding and are reluctant to raise additional finance from more expensive sources in order to undertake whole-house refurbishments. Easy access to funding is important for end-users.

Complicated and long application procedures can deter homeowners from applying for funding. Furthermore, traditional finance schemes such as personal loans and mortgage loans are not always suitable for energy efficiency refurbishments. This means high street banks are essentially locked out of that market, unless they develop specific finance products, which can ideally be attached to public subsidies and programmes.

2.5 Energy user behaviour In 2010, households across Europe generated 25% of energy related greenhouse gas emissions.

They also consumed nearly 13% more energy than 20 years ago55. These high emissions are partly a consequence of old and inefficient building stock and ever increasing numbers of households. Although building design and energy efficiency standards have risen, ‘People use energy, not buildings’ (Janda, 2009)56. To a large extent, a building’s energy performance depends on the behaviour of its inhabitants: “Housing occupants can use three or more times as much energy for heating as their neighbour, while living in exactly the same type of home”57.

Often, energy use in the home is invisible and many energy consuming behaviours are based on habit and routine. Using appliances, switching on lights and heating the home is often carried out without considering where the energy comes from or what the environmental consequences are. These behaviours are driven by a multitude of factors making them challenging to change.

Energy behaviour around the home is partly driven by the building’s characteristics and the appliances within it. It is also influenced by a range of internal and external factors, such as beliefs, values and attitudes, other people’s behaviours, the cultural settings we live in, and various economic incentives and constraints.

The performance of residential buildings in relation to user behaviour is an area that in relative terms is poorly understood. The field known as Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) has emerged in response to this knowledge gap. There are practical reasons for this knowledge gap: the different typologies of housing, the demographic range of inhabitants, the invasive nature of measuring and monitoring how a home is used, and the ‘usability’ of the home – that is, how the design and layout of the home and its energy systems lend themselves to energy efficient behaviour58.

55 European Environment Agency – http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/can-we-save-energy-by 56 Janda K B (2009) ‘Buildings don’t use energy, people do’, Proceedings of the of the 26th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA), pp 9-14 57 Gram-Hanssen K (2010) ‘Residential heat comfort practices; understanding users’. Building Research & Information 38(2), p 175186.

58 Stevenson F and Leaman A, ‘Evaluating housing performance in relation to human behaviour: new challenges’, Building Research and Information (2010), 378(5), 437-441

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 23

2. BACKGROUND By working with a small number of households, this project strives to understand the common issues that arise in relation to energy saving behaviour around the home and attempt to address them through a programme of support, information and advice.

Breaking ‘old habits’ and creating ‘moments of change’ Previous behaviours play a significant role in day to day practices, including how energy is used around the home. Often, energy is used in the home unconsciously; it is a by-product of doing other things and tends not to be considered ‘in itself’. Other variables including the habits of other members of the household, their personalities and energy use patterns, all impact on a home’s overall energy use.

A 2013 study found that so-called ‘moments of change’ are when a household is much more likely to adopt new practices (and form new habits). These moments of change may be around moving house, having a new kitchen fitted or when a member of the household leaves or someone else moves in. Events like these offer valuable opportunities to introduce more sustainable behaviours59. This could be a ‘one-off’ behaviour, such a investing in energy saving technologies and appliances when fitting a new kitchen, bathroom or bedroom, for example, or having an extension added to the house. It could also include introducing new repetitive behaviours such as turning appliances off after use.

Previous research suggests that providing households with feedback on their energy use can influence how they use energy around the home. Households that receive regular and effective feedback on their energy use with the costs and environmental impacts are increasingly likely to alter their behaviour, especially if their existing behaviour is not compatible with their beliefs and values. Feedback can also change people’s attitudes by making them aware of their bad habits, break them and form new, better ones. Research has found that feedback on energy consumption can encourage households to reduce their energy consumption by an average of between 5% and 15%, depending on the measure60.

2.6 The background in each country 2.6.1 Cyprus National targets Cyprus has a national target to cut overall energy consumption by 10% by 2016 on 2005 levels.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in Cyprus The 2002 European Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) came into force in Cyprus in 200661. This triggered the introduction of national regulations on the energy assessment methodology used in Cyprus, plus minimum energy performance requirements,

59 ‘Unpacking the household’, Coca Cola and the University of Exeter (2013) http://www.cokecce.com/system/file_resources/117/ CCE_REPORT_FINAL_V10_hires.pdf 60 Affecting consumer behaviour on energy demand, Final report to EDF Energy, Mari Martiskainen (2007) 61 as the ‘Law for the Regulation of the Energy Performance of Buildings of 2006-Ν.142(Ι)/2006.

24 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND and procedures for the certification of buildings and the inspection of air conditioning systems, along with details of the relevant accreditations of the trades and inspectors involved.

As most properties in Cyprus are sold at the design stage, the best entry point for enforcing the EPBD was identified as being the national building permit and control system under the Roads and Buildings Regulations Law. Cypriot Roads and Buildings Regulations require that all construction has a building permit.

Cypriot Regulation states that a building permit can only be issued subject to the provision of an energy performance certificate and other designs relating to the home. By tapping into an established existing building permit mechanism, this approach ensures that an energy performance certificate is issued for all new buildings.

Calculating the energy performance of buildings in Cyprus Similar to Greece and the UK, the assessment of buildings in Cyprus uses a rating system based on standardised design data and it calculates the annual energy use of a designed building under standardised conditions. In the Framework law Ν. 142(Ι)/2006 the Energy Service of the Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism has to prepare a software application for the calculation of the energy performance of buildings and the issuance of an energy certificate, that will be provided free of charge to all interested parties. The only recognised software application is the one developed by the Energy Service which is a calibrated version of the SBEM algorithm-software used in the United Kingdom.

The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) in Cyprus The introduction of the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) in Cyprus happened in two phases.

The first phase was the optional certification of all residential buildings – new and existing – which started in October 2009. By January 2010 certification of homes had become mandatory.

The second phase was the certification of commercial, educational, office and all other buildings not classified as residential, new and existing. Certification of these buildings became mandatory in September 2010.

An Energy Performance Certificate and accompanying recommendations report can be only issued by a ‘Qualified Expert’ (QE). Their qualifications and responsibilities are regulated by The Energy Certification Regulations of 2009.

To meet the European target of most new dwellings being low energy by 2020, in 2013 the Cypriot Government stipulated that the maximum primary energy use in the home does not exceed 100kWh per square metre per year and that at least 25% of that total must be supplied by renewable technologies62. In 2013 another regulation was introduced reducing the permitted maximum U-values of the structural elements of buildings63.

As diagram 3 shows, before January 2010 – when EPCs became mandatory – 537 were issued across Cyprus. From 2010 to 201264 10,831 performance certificates were issued.

62 Under the Amending Law N.210(I)/2012 63 KΔΠ 432/2013 64 period 01.01.10 to 31.01.12 of the enforcement of the Framework law Ν. 142(Ι)/2006

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 25

2. BACKGROUND Energy class Number of EPCs

Α 4

Β 273

C 140

D 69

Ε 35

F 14

G 2

Diagram 3: Energy Performance Certificates issued for existing buildings (pre 2010) Energy class Number of EPCs

Α 25

Β 10,497

C 188

D 70

Ε 35

F 14

G 2

Diagram 4: Total Number of Energy Performance Certificates issued between 2010 and 2012 As the tables show, making the EPC mandatory has resulted in a sharp increase in the number of EPCs issued in Cyprus. Encouragingly, most of the EPCs issued between 2010 and 2012 rated properties at ‘B’. Buildings with good and very good energy efficiency (the total of the A and B buildings in both tables) constitute around 2.5% of the total Cypriot building stock of Cyprus.

The Cypriot Housing Stock In Cyprus, 73.3% of homes are owner occupied, higher than the European average. The energy performance of the average Cypriot home is integral to the energy consumption of the entire building sector. A deeper understanding of the energy performance of the existing housing is important for policy makers, engineers and other involved parties.

The absence of comprehensive building codes in Cyprus until relatively recently has contributed to a highly varied housing stock comprising many shapes, façade structures, and using myriad building materials. This is mainly due to the fact that until 2007, building codes in Cyprus regulated only basic issues such as the distance of the dwelling from the road, building height, number of floors and the maximum useful area. In 2007, basic building controls were introduced including minimum thermal insulation levels and making the submission of designs for heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting systems a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit.

Sun shading measures and a quota in the use of glazing, especially on western-facing facades, have yet to be enforced. Therefore, aesthetic and architectural trends, the availability and costs of building materials and individual tastes have all shaped the Cypriot housing stock.

Until recently, data on the Cypriot housing stock has been patchy. In an attempt to better understand it, in 2010 a study mapped the performance of a sample of homes across Cyprus65.

It focused on the climatic zone in which the house was built, the area of the property (m2); the number of occupants per home, the year of construction, the type of house, presence of insulation on the external walls and roof, the type of main heating and hot water systems used and the use of double glazing.

65 Panayiotou et al, 2010

26 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND The study found that for the sample: • Most houses were between 51m2 and 200m2 with the mean area being 172.9m2.

• Over 60 % of the houses had 2 to 4 occupants. The average number of occupants per house was 3.3 while the average European home has 2.5 occupants.

• Around 90% of the residential building stock in Cyprus was constructed from 1971 onwards.

Between 1970 and 1980 there was a surge in home building as a result of the construction of settlements to house refugees from the Turkish invasion of 1974.

• The most common Cypriot building type is a house, comprising 68% of the total homes surveyed. Apartments are the second most common housing type, comprising 44% of the home surveyed.

• 80% of the dwellings surveyed did not have solid wall or loft insulation.

• The largest proportion of the homes surveyed (37%) had oil fired boilers as their primary heating system. The second most common heating system among the sample was split use air conditioning units used for heating and cooling. These types of units cannot be considered as a central system because they comprise individual units which are used on a room-by-room basis.

The study also found that as a result of the economic crisis and the subsequent rise in the price of heating oil, the majority of households with oil based central heating systems said they did not use them, and preferred to use room specific heating such as wood burning stoves, split air conditioning units and electric heaters.

The construction sector in Cyprus The construction and the real estate sector play a significant part in the Cypriot economy, contributing 18.3% to the national GDP and employing 20.5% of the labour force66. Residential building accounts for about 55% of the total output of the construction sector, non-residential building accounts for 28% and civil engineering infrastructure projects (mainly funded by the public sector) account for 17%67. By the end of 2007 there were 357,870 homes, of which 283,000 were permanently occupied. 63.3% of those were in urban areas.

The on-going economic crisis had a major impact on the construction industry in Cyprus.

During the first quarter of 2014 the rate at which new buildings were being constructed fell by 12.6% on the equivalent period in 2013. Significantly, over 2013 the rate of new build dropped by 27.6% compared to 2012. Compared to 2011, the rate of construction of new homes fell by 27.7% in 2012 compared to 2011, while in 2013 25.5% fewer new building permits were issued.

66 Statistics of constructions and housing, Statistical Service, Republic of Cyprus (2006) 67 Ibid

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 27

2. BACKGROUND National initiatives During 2013 and 2014 the Cypriot Government unveiled several subsidy schemes offering financial support for low income households to install photovoltaic systems. Building on these initiatives, in early 2014 the Cypriot government started consulting all market actors and stakeholders about a new scheme to support energy renovations. Called “I renovate – I save energy”, the scheme aims to improve the energy efficiency of housing, public and commercial buildings through grant aid. The scheme is funded by the Republic of Cyprus, through the Fund for Renewable Energy Sources (RES) and Energy Efficiency (EXE), and the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union the Operational Programme “Sustainable Development and Competitiveness”.

Local initiatives Cyprus Energy Agency has a track record in tackling fuel poverty through retrofit. The ELIHMed68 project (April 2011 to March 2014) aimed to improve the energy performance of low income housing in the Mediterranean region by working with a pilot group of 25 Cypriot homes. This project also aimed to improve the thermal comfort of the homes and where possible, to improve them through the installation of measures including insulation for water pipes and tanks.

Solar thermal Cyprus leads the world in terms of its market penetration of solar thermal installations69.

In the sample of homes surveyed, just over 82% of Cypriot homes had solar thermal systems, a proportion close to the estimated 90% coverage of houses with such systems nationally.

This high proportion is down to favourable weather conditions, a pioneering solar thermal industry and the co-ordinated efforts of relevant stakeholders. This result is confirmed by another study that has found that Cyprus has the largest mWhth per 1000 inhabitants70.

68 Acronym for ‘Energy efficiency in low income housing in the Mediterranean’: http://www.elih-med.eu/Layout/elih-med/ 69 Maxoulis, C.N. Kalogirou, S.A. Cyprus energy policy: the road to the 2006 World Renewable Energy Congress Trophy, Renew.

Energy 33 (2008) 355–365.

70 Weiss, W., Bergmann, I., Faninger, G. Solar heat worldwide, markets and contribution to the energy supply 2004, in: IEA Solar Heating & Cooling Programme, March 2006, 2006.

28 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND 2.6.2 Greece National targets Greece is bound to the EU energy target of reducing GHG emissions by 20% on 1990 levels.

According to the EU effort sharing targets for 2013 – 2020, Greece is committed to reduce CO₂ emissions to 4% below 2005 levels, being 134.9 Mt CO₂ eq. According to the national projections, with currently adopted measures a value of 105 Mt CO₂ eq. is expected by 2020, while by implementing additional measures it can be further reduced to 103 Mt CO₂ eq. This corresponds to reductions in all sectors, either covered by the Emissions Trading System (ETS) or not, the latter category including all building types. Adopted measures include promoting natural gas for heating and domestic hot water, promoting renewable energy sources (RES), plus measures for improving energy efficiency in industry, buildings, transport, waste and agriculture.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in Greece The European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is implemented in Greece under the national law N.3661/08; “Measures for the reduction of energy consumption in buildings and other provisions”. This law was first enacted in 2010 and has been accompanied by the publication of the new “Regulation on the Energy Assessment of Buildings—KENAK”, which outlines the approach in accordance with European standards.

The Energy Performance Certificate in Greece In Greece, EPCs must be produced for: new buildings, existing buildings that undergo major renovations and current buildings with a floor area exceeding 50m² (when they are sold, rented or the ownership is transferred to another party). An electronic database was established by the Ministry for Environment, Energy and Climatic Change (YPEKA) to collect the results from the building energy audits and EPCs along with the reports from boiler inspections, heating installations and air-conditioning systems71.

According to Greek EPBD implementation, a building is ranked in one of nine classes ranging from A+ (highest performance) to G (lowest performance)according to the ratio (T) of its calculated primary energy consumption (asset rating) divided by the corresponding value of a reference building. The reference building has the same dimensions, orientation and operational characteristics as the actual building. The difference is that the reference building has a set of predefined thermal properties for the building envelope and predefined settings for the electrical and heating features that are in line with minimum national energy efficiency requirements.

71 And can be found here: www.buildingcert.gr

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 29

2. BACKGROUND Greece is divided into four climate zones. Each zone is defined on the number of heating degree days (HDD)72 in each: • Zone A (601–1100 HDD – in red) covers the southern parts of mainland Greece and most of the Hellenic islands).

• Zone B (1101–1600 HDD – in Green) includes metropolitan Athens.

• Zone C (1601–2200 HDD – in yellow) covers central and northern parts of mainland Greece.

• Zone D (2201–2620 HDD – in blue) covers high elevations and small segments of northern Greece.

Diagram 5: Map depicting different climate zones in Greece The Greek Housing Stock Buildings are responsible for 35% of Greek energy consumption and their contribution to the nation’s total national energy consumption has been rising over the last few decades. In 1980 buildings accounted for 22% of Greek energy consumption and in 1995 this proportion had risen to 31%. In new buildings, heating and cooling account for 89% of energy consumption, while lighting accounts for 7%. Around 70% of existing Greek buildings were constructed before 1980

72 A heating degree day is a unit of measurement designed to reflect the heat demand of a building, based on outside temperatures.

30 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND – when building regulations started to be introduced – so a programme of widespread retrofit has the potential to play a significant part in helping to lower national greenhouse gas emissions while improving the standard of the overall housing stock.

A recent study provides a snapshot of the condition of the Greek housing stock by drawing on a national database containing the EPCs of 302,398 homes surveyed up to May 201373.

The distribution of the homes’ energy ratings in the four climate zones is illustrated in diagram 7. Homes are ranked independently of the climate zones. As the diagram shows, G is the predominant energy rating; this is in line with the energy profile of the Hellenic residential building stock, which predominantly comprises old, energy inefficient buildings.

Diagram 6: Distribution of residential building energy classes in the four Greek climate zones Closer examination of the distribution of the energy ratings per construction period in all four climate zones reveals that buildings built before 1980 have the lowest energy ratings, as diagram 7 shows. This is largely due to the fact that thermal insulation regulations started to be introduced after 1980, so most buildings constructed before then were not insulated.

The majority of houses and apartment blocks built before 1980 are G rated, across all climate zones. Targeting this segment of the residential building stock for retrofit has the potential to unlock significant carbon and energy savings, besides generating employment.

Homes constructed after 2000 are predominantly C and D rated, showing that even buildings constructed in the decade before EPBD implementation in Greece, largely fail to satisfy the requirements set by KENAK. In all, these figures highlight the huge potential for improvement in the energy performance of the Greek housing stock.

73 E.G.Dascalaki, S.Kontoyiannidis, C.A.Balaras, K. G.Droutsa, Energy certification of Hellenic buildings: First findings, Energy and Buildings 65 (2013) 429–437

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 31

2. BACKGROUND

Diagram 7: Energy ratings of residential buildings per climate zone and construction period74 The energy audit procedure is the first step to defining the most suitable energy saving measures for a home. In Greece, where the building is rated lower than B, the EPC will list between one and three recommendations for improving its energy performance with the estimated energy savings, reduction in emissions and pay-back period. These recommendations are generated by the detailed energy audit process, and include the most suitable energy efficiency measures that are able to improve the building’s energy performance in a cost-effective way.

Diagram 8 shows the frequency of types of recommended measures from a study of around 10,000 Greek EPCs75. The majority of the EPCs were obligatory, in that they were required to buy or sell an existing dwelling. In all these cases it is impossible to confirm the level of take up of these measures.

Diagram 8: Frequency of appearance of categories of recommended measures in obligatory EPCs

74 E.G.Dascalaki, S.Kontoyiannidis, C.A.Balaras, K. G.Droutsa, Energy certification of Hellenic buildings: First findings, Energy and Buildings 65 (2013) 429–437 75

J.Gelegenis, D.Diakoulaki, H.Lampropoulou, G.Giannakidis, M.Samarakoua, N.Plytas, Perspectives of energy efficient technologies penetration in the Greek domestic sector, through the analysis of Energy Performance Certificates, Energy Policy 67 (2014) 56–67.

32 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND Energy security also plays a big part in Greek efforts to reduce overall energy consumption.

Greece depends heavily on imported energy, especially oil and natural gas. Lignite is the only major domestic fuel and is extensively used for power generation. Lignite is also a major source of COâ‚‚ emissions and air pollutants in Greece. As shown in diagram 9, around 64% of the total energy consumption in Greece in 2010 was based on imported oil and natural gas.

Renewables 7.6% Natural gas 11.4%

Crude oil and petroleum products 53.2% Solid fuels 27.8% Total Mtoe: 28.84

Diagram 9: Fuel mix of Greek energy consumption in 2010 (source: Eurostat) In terms of electricity generation in Greece, as shown in diagram 10 imported fuels contributed nearly 28% towards total electricity generation, with natural gas dominating the mix.

Generally, oil is mostly used in the non-interconnected islands.

Crude oil and petroleum products 10.6%

Other 0.2%

Renewables 18.4% Solid fuels 53.7% Natural gas 17.1% Total TWh: 57.39

Diagram 10: fuel sources in electricity generation in Greece in 2010 (source: Eurostat) The construction sector in Greece The economic crisis that has impacted Greece since 2010 has had a substantial effect on the penetration of energy efficient technologies. Since 2008, Greek GDP has shrunk by 22% and consequently, households have seen a dramatic decline in their income. This in turn has impacted the whole construction sector. Diagram 11 shows the rapid decline in the number of new building permits in Greece during the years from 2010 to 2014.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 33

2. BACKGROUND

Diagram 11: The number of new building permits issued between 2010 and 2014 (source: Greek statistical authority) This contraction of the construction sector affected all related sectors resulting in increases in unemployment and the loss of valuable skills. It has also significantly affected the whole home retrofit business.

National initiatives To support the implementation of the EPBD in Greece, a funding programme called Exoikonomisi or ‘Saving (Energy) at Home’ was launched in 2011 by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change. It provides subsidies and loans to households to enable them to pay for energy improvements. Grants are available to part-fund measures; households are then expected to take out low interest loans (offered by four high street banks scheme at preferential rates) to cover the remaining costs. Grants are means tested, so low income households qualify for higher levels of funding. Households applying for funding must meet certain eligibility criteria; funding can only be made available with a valid energy report and quotes from tradespeople for the works to be completed. Other eligibility criteria apply and credit checks are also applied.

Saving at Home also provides an online database of energy assessors and tradespeople and installers in the area, so households can search for the expertise they need76.

2.6.3 The UK National targets The 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK Government to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions (on 1990 levels) by at least 80% by 2050 and 34% by 202077. The Government has also set itself the interim target of reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50% (on 1990 levels) over the 2023 – 27 period78.

76 http://exoikonomisi.ypeka.gr/ 77 Department of Energy and Climate Change http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx 78 DECC – Annual Statement 2012 pg 6 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/65633/7086-annual-energy-statement-2012.pdf

34 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND Reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 means drastically reducing energy demand and ensuring that the energy produced is zero carbon or as low carbon as possible79.

Almost half of the UK’s total CO₂ emissions come from energy use in buildings80. Over a quarter of the UK’s energy use and corresponding carbon dioxide emissions are produced in people’s homes – more than road transport or industry81. So reducing the energy consumption of Britain’s housing stock represents a valuable opportunity to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in the UK In the UK the Reduced data version of the Standard Assessment Procedure (RdSAP) is used to assess a building and produce an EPC. The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is the methodology used by the Government to assess and compare the energy and environmental performance of dwellings. SAP works by assessing how much energy a dwelling consumes when delivering a defined level of comfort and service provision. As the assessment is based on standardised (as opposed to actual) assumptions for occupancy and behaviour this enables a like-for-like comparison of dwelling performance. To be included in the assessment, technologies like renewables need to be accompanied by the relevant certification and ‘invisible’ technologies like internal wall or underfloor insulation can only be included if there is photographic evidence of it being fitted. SAP is based on the cost of space and water heating and lighting in the home. It is measured on a scale of 1 (which is at the bottom of band G indicating very high running costs) to 100 (which falls into band A indicating low or zero net running costs). It is possible to achieve a SAP rating of over 100 by including on-site energy generation. The assessment also provides other information including estimated fuel costs and carbon dioxide emissions.

SAP was included in UK building regulations in 1994. In 2005, a simpler form of SAP was introduced – ‘Reduced Data SAP’ (RDSAP) – as a lower cost method of assessing the energy performance of existing dwellings. RDSAP is the basis of the UK Energy Performance Certificates for homes. Energy assessments are regulated and provided by qualified and accredited assessors.

UK housing stock – an overview It is estimated that annually, 1.2 million homes across the UK need to be improved sufficiently to reach a minimum B (81+) SAP rating from 2012-1682. To fulfil the domestic element of meeting its 2050 greenhouse gas emissions target, it is estimated that 600,000 UK properties will need to be improved to A standard every year from 2017 until 205083.

79 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings’ January 2012 http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/ achievingzero/achieving-zero.pdf 80 Ibid 81 United Kingdom Housing Energy Fact File 2012, Department for Energy and Climate Change. Authors, Palmer J and Cooper I, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012. pdf pg 5 82 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings, January 2012 pg vii 83 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings, January 2012 pg 36

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 35

2. BACKGROUND Given the relatively poor thermal performance of the UK’s housing stock, achieving this is a challenge, in large part because it is replaced very slowly, so the proportion of dwellings over 50 years old remains high. UK Building Regulations did not start to address energy efficiency until 1965. A 2012 fact file on the UK’s housing stock shows that the two biggest determinants of a property’s thermal performance are its levels of insulation and the efficiency of its heating system. Older homes generally have solid walls and are not insulated as well; bringing them up to modern day standards requires more resources compared to newer homes84.

Post 1990 1981 – 90 1965 – 80 Number of homes

1945 – 64 1919 – 1944 pre 1919 0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

Diagram 12: Age profile of the UK’s housing stock As diagram 12 shows, in 2010 the age profile of England’s housing stock was: • Pre 1919: 4,865,000 (22%) • 1919 – 1944: 3,751,000 (17%) • 1945 – 64: 4,397,000 (20%) • 1965 – 80: 4,602,000 (20%) • 1981 – 90: 1,880,000 (8%) • Post 1990: 2,892,000 (13%) Total – 22,387,00085 In 2010, 59% of the total housing stock was built before 1965.

The average SAP rating has risen steadily since the early 1970s; however this improvement has not been the same for all tenures. Today, a socially rented property has an average SAP rating of 62 (D)86. The average SAP rating in the owner occupied sector is lower, at 55 (E) for privately

84 Source: UK Energy Housing Fact File 2012, DECC pg 21 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012.pdf 85 Figures have been rounded up. EHS Housing Stock Summary Statistics Tables, Table DA1101 (SST7.1): Stock profile, 2010 HM Government, http://data.gov.uk/dataset/uk-housing-stock/resource/29acdcad-659b-437b-ba2c-5832d5fbf156 86 Figure is combined average of housing association and local authority stock. EHS Housing Stock Summary Statistics Tables, Table DA7101 (SST7.1 http://data.gov.uk/dataset/uk-housing-stock/resource/29acdcad-659b-437b-ba2c-5832d5fbf156

36 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND owned and rented properties87. This – and the fact that owner occupiers comprise the largest tenure group in Europe – is why the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes approach is targeting homeowners.

Energy demand in the UK Energy demand is changing in the UK. Between 1970 and 2011 energy use in UK homes rose by 5% – an average of 0.1% per year88. The way UK households heat their homes has also changed; the proliferation of gas central heating means that today many more people heat their entire homes than a generation ago. Previously the norm was to heat single rooms often using open fires or ranges. Over three quarters of the energy use in the UK’s homes is for space and hot water heating, most of which comes from gas fired boilers89.

In the UK, expectations of comfort have changed and what passes as an ‘acceptable’ level of thermal comfort has also risen considerably over the years90. The areas of highest energy demand in the home have also shifted. While demand for space heating has risen, energy demand for hot water and cooking has fallen91. The largest growth in energy demand has been for electricity for appliances and lights92. This shift is perhaps unsurprising as today’s homes have many more electrical items than before. A 2012 report on the nation’s electricity using habits found that while the average 1970’s UK home had about a dozen appliances, homes today have an average of 41 appliances93.

This picture of domestic energy trends is not as simple as these figures may imply. For although UK households heat and light their homes more than before and use increasing numbers of electrical appliances, the average amount of carbon dioxide a household produces has actually been falling steadily over the years. In 1970, the average household produced 9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This figure fell until it reached 5.2 tonnes of CO₂ by 2009, but the harsh winter of 2010 pushed the average up slightly to 5.6 tonnes of CO₂ per home94.

This drop in carbon dioxide emissions is due to numerous factors – including higher standards of energy efficiency in appliances – but the primary reason for this shrinking in domestic

87 EHS Housing Stock Summary Statistics Tables, Stock profile, 2010 HM Government, Table DA7101 (SST7.1): Energy performance1 – dwellings, 2011 http://data.gov.uk/dataset/uk-housing-stock/resource/29acdcad-659b-437b-ba2c-5832d5fbf156 88 United Kingdom Housing Energy Fact File 2012, Department for Energy and Climate Change. Authors, Palmer J and Cooper I, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012. pdf pg 10 89 The Carbon Plan: Delivering our Low Carbon Future (update) December 2011 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tacklingclimate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf 90 United Kingdom Housing Energy Fact File 2012, Department for Energy and Climate Change. Authors, Palmer J and Cooper I, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012. pdf pg 5 91 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings’ January 2012 pg 3 http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/ achievingzero/achieving-zero.pdf 92 Ibid 93 Powering the Nation, Household electricity using habits revealed. June 2012, Energy Savings Trust http://www. energysavingtrust.org.uk/Publications2/Corporate/Research-and-insights/Powering-the-nation-household-electricity-usinghabits-revealed 94 UK Energy Fact File 2012, Palmer and Cooper, DECC pg 102 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012.pdf

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 37

2. BACKGROUND emissions is the proliferation of gas central heating which has replaced electricity, solid fuel and oil as the main source of heat in the UK’s homes. So although UK households are heating more of their homes now, they are doing so using a less carbon intensive fuel than before. Electricity use remains important though because it is about three times more carbon intensive than gas, due to the relatively high carbon mix of fuel used in generation95. The fuels in the mix also fluctuate; in 2013, coal accounted for just over 40% of electricity produced, up from around 30% from 2009 to 2011. In 2013, gas accounted for nearly 27% of electricity produced and nuclear provided just over 21%96.

Despite a 50% increase in the number of homes being built between 1970 and 201197, this rate is not keeping up with current housing demand. The UK population is growing faster than it has in the last 200 years98, and within that the proportion of single person households is also rising99.

The UK’s rising population and changes in living arrangements are collectively helping to push up overall domestic energy demand. Relying on significant volumes of new homes to address the level of greenhouse gas emissions produced by UK homes is not an option either – mass scale domestic retrofit is required. The rate of home demolition and new build is relatively slow.

Only around 180,000 new homes are built each year100. In 2012, there were 27.3 million dwellings in the UK101. This combination of low levels of new build and demolition rates means that well over two thirds of the housing in the UK that will be standing in 2050 has already been built102.

The construction sector in the UK Although the UK’s housing stock has the potential to be retrofitted sufficiently to reduce its collective emissions by 80% by 2050 (on 1990 levels), it is also widely acknowledged that this is not happening on nearly a large enough scale required to meet this target103. This is despite the fact that in the UK there is a widespread network of individuals and companies who – in varying degrees – specialise in aspects of this work. This network includes specialist installers of insulation and renewable energy generation technologies, besides firms providing general

95 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings’ January 2012 pg 41 http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/ energy/achievingzero/achieving-zero.pdf quoting Market Transformation Programme 2010 ‘Saving energy through better products and appliances 2090-2030’ Department for the Environment, Farming, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69219/pb13559-energy-products-101124.pdf 96 These figures are based on annual estimates from the biggest energy producers. Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change, February 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285862/press_notice_ february_2014.pdf 97 UK Energy Fact File 2012, Palmer and Cooper, DECC pg 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012.pdf 98 In March 2011 the population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, an increase of 3.7 million (or 7.1%) since 2001. This increase is the largest over a ten year period since the start of the Census in 1801. Source: Census 2011, Office for National Statistics, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-england-and-wales/ index.html 99 In 1971 the average size of a household was 2.91 people and in 2011 the average size was 2.35 people. In 2011, 31% of households in 2011 comprised of one person. Source: Office for National Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/generallifestyle-survey/2011/rpt-chapter-3.html#tab-Household-size 100 UK Housing Energy Fact File 2012, DECC, Pg 17 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/65989/7352-uk-housing-energy-fact-file-2012.pdf 101 Ibid 102 Boardman et al ‘Achieving zero: delivering future friendly buildings’ January 2012 pg 19 http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/ energy/achievingzero/achieving-zero.pdf 103 Ibid

38 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND building, repair and maintenance services. Most of these firms are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)104.

In 2010, the UK had 256,441 companies classified as dealing in construction of which 99% comprised 0-114 employees105. Of the 256,441 companies, 78% comprise companies of 1-3 people106. In 2012, the RMI market was estimated to be worth around £22 billion107. This indicates that there may be major opportunities to mainstream energy efficiency retrofit measures through the repair, maintenance and improvement (RMI) markets108.

In 2007, the government set a target that all new homes had to be ‘zero carbon’ by 2016109, focussing the attention of the construction sector on low carbon predominantly on new build rather than refurbishment110.

In his study of SMEs and their role in achieving the UK’s 80% carbon reduction target, Killip (2011) has found that professionals have a threshold of innovation, beyond which they may be reluctant to go. That is, beyond a certain point they will be reluctant to take on too many unfamiliar concepts and practices all at once111. So if the aim is to transform practice across a whole industry (rather than among a relatively small number of self-selecting practitioners) several incremental steps may prove more effective than a few sudden, more radical changes112.

In the same vein, pushing too quickly on new standards can lead to resistance among construction professionals, as their experience becomes less relevant to the new design challenge113.

In the UK, although much attention has been drawn to the need to engage and mobilise households and to scale up levels of sustainable energy retrofit, less attention has been given to the crucial role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)114 in delivering this work.

The community level retrofit approach developed for the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project recognises the need to engage small, local contractors and installers fully in the domestic home energy retrofit market.

104 Ibid 105 Office for National Statistics, Construction Statistics, Annual Report, No. 12, 2011 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/construction/ construction-statistics/no--12--2011-edition/index.html 106 Ibid 107 Killip, G. (2012) ‘Beyond the Green Deal: Market Transformation for Low Carbon Housing Refurbishment in the UK’ Retrofit Conference, Salford 108 Killip G (2011) ‘Implications of an 80% CO2 emissions reduction target for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK housing refurbishment industry’ 109 Sustainable Homes task group website has more: http://www.sustainablehomes.co.uk/blog/bid/51556/2016-Zero-CarbonTarget-Government-welcomes-interim-recommendations 110 Killip G (2011) ‘Implications of an 80% CO2 emissions reduction target for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK housing refurbishment industry’ 111 Lowe, Bell & Roberts 2003a,b. quoted by Killip G 2011 Killip G (2011) ‘Implications of an 80% CO2 emissions reduction target for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK housing refurbishment industry’ 112 Ibid 113 Ibid 114 SMEs are ‘small to medium enterprises’. The European Commission defines a micro business as one comprising 0 to 9 employees, a small business as 50 employees or less and a medium sized enterprise as one with 250 employees or less.

Businesses are also categorised by size of balance sheet and turnover. For this study, we are classifying SMEs by their headcount. Source: European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/ index_en.htm

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 39

2. BACKGROUND Tackling fuel poverty The UK’s housing stock is amongst the least energy efficient in Europe. Enabling widespread domestic retrofit offers a good opportunity to improve the thermal efficiency of the housing stock, and this the most effective and long term way to address fuel poverty115. Housing that is poorly insulated and/or has an inadequate heating system is generally much more expensive to heat to comfortable levels than housing that is well insulated with sufficient heating provision.

Certain groups of people are more vulnerable to being fuel poor, including those on low incomes and/or with higher energy requirements because of being in the home for longer hours, being more vulnerable to discomfort or health problems from the cold, or perhaps needing to do more laundry. They include the elderly, families with infants, people with disabilities affecting mobility and those living with long term sickness. Just over a third (34%) of fuel poor households contain someone with a disability or long-term illness, a fifth (20%) have a child aged five or under, and 10% of households in fuel poverty are home to a person aged 75 or over116. These groups are also at risk of the effects of under heating their homes because they cannot afford to heat them to a comfortable level for as long as they need.

Fuel poverty is still a problem in the UK despite a national target to eradicate it by 2016.

An indicator of fuel poverty that has been used for many years in the UK is for a household to spend over 10% of its income to maintain an adequate level of warmth, and this indicator is widely used as a definition of fuel poverty. The current government definition in England has been re-defined and is known as the ‘Low Income High Cost’ model, whereby a household is considered to be in fuel poverty if it has necessary fuel costs that are above average (the national median level) and were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.

Using the UK (10%) definition there are over five million households in fuel poverty117.

Relatively speaking, this number is high: of 13 countries (with comparable wealth and heating needs) assessed on the percentage of households in energy poverty, the UK ranked last, or 13th. Compared to 15 comparable countries the UK ranked second from last (14th) on the affordability of space heating. Of the 13 countries that were evaluated in terms of the percentage of household expenditure spent on energy, the UK ranked 11th. This is despite the UK having amongst the lowest gas and electricity prices in Europe and relatively high household incomes compared to the other countries assessed.118

115 These figures were calculated using the UK definition of fuel poverty which classified a household having to spend over 10% of its income to maintain an adequate level of warmth. In England the definition of fuel poverty has changed and is now defined as the ‘Low Income High Cost’ model, whereby a household is considered to be in fuel poverty if it has necessary fuel costs that are above average (the national median level) and were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. However, for UK-wide estimates, the previous definition still applies. Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change, Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/319280/Fuel_Poverty_Report_Final.pdf 116 ‘Getting the Measure of Fuel Poverty: Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review’, Hills 2012 pg 18 https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48297/4662-getting-measure-fuel-pov-final-hills-rpt.pdf 117 Fact File – The Cold Man of Europe. March 2013. Association for the Conservation of Energy. http://www.ukace.org/2013/03/factfile-the-cold-man-of-europe/ 118 Ibid

40 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND National initiatives Launched in January 2013, the Green Deal is the UK Government’s current mechanism for improving the energy efficiency of UK homes. The aim of the scheme is to encourage companies to carry out energy efficiency or renewable energy measures on domestic or business properties with minimal up-front cost to the homeowner and without increasing the cost of the fuel bills, through a regulated system of loans. Energy assessments are carried out to identify energy efficiency measures that are estimated to generate enough energy bill savings to balance the repayments on the loans, and approved companies must be used to install the measures.

The loans are repaid along with the electricity bill, and are linked to the electricity account rather than the individual, so that if the home changes hands the repayments stay with the home and pass to the new owner, who also benefits from the energy cost savings from the energy efficiency improvements the householder has made.

The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is the latest in a series of obligations to save energy and carbon placed on major energy suppliers to the domestic market in the UK. Suppliers are required to finance measures to achieve significant targets, and provide evidence to show that this has been done – with the targets linked to the size of the customer base. ECO targets are mainly with regard to carbon emission reduction, but there are specific targets to reduce fuel poverty, which are directly linked to heating costs.

ECO is particularly targeted at households that: receive certain benefits, live in homes with solid walls or homes that are difficult to insulate, or live in a specific part of the country which is recognised as being in need of support.

Local initiatives The energy efficiency of homes has particular relevance to the interests and responsibilities of local authorities, who are therefore natural partners for an energy agency to work with from the strategic level through to practical delivery of improvements. Severn Wye Energy Agency has worked closely for over a decade with the local authorities where it is based, in Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire, helping to establish an Affordable Warmth Strategy in 2001, the delivery of which is overseen by an active local partnership. The group estimates that around 50,000 households, representing nearly 14% of all households across these areas are in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty figures have increased across these local authority areas by 18,000 since 2006 despite the work being undertaken to reduce it. The main cause is the continuing increase in the price of energy, which is not matched by an increase in incomes.

The local ‘Warm and Well’ programme is the main delivery vehicle for the strategy, and is a good example of a successful locally managed and controlled non-profit delivery partnership for energy advice and support for home energy improvements. The partnership has the local authorities at the core, linking housing, health and social care agencies, and has been delivered since 2001 by local sustainable energy agency, Severn Wye Energy Agency.

The Warm and Well programme has resulted in £30m investment in local home energy improvements to date, of which over £11m has been drawn down from the energy suppliers’ energy and carbon saving obligation funding, £8.1m from government Warm Front programme for vulnerable households, £8.5m from private sector housing grants, and £3.25m invested by homeowners themselves.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 41

2. BACKGROUND In parallel with the domestic sector work, Severn Wye have worked with local authority partners to develop a business energy advice service saving energy for local businesses and a database of local energy installers increasing the market opportunities for SME’s. This has powerful potential benefits to the local economy.

Target 2050 – achieving deep energy savings In addition to this core programme for alleviating fuel poverty, it was recognised that action needed to be taken to achieve really deep energy and carbon savings from all kinds of home.

Stroud District Council, a local authority with a strong policy for mitigating climate change as well as alleviating fuel poverty, commissioned Severn Wye Energy Agency to develop the local approach further. The Target 2050 project (2007-12) addressed climate change through actions in the domestic, commercial and public sectors in the district, through encouraging the take up of energy retrofit measures and small-scale renewables. Key features of Target 2050 project were: • Bespoke energy advice: working with over 200 households, advisors identified all the feasible energy and carbon saving measures and quantified the potential savings, helping householders to prioritise and understand the practical opportunities.

• Case studies of a range of homes: case studies were produced of 50 local homes, broadly representing the wide range of building types in Stroud and neighbouring districts, to illustrate what can be achieved and how, and to highlight and explain the practical barriers and solutions encountered in applying solutions.

• Establishing a local installer network: the market for sustainable energy retrofit was stimulated through the development of a local installer network, with over 100 members covering the full range of relevant technologies. The network was run on an open, inclusive and capacity building basis, with no joining criteria or fees, but with advice to both businesses and homeowners on relevant accreditations and regulations. This network is still running, and has been built upon through the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project to incorporate the Green Deal and to cover businesses across the whole of Gloucestershire, as well as Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire.

• Practical support on costs and finance: Target 2050 advisors helped households to identify finance and obtain quotations for works. The project also included a highly successful Pay As You Save pilot (sponsored by the Department of Enery and Climate Change from 2009-11). The loans pilot launched as part of the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project built on the valuable insights gained through this project into the costs and householder perspective on investing in improvements, and the practical issues as regards financial support mechanisms.

42 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

2. BACKGROUND 2.7 Summary of background The background to the project includes a variety of factors including the need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, growing concern about fuel poverty, the heritage of an older building stock being replaced very slowly, and a mix of European, national, and regional/ local policies. There is clear evidence of the need to scale up retrofitting activities and the multiple benefits of doing so.

The three partners in the project consortium are at different stages in terms of how they are tackling this but previous initiatives illustrate why a combination of national and local approaches are needed. The nature of the market for home improvements indicates the particular relevance of the local supply chain, and the relatively slow progress made by national initiatives led the partners towards a particular interest in developing community scale activity – as an alternative approach, building from the bottom upwards to address this global issue, rather than relying only on the top down, and in such a way that the two are enhanced by rather than competing with each other.

Building upon workable and proven solutions provides the basis for scaling up and cutting costs but a more thorough understanding of the barriers to, and opportunities for, retrofit are needed to do this. One aim of this project for all partners was to help build that evidence base. This research project aimed to obtain insights into the barriers and opportunities for domestic retrofit from the perspectives of those involved. They include households, installers and tradespeople (with a focus on small, local businesses), planning and building control staff, and suppliers.

For Severn Wye Energy Agency, this project was also an opportunity to pilot its community ‘hub’ model. Building on the structures and learning developed through Warm and Well and the Target 2050 project, the Countdown ‘hub’ model brought together impartial energy advice, links to local trades through the Link to Energy network and signposting to national and local sources of finance, both grant funding and loans.

In the UK, the project was established following the success of the local (Stroud District) Pay As You Save pilot, and in parallel with the development of the government’s Green Deal framework for loans. At the same time as working to integrate the community model with the new framework, it was recognised that there may be limitations to what the Green Deal could offer, and risks to its success in the form originally envisaged – in particular the complexity and cost of the scheme (which would ultimately be borne by those taking it up) and the limitations on the measures covered implied by the application of a ‘Golden Rule’ that capped loans at a level where repayments would be no more than anticipated savings. There were also uncertainties as to the source of capital finance, and the cost of this capital.

To complement the Green Deal approach, a part of Severn Wye’s community scale model was to develop and offer a locally managed loan to fund home energy improvements. Based on the Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund model developed by the Hungarian consultancy Global Environmental Sustainable Business (GESB) and trialled successfully in other countries (such a Hungary and Estonia), the aim was to develop a local pilot to apply this approach to the private housing market in the UK. This is described in more detail in the next chapter.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 43

44 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 The common approach............................................................ 46 3.2 The approach in Cyprus............................................................ 48 3.2.1 Working with households.....................................................................................................48 3.2.2 Working with installers..........................................................................................................51 3.2.3 Regional Advisory Group.......................................................................................................52

3.3 The approach in Greece............................................................ 52 3.3.1 Working with households.....................................................................................................52 3.3.2 Adapting the approach..........................................................................................................55 3.3.3 Working with installers..........................................................................................................56 3.3.4 Regional Advisory Group.......................................................................................................57

3.4 The approach in the UK............................................................ 59 3.4.1. Working with households....................................................................................................61 3.4.2 Working with installers..........................................................................................................63 3.4.3 Regional Advisory and Steering Groups.............................................................................63 3.4.4 Other research activities........................................................................................................64 3.4.5 Developing the community scale delivery model...........................................................64

3.5 Research limitations ................................................................. 68

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 45

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 The common approach The aim of the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project was to research, develop and communicate a practical delivery model for the retrofit of buildings, capable of being replicated at a community scale, and focussing on sustainable energy retrofit of homes by small and medium size enterprises (SMEs).

Although the needs and context of Greece, Cyprus and the UK are different, the models shared the same basic elements: Finance for measures Planning, building control

Suppliers of energy efficiency materials and products

Home owners Installers

Energy advice Intermediaries: community groups, local media, local authorities, health and social care agencies

The research objectives of the project were to: • Understand the ’retrofit‘ journey; through the perspectives of the key actors involved in the process.

• Understand the potential and actual savings of households‘ energy use.

• Use this evidence to develop and trial the local delivery model.

To better understand the whole ‘retrofit journey’ from planning stage to implementation and beyond, the research teams in Greece, Cyprus and the UK recruited and worked with households, installers and other key actors involved with the sustainable energy retrofit of homes. Broadly speaking, an action research approach was taken in working with key actors, recording the results and process, refining the process, working with them again and so on.

46 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY Action research is: “A flexible spiral process which allows action (change, improvement) and research (understanding, knowledge) to be achieved at the same time. The understanding allows more informed change and at the same time is informed by that change. People affected by the change are usually involved in the action research. This allows the understanding to be widely shared and the change to be pursued with commitment.”

Action research needs to be flexible and responsive to situations as they evolve. Action research involves acting and then reflecting on that action, so is normally cyclic – the later cycles are used to challenge and refine the results of the earlier cycles.

In varying degrees, the three teams worked with: • A pre retrofit group – homeowners considering or in the process of making energy improvements to their homes. The project teams offered impartial advice on potential material changes the households could make and the possible impacts in terms of energy, carbon and money saved.

• A post retrofit group – homeowners that had already made such improvements to their homes. The project teams provided information, support and advice on energy saving behaviours, monitoring of their own energy use, and future material changes they might make to their homes.

• An ínstaller group – installers, general builders and other trades involved with retrofit, finding out about common issues and opportunities that accompany their domestic retrofit work.

• A Regional Advisory or Steering Group – other relevant stakeholders, such as: local building control and planning staff; suppliers; housing providers; government departments; industry bodies and academics.

Differing national and local drivers, constraints, external events and characteristics, meant that in practice each project team approached the research slightly differently. This chapter describes the approaches adopted by each team.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 47

3. METHODOLOGY 3.2 The approach in Cyprus 3.2.1 Working with households Geographical scope of research Cyprus is a small country. In 2011, the population of Cyprus was 840,4071. Cyprus Energy Agency chose to search for participants across the country, rather than focus on one town or city.

Pre Retrofit Group In July 2012 the research team at Cyprus Energy Agency advertised nationally for households to participate in the research. Advertising methods included announcements on various websites and advertisements in national newspapers. Twenty one households were recruited as a result, fourteen from Lefkosia, four from Limassol and three from Paphos.

Diagram 1: Map of Cyprus showing the number of the selected households in each city (source: Google Maps) From March to July 2013 the Cypriot research team conducted energy audits on all the pre retrofit households and produced an energy performance certificate (EPC) and a report for each one. During the visits the project team also collected qualitative data through a questionnaire.

The team obtained quantitative data on each household which included energy consumption and other technical information including the U-values of the external walls, and measurements of humidity and temperature. Infrared thermal images were also taken of the property where possible.

The reports contained recommendations for energy improvements. Over the subsequent visits, the team provided the households with follow on support and advice to help to get works done, including signposting to finance and installers. Households and advisors kept a log of their experiences of the process.

1

Republic of Cyprus Statistical Service: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/populationcondition_22main_en/ populationcondition_22main_en?OpenForm&sub=2&sel=2

48 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY An energy monitor was installed in each home in order to log the energy consumption before and after the proposed retrofit measures and also to help the occupants understand their electricity consumption, identify the main electricity consuming devices and consequently change their energy behaviour. The participating households were offered access to installers and tradespeople, guidance for funding opportunities and on-going support both during and after their home energy improvements to ensure they reaped the maximum benefits.

From May to July 2014 the research team conducted second visits to all the participating households. During these visits the team submitted their report to the homeowners and explained the outcomes and the suggestions within it. The team also asked participants to complete a questionnaire which asked about their views on: • The overall project and the procedures followed.

• Their energy behaviour and any possible changes as a result of the information provided by the CEA team during the previous visit.

• The effects of measures on the overall energy consumption of the house.

• The effects of the installation of the energy monitor and the related results.

• Their intentions to improve their energy behaviour.

• Their perception of how they use energy around the home.

During the visits the project team also discussed financial options with the households.

They informed the homeowners about a new subsidy scheme backed by the Cypriot government and due to launch in 2014. The scheme aims to promote micro renewables and energy efficiency in existing dwellings. The team left an information leaflet containing an energy efficiency training methodology developed under the ElihMED2 project with the households.

This leaflet was explained to the homeowners in order to help them to become the ‘energy managers’ of their house.

In October 2012 focus groups were also held with the pre retrofit households. These meetings enabled the participants to share experiences and knowledge, and proved a useful means to draw out common themes and issues.

By May 2014 all the data was collected and the reports and the EPCs of each household were completed. In order to issue the EPCs Cyprus Energy Agency used the iSBEM-Cy software which is the approved and recommended software by the Energy Service of the Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Republic of Cyprus for the calculation of the energy performance of buildings.

Post retrofit households The Cypriot team had the target of recruiting five post retrofit households. However they struggled to find many households willing to focus on behaviour change and energy monitoring with the majority of applicants only expressing an interest in being in the pre retrofit group.

2

Energy Efficiency in Low Income Housing in the Mediterranean’ http://www.elih-med.eu/Layout/elih-med/

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 49

3. METHODOLOGY At that time another project they had been working on was coming to an end. Called ‘Energy Efficiency in Low Income Housing in the Mediterranean’ (ElihMED), this project involved working with 25 households to improve the energy efficiency of their home and promote energy saving. Over €10,000 was spent on each home. Cyprus Energy Agency decided to approach the households that had benefitted from improvements completed through the ElihMED project to see if they would be interested in becoming post retrofit households for the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project.

In April 2012 the team approached the ElihMED households. Information went out on websites and in advertisements in national newspapers. Staff at Cyprus Energy Agency also gave radio and television interviews to promote the project. The applications were evaluated by a committee in May 2012. Selection criteria included: the gross annual salary of the household, the number of occupants, whether the household lived in an eligible area, the size of the home (primarily apartments below 100m2 and houses below 150m2), the year of construction of the house (focusing on the period 1970-1995) and the ownership of the house (owner-occupiers).

The five households were selected to participate to the post retrofit group were located in Dali (an area of Nicosia), Larnaka, Lefkara, Ayios Athanasios (an area of Limassol) and Paralimni.

The research team worked with the post retrofit group from spring 2012 until spring 2014.

The team focused on capturing the households’ energy use and behaviour, along with monitoring the performance of their homes. They did this by encouraging the households to set up and keep energy diaries to try to get them into the habit of monitoring their energy consumption and logging the actions or external factors that impacted upon it. Additionally, the team advised the households on ways to reduce their energy consumption and installed energy monitors in each home. The project team also instructed each household on how to use the monitor to identify the most ‘energy hungry’ appliances and to keep track of their overall energy consumption.

Each month the research team visited each household to: • Take meter readings.

• Discuss and record any changes to energy usage behaviour.

• Discuss and record any other factors impacting the household’s energy consumption.

The energy performance of each household was assessed through a two stage process.

The first stage comprised a preliminary visit and the second stage involved an extended energy audit. During the energy audit the team obtained additional data from the households using a questionnaire. Thermal photographs were also taken of each property.

Data were collected from each home including; characteristics of the building; details of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; lighting, and systems for producing hot water. The architectural plans of each house were collected and where they were unavailable staff drew a sketch of the house using a laser distance meter.

The data collected were analysed and the energy performance of each house presented in the form of the EPC. Using the current energy performance and the thermal images, the team could identify potential energy efficiency measures. They also applied the proposed measures to each home in order to calculate their potential impact.

50 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY 3.2.2 Working with installers In Cyprus, most retrofit work is carried out by small companies. Many are not members of a trade organisation so finding and engaging them can be challenging. Cyprus Energy Agency addressed this issue by establishing a Local Installers Group and inviting local companies to join for free. The Local Installers Group offered members the following benefits: • Regular, informal meetings providing the opportunity to network with other local companies.

• Potential for joint marketing of retrofit services and products.

• Information on grants, planning and new technologies.

• Information sharing and short training sessions according to interest; with suppliers and planning control officers for example.

• Presenting examples of installations and barriers overcome in the local area.

• Joint visits to installations and trade fairs.

• Collaborating on opportunities for joint procurement, to save time and bring down costs.

• Reviewing opportunities for other cooperative activities, to enable them to engage in new markets – such as training and accreditation.

As part of this project Cyprus Energy Agency also established an on-line database for installers where companies can register for a small fee.

Diagram 2: Online installer database The Local Installers Group provided the platform through which the project team could gauge members’ views and ideas on the barriers and solutions to making retrofit more attractive and feasible to homeowners.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 51

3. METHODOLOGY 3.2.3 Regional Advisory Group To engage with key influencers and decision makers in the retrofit process, the project team established a Regional Advisory Group. The group comprised members from the following organisations: • A social housing provider.

• Cyprus Association of Renewable Energy Enterprises.

• A senior planning control officer from the local town planning department.

• A senior building control officer.

• Associations of Energy Saving Enterprises.

• A university academic.

The Regional Advisory group was established to capture the different perspectives and experiences of the sectors represented. The Regional Advisory Group met three times: in October 2012 with the Local Installers’ Group, in October 2013 and in May 2014 with the Local Installers’ Group.

The two occasions where both groups met provided valuable opportunities for participants to exchange views and experiences. Opportunities for assorted practitioners to meet and exchange knowledge and experiences in this way are rare in Cyprus, so this provided an added incentive to bring these actors together.

3.3 The approach in Greece 3.3.1 Working with households Geographical scope Efforts to recruit participants focused on the city of Thessaloniki, a metropolitan city of Northern Greece. With one million inhabitants, it is the second largest city in the country. Most dwellings in the city centre are apartment buildings built between 1930 and 1980. Suburban areas comprise mainly apartment blocks built from the 1980s onwards. Across the outskirts, most homes are detached houses.

Up to 2005 almost all heating systems were based on heating oil and electricity. Over the last ten years natural gas has become available. With natural gas being much cheaper and less carbon intensive than oil, over this period 30% of oil heating systems have been switched to natural gas for space heating and hot water.

52 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY Pre Retrofit Group In spring 2013 the project team from the Power Systems Laboratory at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki invited households across the Thessaloniki city region to apply to take part in the project by advertising on the University’s intranet and the website of the Power Systems Laboratory. Press releases also went out through the local press and electronic media and a member of the research team appeared on the local news to present the project. As the map below shows, most of the pre retrofit households live in Thessaloniki city itself.

Diagram 3: Geographical spread of pre retrofit group. (Source: Google Maps) In autumn 2013 work started with the pre retrofit group. Each household was issued with a questionnaire designed to gather data about the property and the household. This was followed by an energy audit of each property. The project team issued each household with energy performance certificates (EPCs) meeting the requirements of KENAK (the Greek implementation of the EPBD) and a report. Each report included up to three energy saving recommendations together with analyses of their economic feasibility. The auditor’s recommendations were based on criteria including the most significant reduction in energy consumption and CO₂ emissions, or which solution offered the shortest payback period.

Once the EPCs and reports had been delivered to the households, the project team worked with and supported them in the implementation of some or all of the energy saving recommendations. The project team analysed each recommendation individually and discussed each one with the homeowners, supporting them in the search for most suitable materials, systems and installers as well as in the selection of the best technical and economic options.

The ‘Saving at Home’ programme proved to be very popular and when it was launched, catalyzed investment in retrofit among Greek homeowners. It has provided both an incentive and a mechanism for Greek households to fund their home energy improvements. Most of the households in the pre retrofit group intended to fund their energy improvements through the Saving at Home programme. However, in early 2013 the available funds of the Saving at Home programme were exhausted, with thousands of household applications for funding still pending.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 53

3. METHODOLOGY Consequently, the programme was temporarily suspended, pending future funding. Without the financial assistance offered by the Saving at Home scheme, homeowners either had to finance the retrofit themselves or alternatively, wait for the launch of the next funding phase, which was in the autumn of 2014. The combination of the recent economic crisis and the knowledge that funding would become available again in late 2014, contributed to a significant slowdown in the retrofit market. Unsurprisingly, this also impacted the Greek pre retrofit group. Most households in the group decided to postpone their planned energy improvements until funding became available. Faced with the prospect of only few households undergoing retrofit during the project, the research team decided to revise the approach of its work with the pre retrofit group.

Post Retrofit Group The Saving at Home website contains a database of households that have benefitted from the scheme. In the spring of 2013 the project team interrogated the database in order to identify households in the greater Thessaloniki area who had made energy improvements across all three categories (thermal insulation; upgrade of doors, windows and heating system; domestic hot water). Overall, the team identified 363 homes across the Thessaloniki city region whose home energy improvements had been funded through the Saving Energy at Home programme.

The research team sent invitation letters, application forms and information packs to all 363 households. In return 21 households responded and from these the team selected the 20 post retrofit households to participate in the research. As diagram 4 shows, like the pre retrofit households, most of the post retrofit households are located in the downtown area of Thessaloniki.

Diagram 4: Geographical spread of post retrofit group. (Source: Google Maps) Every post retrofit household had undertaken some kind of energy upgrade through the Saving Energy at home programme, so each dwelling already had two EPCs (one issued before and one after the refurbishment).

During the first visit to each post retrofit household, the team met with the members of the family and completed a questionnaire to obtain relevant energy data on the property including levels of insulation, the type of heating system, the fuels used, the cooling and hot water systems, electrical appliances and yearly consumption data. Follow up visits were then conducted with each household to discuss the energy improvements they had made in the past in further detail. The research covered issues including their reasons for retrofit,

54 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY their experiences of how they contracted the relevant advisors and trades, how they selected the materials or systems, the processes followed, the costs of the works, how the work was undertaken (and any side effects), the process of obtaining funding, the process with the banks, any other issues and of course the overall results. Using the data gathered over these visits, the research team started to build a picture of the retrofit journeys of the group.

Over the following months the team provided all the participating home owners with: • Impartial energy advice on technical measures.

• Feedback on energy use in the home with advice on how to reduce it further.

• Access to local companies and installers.

• Information on national and local financial options to fund sustainable, energy saving measures.

3.3.2 Adapting the approach Although the project team had originally planned to monitor the energy consumption of just the post retrofit group, the initial literature review revealed that there is a significant gap in the availability of data on electricity consumption in homes at the European level3.

Given the funding issues under the Saving at Home programme and their impact on the plans of the pre retrofit group, the project team decided to install electricity energy monitors in all 40 participating homes. In doing this the team aimed to build detailed energy profiles of the households and compare consumption data of the pre and post retrofit groups.

The research team selected wireless energy monitors that provide the user with direct continuous information on consumption. Over the summer of 2013 the team installed the energy monitors and the homeowners were instructed in how to use them. Each household also provided their electricity bills for the previous year and all were instructed to record consumption details from their current electricity bills so that comparisons could be made between the utility billed data and the monitoring data.

Diagram 5: Part of energy monitor installed in electricity cabinet

3

The team also identified the potential usefulness of further data on electrical energy consumption for the residential sector in Greece across several research areas, since there is significant lack of similar data both in Greece and internationally.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 55

3. METHODOLOGY Over November and December 2013 the research team started collecting data from the households by visiting every home. During each visit the team downloaded data from the monitor and discussed the electricity consumption readings and the household’s experiences using the monitor. Most households enjoyed the ability to track their electricity use consumption and had already made efforts to reduce it by limiting or rationalising the use of some devices.

Households were also encouraged to record their experiences and energy use behaviour as well as the energy consumption of their homes, by keeping an ‘energy diary’ to monitor their own energy consumption and the external factors impacting upon it. The project team analysed the recorded data to evaluate key indicators characterising the energy behaviour of each household.

The project team identified that a software tool would be needed to process the large amount of home energy data generated. A student team was then tasked with developing a suitable software tool.

Initially, all of the homeowners showed considerable interest in their energy monitor.

After two to three months some of them enhanced the capabilities of the monitoring device by downloading and using relevant software tools. However, some households stored it in a cabinet or even switched off the device for some time. Over subsequent visits the team from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) provided advice on the importance of the collected energy data. The next steps included comparing similar consumption profiles for the pre and post retrofit homes, as well as among homes with similar energy profiles.

3.3.3 Working with installers In Greece, many companies that provide services related to retrofit are not registered or affiliated within a trade body or association, so finding them can be a challenge. However, the Saving at Home website contains a web application enabling suppliers and installers in thirteen administrative regions across Greece to register on the programme’s database.

Diagram 6: ‘Saving at Home’ – Local Installers’ database

56 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY The database includes all major companies involved in the supply chain of retrofit work, plus local tradespeople and small companies that deal with the refurbishment and sustainable retrofit of homes.

The project team interrogated the database and found over 600 tradespeople and businesses registered in Central Macedonia, the administrative region of which Thessaloniki is the capital.

The project team contacted between forty and fifty businesses operating in the region and invited them to join the installers group.

Most of the companies are small and are mainly family businesses, employing less than 10 permanent staff. Almost all technicians, installers and builders are self-employed.

Although major firms have local distributors, the majority of the businesses are shops, providing either materials or systems, while also offering technical advice to potential customers. They can also provide technicians, builders or installers on request. Therefore most of them work as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for retrofitting. However, there are also technical companies employing engineers, architects or/and technicians and installers which in turn can provide integrated services by appointing the proper suppliers.

3.3.4 Regional Advisory Group In order to get input from other key influencers and decision makers in the retrofit process, the Greek project team held a series of meetings from April to October 2013 bringing together a range of organisations which included: • The Association of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers of Northern Greece.

• The Association of Certified Construction Companies.

• The Commercial Chamber of Thessaloniki.

• The Technical Chamber of Greece.

• Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

The meetings provided an opportunity for participants to meet, exchange information and share their retrofit experiences. They also provided a forum for the research team and the local advisory group to update members on industry news and developments relating to the technical and financial aspects of retrofit.

The participating homeowners were also invited to the project meetings. Several attempts to have individual meetings with installers failed; they were willing to participate only if there were potential customers present.

These meetings aimed to generate some global feedback on the problems faced by the homeowners during or before making energy improvements. The topics discussed and the questions set were recorded and provided subjects for discussion and analysis during the home visits.

The team from AUTH attempted to engage key contacts within the banking sector. However the banks would not agree to participate until the re-launch of the Saving at Home programme because they could not provide any assistance before the new terms had been established.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 57

3. METHODOLOGY

Diagram 7: Regional Advisory Group meeting Analysis The energy data was analysed using special statistical and mathematical tools. The MATLAB suite was used to develop a software tool for data analysis. This tool converts the raw data from each energy logger and produces daily average plots for weekdays, weekends and holidays.

It also produced key energy indices and clustered each home to predefined categories and groups4.

The data from the energy diaries were also similarly processed to provide the energy consumption patterns for the different homes. The resulting consumption patterns and clusters were divided into groups showing similar behaviour or having similar characteristics but different consumption patterns. In all these cases the reasons for these divergences were investigated, analysed and discussed with the homeowners. In its discussions with homeowners the project team highlighted the benefits from retrofitting but also the consequences of specific energy behaviours on energy consumption. The outcomes of these investigations were also presented and discussed in subsequent meetings.

4

The user interface in the initial version was a single window with basic menu functions. It is planned to extend it to a multiwindow format or possibly a cloud software tool.

58 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY 3.4 The approach in the UK The geographical scope for the UK project was in the South-West of England, specifically in: • The districts of Forest of Dean and Stroud in Gloucestershire • South Gloucestershire • Wiltshire.

Stroud district Forest of Dean

Wiltshire Gloucestershire

South Gloucestershire

These areas were a natural place to recruit participants. These administrative areas fall within the geographical scope of Severn Wye’s operations and the organisation has a long track record of delivering work on fuel poverty, behaviour change and sustainable energy retrofit across these areas in partnership with the local authorities serving the Forest of Dean, Stroud District, South Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. For Severn Wye Energy Agency, this research complements and builds on a long term programme of work to encourage wider take up of domestic retrofit using local businesses.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 59

3. METHODOLOGY GLOUCESTERSHIRE With a population of 602,1596 Gloucestershire is classified as ‘significant rural’ where 45% of the population lives in rural areas7. Stroud District is home to 113,363 people8 and is classified as a Rural 50 area, where at least 50 per cent but less than 80 per cent of their population live in rural settlements and larger market towns9. The Forest of Dean district is home to 82,731 people10 and is the most rural of the participating areas and is classified as an R80 local authority area. This classification applies to districts with at least 80 percent of their population in rural settlements and larger market towns.

In 2011 there were 268,944 dwellings in Gloucestershire, with the most common properties being semi-detached and detached houses, which comprise 35% and 30% of the housing stock. Owner-occupiers comprise the largest tenure group11. The average SAP rating of owner occupied homes across Gloucestershire is 5512.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE South Gloucestershire is home to 266,100 people13 and is classified as ‘large urban’14, primarily because it encompasses the north and east outlying areas of Bristol. However, outside the area that includes parts of Bristol, the county is mostly rural, with no other urban centres. In 2006 there were 103,890 dwellings in South Gloucestershire, with the most common properties being detached and terraced homes, which comprise 35% and 28% of the housing stock. Owner-occupiers with a mortgage or who own their home outright comprise 80% of the tenure15. The average SAP rating of owner-occupied homes across South Gloucestershire is 5816.

12 13 14 15

5

Gloucestershire County Council: http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/inform/index.cfm?articleid=94013

6

Office of National Statistics, Rural/Urban LA Classification (England), 2001

7

Gloucestershire County Council: http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/inform/index.cfm?articleid=94013

8

Office of National Statistics, Rural/Urban LA Classification (England), 2001

9

Gloucestershire County Council: http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/inform/index.cfm?articleid=94013

10 Gloucestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment update (March 2014) 11 Office for National Statistics, Local Profiles, October 2013 update: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/ dissemination/Info.do?m=0&s=1403696676485&enc=1&page=analysisandguidance/analysisarticles/local-authority-profiles. htm&nsjs=true&nsck=false&nssvg=false&nswid=1366 12 South Gloucestershire Council: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/census/population-and-demographics/ 13 Office for National Statistics, Local Profiles, October 2013 update: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/ dissemination/Info.do?m=0&s=1403696676485&enc=1&page=analysisandguidance/analysisarticles/local-authority-profiles. htm&nsjs=true&nsck=false&nssvg=false&nswid=1366 14 West of England Partnership Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009) http://www.westofengland.org/planning--housing/ housing-market-partnership/strategic-housing-market-assessment 15 Office for National Statistics, Local Profiles, October 2013 update

60 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY WILTSHIRE Wiltshire has a population of 470,981 people17 and is classified as ‘predominantly rural’, specifically as a R50 area. Like Gloucestershire this classification applies to local authority areas where at least 50 per cent but less than 80 per cent of their population live in rural settlements and larger market towns18. In 2001 there were 200,488 dwellings in Wiltshire with the most common properties being detached and demi detached homes, which comprise 36% and 33% of the total housing stock. Owner-occupiers make up the largest tenure group at 72%19.The average SAP rating of owner- occupied homes across Wiltshire is 5220.

16 17 18 19

3.4.1. Working with households Severn Wye recruited household participants from spring to autumn 2012. Like the other two partners, the UK project team advertised for participants through the local media, which generated subsequent stories in the local press. Some households were recruited through Severn Wye’s Warm and Well advice line, others at events and some through ‘snowball’ sampling (friends telling friends about this project and interest groups circulating details to their members). The domestic energy helpdesk at a partner local authority also referred households directly to the project team. To be considered for the project, households were asked to complete an application form, in which they provided basic details about their home and what they wanted to gain from the project.

Initially, 50 households were recruited with the expectation that a proportion would drop out over the course of the research period, which ran from early summer 2012 to late spring 2014.

Although two separate advertisements were published for pre and post retrofit households, dividing them into two distinct groups proved somewhat arbitrary: for many participating households, their home was a constant ‘work in progress’ always with room for improvement.

Like participants in Greece and Cyprus, more households expressed an interest in making physical improvements to their home than energy monitoring. However a handful of households (that were particularly interested in the project) chose to undertake both energy monitoring and energy improvements.

Pre retrofit households The research team conducted energy assessments of each property in the group using the reduced version of the Standard Assessment Procedure, otherwise known as RdSAP. Following each assessment, the team issued each household with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and a report containing recommendations on energy improvements and the potential savings to be gained were the recommendations to be implemented.

16 Wiltshire Council: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/council/2011census.htm 17 Ibid 18 Wiltshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2011) 19 Office for National Statistics, Local Profiles, October 2013 update

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 61

3. METHODOLOGY Once a household had received its EPC and report (which were issued after the visit) the team would get its feedback, answer any questions and explore the feasibility of following up some or all of the recommendations. After that, households were free to contact the research team with any queries and to ask questions.

The project team maintained contact with the households through visits, telephone calls and emails from summer 2012 to late spring 2014. Field notes were made during each conversation and home visit. Semi structured interviews were also conducted and transcribed with a handful of households that made significant or multiple energy improvements to their homes.

Towards the end of the research period, the UK team conducted second energy surveys on the homes that had undergone significant energy improvements. These surveys captured the estimated energy, carbon and financial savings as a result of the improvements.

Post retrofit households The project team set all 20 post retrofit households up with an account on a free, online energy monitoring tool. Each household’s historical energy data was loaded into their account and once the account was set up, the research team showed the households how to enter their meter readings and review their consumption patterns, energy spend and related carbon emissions over time.

Households in this group were encouraged to input their own meter readings on either a monthly or a weekly basis. In the initial stages, the research team entered this data in for several households until they were confident enough to do this themselves. The research team made efforts to tailor the accounts as much as possible to the households by putting information in about their home including the total floor area, the type of boiler, glazing and insulation levels, plus the presence of a renewable technology if applicable. The household’s gas and electricity tariffs were also entered. The tool also had access to weather data and heating degree days across the UK, so the households were able to choose the weather station nearest to their home.

The research team had access to the households’ energy accounts and monitored them throughout the research phase, occasionally sending out reminders to those that had not logged their meter readings for a while. Households were encouraged to make a note of any changes in their energy use by using the comments box function alongside where they entered their meter readings. At the end of 2012 the team sent a questionnaire to this group to find out more about their energy use patterns around the home.

From early 2013 to early 2014 the research team sent the participants energy saving tips and summaries of their energy use – comparing them with each other and the national average.

These were altered and shaped by feedback from the participants in terms of what worked well for them and what did not. During this phase research staff answered households’ queries and addressed issues as they came up.

62 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY In February 2014 all the households using the tool were encouraged to adopt one electricity and one heat saving measure for the month and to log it in their online account along with any other changes to their energy consumption. The research team analysed the results and sent detailed feedback to the participating households.

In spring 2014 the team sent out a questionnaire to gauge the respondents’ responses to the different interventions over the research phase. These questionnaires were also circulated to the pre retrofit households that had asked for thermal images to be taken of their homes.

3.4.2 Working with installers Between summer 2012 and summer 2014 the UK project team interviewed representatives from 17 local businesses providing products and services related to retrofit. Four of these companies were interviewed twice with at least six months in between each interview. In total, 24 interviews and one focus group discussion were conducted with installers. Some were recruited through the ‘Link to Energy’ installer network that had been developed to support the local advice and retrofit programme, as an integral part of the community delivery model. Others were recruited through some of the pre retrofit households. The businesses dealt with a range of trades and technologies, including: • Renewables (solar, biomass).

• Electrical engineering.

• Conventional heating and plumbing, heat pumps.

• Insulation (internal and external).

• Conservation restoration.

• General building and property maintenance.

3.4.3 Regional Advisory and Steering Groups The Severn Wye team worked with a local Steering Group consisting of the four partner local authorities and three further ‘observer’ local authorities who were active within the local Affordable Warmth Partnership and partners in the local delivery programmes. To provide wider perspectives, expertise and feedback, the UK research team also made links with a small group of relevant individuals to form a wider Advisory Group, making contact with them on an individual basis for help at key stages. These two groups then comprised: • Seven Local Authorities.

• The sustainability lead for a Housing Association.

• Key academic researchers.

• An energy supplier.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 63

3. METHODOLOGY 3.4.4 Other research activities Energy monitors Once all the post retrofit households were set up and logging their meter readings, they were offered energy monitors. The research team did not log or monitor the energy data from the monitors; the point of giving out the energy monitors was to enable the participants to monitor their electricity consumption easily and identify peaks. For this reason, the choice was left to the households as to whether they wanted one or not. Not all households chose to have an energy monitor. In total, eight households requested an energy monitor and one had their own.

Thermal photography Over the winters of 2012-13 and 2013-14 the research team offered to take thermal images of the homes of the post retrofit households. This offer was later extended to the pre retrofit group.

The participants welcomed having thermal images taken of their homes and it was popular; in total, 29 households chose to have images taken of their homes.

Focus groups Between summer 2012 and spring 2014 different focus groups were held to discuss the issues with and opportunities for, domestic retrofit. They were with a variety of individuals and groups: • 16 installers and energy assessors – in Gloucestershire 2012.

• 12 pre and post retrofit households in South Gloucestershire in November 2012.

• 6 pre and post retrofit households in Wiltshire in December 2012.

• 6 pre and post retrofit households in Gloucestershire in January 2013.

• 31 other actors across Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire and Wiltshire comprising building control and conservation officers, planners, installers, households and suppliers.

Three separate focus groups were held over February and March 2013; they focused on solid wall insulation and glazing.

Delivery team interviews At different points throughout the research phase the research team conducted semi-structured interviews with Severn Wye staff involved with developing and piloting different elements of the community scale retrofit model, focussing on the transition Severn Wye had had to undergo in order to get the structures, skills and accreditations in place to adapt to the Green Deal, to adapt the Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund concept, to develop the Link to Energy network and to enable these different mechanisms to work together.

3.4.5 Developing the community scale delivery model Building on more than a decade of experience, and learning from research carried out by others and referenced in the ‘Background’ section of this report, Severn Wye adapted and updated their previous approach to develop the following concept for a model for community scale delivery to meet future needs. These elements are detailed in the guidance toolkit produced to complement this research report.

64 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY Outreach and awareness-raising A well-focused and targeted programme of activity is needed to raise the interest of homeowners and their awareness of the potential and benefits of making home energy improvements. This is both planned and opportunistic, and is delivered: • Directly, through local papers and radio, mail outs, leaflet drops, street canvassing and in person at events and in public places.

• Indirectly, by working with intermediaries including housing, health and social care agencies, and community and neighbourhood groups of all kinds.

Energy advice Experience indicated that homeowners carrying out energy improvements generally have energy advice needs which are multi-stage and require varying levels of detail. They can range from an initial enquiry and discussion of what is possible, through to an energy assessment of the home and identification of measures and potential costs and savings, to assistance in prioritising next steps, sourcing installers and finance, and user behaviour.

Energy assessments are regulated and provided by qualified and accredited assessors.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) establishes the need for an energy performance certificate (EPC), and in the UK the Reduced data Standard Assessment Procedure (RdSAP) is used to assess a building and produce an EPC. This has been incorporated into the Green Deal Advice report, which is one of the requirements for access to Green Deal Loans.

To engage fully with the Green Deal, Severn Wye Energy Agency became an accredited Green Deal Advice Organisation (GDAO). This meant not only re-training and accreditation of staff as Green Deal Advisors but also developing a Quality Management System (QMS) and having this audited to demonstrate compliance with the ‘Specification for Organisations Providing Green Deal Advice’ Local contact hub The concept of the local contact hub was developed in response to the multi stage nature of homeowners’ advice needs, and the potential for confusion or losing momentum at some point in the retrofit journey. Ideally the hub offers a range of establishing and maintaining contact including telephone, e-mail and web, and a personalised service – with a dedicated team that get to know their customers and support them through the journey. The hub also arranges for home energy assessments to be done; in Severn Wye’s pilot a team of in house assessors is backed up by associates.

Installers An essential part of the delivery model is the availability of installers for all the relevant technologies. As part of the background to the project, a local installer group for energy improvements to buildings had been established in partnership with Stroud District Council in 2007. The group aimed to build local capacity for the measures that were less common in the UK at the time such as micro-renewables, solid wall insulation and high efficiency windows suitable for traditional buildings, and to provide a means for homeowners to find installers and tradespeople in the local area. Members were included on a list that was made available to any household that requested it and as part of the network, occasional meetings were held to discuss industry developments.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 65

3. METHODOLOGY This network was further developed as part of the Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project, and branded ‘Link to Energy’. A web portal was developed to enable access to the database so that households (and businesses) can find sustainable energy installers and tradespeople in their area, with the facility to search by town, postcode, technology or companies that have specific certifications, such as Green Deal. Through the online enquiry form, visitors to the database can contact the companies listed directly about the measures or services they offer.

Link to Energy – connecting installers and tradespeople with homeowners, local businesses and communities

Link to Energy aims to: • Enable building owners and occupants to find installers who are able to make improvements to the energy performance of their homes and to give them a choice of installers who are as local to them as possible.

• Link local installers to local jobs.

• Enable installers to identify providers of complimentary services so that they can deliver more complex solutions to customers.

Link to Energy is open to installers of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures operating in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire. Local and smaller businesses are particularly welcome, but it’s open to all companies that provide: • Loft, flat roof, ceiling and floor insulation.

• Solid wall and cavity insulation.

• Gas, oil, electric, solid fuel and biomass heating, and hot water systems.

• Air, ground and water source heat pumps.

• Renewable heat and power (including solar thermal and photovoltaics).

• Window replacement and refurbishment.

• Low energy lighting.

• General builders and other trades keen to promote and provide energy improvements as part of their services.

66 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY For companies, Link to Energy is free to join and in addition to being listed on the database, it also offers members quarterly meetings which offer the chance to network with other businesses, find out about any changes in legislation, and be invited to training events. http://www.linktoenergy.org.uk/ Although – in theory – the Green Deal in the UK presents a huge opportunity for small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to get involved in an expanding retrofit market, Severn Wye was also aware that the requirements of the Green Deal could act as a barrier and that SMEs could get left behind. With this in mind and drawing on feedback from members, Severn Wye looked at how the Link to Energy service could be improved. The pilot programme developed included organising for local installers to attend training with suppliers including Knauf and Kingspan, information sessions on training available, briefings on relevant developments including the Green Deal, PAS2030 and the Renewable Heat Incentive.

Link to Energy has also joined forces with other relevant industry and community organisations to expand the network. It has collaborated on events with the Federation of Master Builders, further education institutions and local companies, and worked with Chambers of Commerce and partner local authorities. Severn Wye’s local activities were identified as a ‘green skills exemplar’ by the national sector skills councils working on this issue, opening up opportunities for knowledge sharing and dissemination. Efforts have also been made to recruit members from outside Gloucestershire, particularly in South Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. As of summer 2014, there are over 130 businesses registered and this number continues to grow.

These businesses range from large, regional organisations through to smaller ‘one-man-band’type operations, and they cover all types of domestic and business energy needs.

Suppliers and merchants Another key part of the supply chain is the suppliers of energy efficiency materials and products.

Installers may get these from independent local merchants, large chains, mail order or in some cases direct from a manufacturer or dedicated distributor – the latter is more typically the case for large installation companies. A partnership with a local independent builders’ merchant was included in the pilot of the local delivery model, with joint marketing and referrals to a Green Deal Provider.

Building Control and Planning In the process of making home improvements, homeowners and builders are often required to refer to local planning or building control regulations and request permissions. This is an important step in the journey, and one which can present either a barrier or an opportunity.

Advisors need to understand local restrictions but also where policies are favourable to sustainable energy improvements, and planning and building control personnel can be an important source of local and technical knowledge, for example in being aware of solutions found for particular house types and features, and installers able to provide these solutions.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 67

3. METHODOLOGY Finance A key element of providing advice is helping households to identify funding streams that could enable them to take action. By mid-2013 it was decreed that any organisation signposting customers to a Green Deal Provider (or working directly with them on the Green Deal) was in effect acting as a financial broker and for this reason would need to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. At the time this was regulated by the Office of Fair Trading but this has since changed to the Financial Conduct Authority. In order to demonstrate compliance, Severn Wye had to complete a detailed application process as well as supply supporting procedural and policy documentation. Doing this also enabled Severn Wye to signpost clients to other sources of finance, including the one that had been developed under this project.

As described above, besides offering households access to national financial products such as the Green Deal and grant funding such as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), a key plank of Severn Wye’s business model was to develop and pilot a financial product that offered greater flexibility than the Green Deal but could still be used in conjunction with it, or any other loan or grant funding. The results and learning from this are detailed in the next chapter on Results.

3.5 Research limitations Economic constraints This three year project started in January 2012 and ended in December 2014, with the research phase planned to be from spring 2012 until spring 2014. The timing of the project presented a few challenges. Economic turmoil across Europe in Greece contributed to delays in the project funding and consequently, the Greek research team was unable to start planning the research until spring 2013. The actual research phase in Greece could not begin until September 2013.

Another significant impact on the Greek research was the suspension of funding for the national ‘Saving at Home’ retrofit programme. Most of the pre retrofit households planned to finance their home improvements by applying for funding through this programme. This development – and the findings from the literature review – prompted the project team to adjust the focus of its research to focus on energy consumption and monitoring. In order for the data to be robust, it was not feasible for the research phase to end in spring/summer 2014 (the same time as research in the UK and Cyprus concluded). This is why the Greek research team concluded its research in September 2014.

Cyprus also experienced economic shocks over 2012 and 2013. Closure of banks and public protests caused two installer meetings to be delayed.

The UK team also experienced difficulties around finance for measures. Grant aid reduced significantly during the project lifetime compared to preceding years, with private sector housing renewal and improvement funding through local authorities disappearing altogether. ECO funding from the energy suppliers was much more limited than anticipated and difficult to access at local level. The Green Deal experienced serious delays and low take up when it was finally launched, and it proved impossible to raise commercial finance for the local loans fund, at least until the time of writing (autumn 2014). With the help of supporting charity the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, Severn Wye decided to establish a mini pilot with social finance.

68 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

3. METHODOLOGY Two Local Authorities agreed to provide a Guarantee Fund, and Severn Wye invested their charity reserves in an initial loans pot, matched by the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust.

More details of the pilot and how it developed are provided in section 4.

Issues with use of equipment The CEA (Cyprus Energy Agency) team also experienced minor, practical difficulties during the research. Some of the homeowners either unplugged the transmitter of the energy monitor or turned it off. As a result, the transmitter and the receiver of the smart meter were decoupled and the data were not transmitted online. In order to resolve this issue, the status of the online data of the households were checked periodically by CEA and if any problem was observed in any household CEA contacted the homeowner and provided guidance to fix the problem. In many cases where the homeowner was unable to fix the problem the CEA team visited the specific house and fixed the issue on site.

Research design This project is very much grounded in the ‘real world’. It does not start from a theoretical or philosophical standpoint nor wish to prove or disprove any hypotheses about reasons for retrofit, or energy related behaviour. This research was an exercise in exploring and identifying practical issues and opportunities around domestic retrofit, which emerged over the course of the research. So in this sense, the research was inductive, the themes, problems and possible solutions emerged from the ‘ground up’ – from the participants themselves, and from external events. The role of the project teams was to interpret these and find practical ways around them.

A significant degree of flexibility was built into the overall research process to allow for local and national variations, events, issues and potential solutions.

Sample sizes Given the relatively small sample sizes in each country, the results cannot be taken as indicative of the whole population of each region or the country as a whole. However, project partners attempted to select as wide a range as properties as feasible and as broad a range of households as possible.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 69

70 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS 4.1 Cyprus.......................................................................................... 72 4.1.1 Households..............................................................................................................................72 4.1.2 Installers....................................................................................................................................74 4.1.3 Insights from Cyprus..............................................................................................................75

4.2 Greece.......................................................................................... 87 4.2.1 Households..............................................................................................................................87 4.2.2 Installers....................................................................................................................................93 4.2.3 Insights from Greece..............................................................................................................94

4.3 United Kingdom....................................................................... 112 4.3.1 Households............................................................................................................................112 4.3.2 Installers..................................................................................................................................114 4.3.3 Insights from the United Kingdom....................................................................................114

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 71

4. RESULTS This chapter explores the findings of the research in the three research regions in Cyprus, Greece and the UK.

4.1 Cyprus 4.1.1 Households Built form In total, 21 retrofit households were selected from across Cyprus. Ten of the homes in the participant group were detached, single storey dwellings (villas or bungalows), nine were houses (duplex house), three were flats and one was a semi-detached house.

Flat Single house (bungalow) Duplex house Semi-detached house

Diagram 1: Housing types in the Cypriot pre retrofit participant group Age of construction The oldest dwellings in the group were constructed between 1965 and 1980, with seven homes dating from this period. Four homes were built between 1981 and 1990; six homes were built between 1991 and 2000 and the remaining six were constructed between 2001 and 2010.

1965-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 <2011

Diagram 2: Periods in which Cypriot participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes were constructed

72 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Size of homes The floor area of the homes varied widely. One home was less than 100 square metres, while eight were between 101 and 150 square metres. Five homes were between 151 and 200 square metres. Three homes were between 201 and 250 square metres and six were over 251 square metres. <100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251<

Diagram 3: Floor areas of homes in sample â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in square metres Size of household Nearly two thirds of the Cypriot pre retrofit group (15 households â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 65%) comprised families with children. Five households comprised residents over 60. Two households comprised of single people and there was one couple under 60.

Single person Couple Family with children Residents are 60 or over

Diagram 4: Composition of households in Cypriot pre retrofit group.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 73

4. RESULTS Household income Household incomes for the group spanned a wide range. The most common income bracket was €40,000 – 50,000 with 35% of households falling into this range. The remaining households were spread across the other income brackets with one household at either end of the range.

0-20 20-30 30-40 40-55 55-70 <70

Diagram 5: Income range of Cypriot pre retrofit group.

4.1.2 Installers The Local Installer Group comprised around 20 members and included installers and contractors dealing with the following technologies: • Boilers.

• Refrigeration.

• Heating and Air Conditioning (HVAC).

• Lighting and electrical engineering.

• Insulation.

• Structural engineering.

• Renewable technologies.

• Electrical appliances.

• Glazing.

• Shading.

The following graph shows the number of companies from each technology area:

74 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Electrical appliances Renewable technologies Insulation Glazing Shading Lighting and electrical engineering Heating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Refrigeration Boilers 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Diagram 6: Number of installers per category in Cyprus Installer Group

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

4.1.3 Insights from Cyprus

1C retr onside ofit ring

Two meetings were held to bring together members of the Local Installers Group. The first meeting was in late December 2012 and the second in late May 2014. During the first meeting, the Cyprus Energy Agency project team got members to complete a questionnaire on the barriers to, difficulties in and the opportunities within the energy renovation pathway for households.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 1: Considering retrofit

Reasons for retrofit: During the first visit, qualitative data was collected from all 21 pre retrofit households, including an initial questionnaire. When asked what the main reasons were for improving the energy performance of their home, most respondents (90%) cited saving money and energy, while a minority (5%) cited improving the thermal comfort conditions inside the house. The remainder cited reducing their homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s carbon footprint (5%) as their primary reason to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Barriers to retrofit: The main barriers preventing the participants from improving the energy efficiency of their homes were economic. Specifically, nearly three quarters (73%) said their annual income had decreased as a result of the economic crisis. Lack of information was also a factor, with (5%) of respondents citing this as a barrier to improvements. Nearly a fifth of participants (18%) considered the cost of energy related improvements to be too high.

Lastly, (4%) cited the lack of energy-related loans by local banks as a barrier to retrofit.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 75

4. RESULTS From the perspective of installers and tradespeople, members of the Local Installers Group (LIG) stated that the main barriers to energy improvements among households were cost (26%) and the bureaucracy involved (24%). Installers also considered financing improvements to be a barrier, with close to half (42%) stating that financial constraints before, during or after a renovation can prevent or jeopardise energy improvements.

Triggers for retrofit included fuel prices and perceptions of payback times. Just over two thirds (68%) of households using oil based central heating systems said that if the price of heating oil increased in the near future, they would consider switching to other energy sources, fuels or systems in order to save money and energy. In order of preference – as diagram x shows – nearly a third of respondents said they preferred solar energy, with just over a quarter favouring biomass. Just over a fifth said they would consider switching to LPG or an all-electric heating system.

Electricity 18% LPG

32% 23% 27%

Biomass wood Solar energy

Diagram 7: Cypriot households’ preferred fuel choice if heating oil price increased

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Half the participants believed that in general the payback period of energy efficiency measures is four to eight years; a quarter believed that energy improvements take between two and four years to pay back. The remaining quarter thought the payback period depended on the measure applied and the characteristics of the house. Over half of the homeowners (56%) were not aware of the existence of energy related loans from Cypriot banks.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 2: Taking action – impartial advice

Nearly all of the homeowners (95%) stated that the kind of advice/information they would like to have about the energy performance of their household, would include: • An assessment of their home’s current energy performance.

• Recommendations on what energy improvements would save the most energy and money.

• An estimate of the improved energy performance of the home if the measures were implemented.

76 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS In response, the CEA team produced reports for each household incorporating these elements.

The energy survey was conducted on the first visit, along with collection of other the data – and the reports were presented to each household during the second visit. Feedback on the reports was very positive with nearly all participants (97%) saying they were ‘very satisfied’ with the content and the quality of the report. A small minority (3%) said they were ‘satisfied’.

The research team asked households about the barriers to obtaining appropriate information about potential energy improvements for their homes. Participants cited barriers including: a lack of experts, too little information from the government, a lack of knowledge among some installers and a shortage of skilled people to implement this type of work.

The research team asked households about their preferred sources of energy efficiency information and advice. Nearly two thirds (65%) stated a preference for getting this type of information from an independent expert such as an engineer or energy assessor instead of a supplier or installer of the relevant equipment. The main reason is impartiality; participants thought that an independent expert would give objective, reliable advice on the best measures for their home, whereas they considered that advice from a supplier or an installer could be biased towards particular products or technologies. A small percentage of the homeowners (8%) stated that they preferred to undertake their own research online to identify the best energy improvements for their home, although they said that they found the information confusing.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Installers on the other hand, reported obtaining their energy efficiency information from manufacturers of the equipment they used, most of which were overseas. They reported that only a small proportion of the energy efficiency related equipment they install is produced locally.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 3: Planning works

In order to get an idea of the types of energy improvements that the participating households valued and perceived to deliver savings, the research team asked them about which energy efficiency measures they had already undertaken and those they planned to implement.

As diagram 8 illustrates, most homeowners said that they had already installed double glazing and room thermostats, while a third had insulated their roofs.

Around half of the respondents (48%) intended to insulate their roofs and a third intended to externally insulate their homes. Interestingly, no households reported having replaced their incandescent bulbs with energy efficient ones and over half (57%) did not intend to do so.

This finding highlights how – although the households were actively looking for ways to save energy and money – a significant proportion did not acknowledge the importance of the contribution of lighting to overall energy demand.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 77

4. RESULTS Replacing light lamps with energy-saving lamps Thermostats in the heating system Double glazing External wall thermal insulation Thermal insulation on the roof 0 No, I do not intend

2

4

6

Intends to apply

8

10

12

14

16

I have already applied

Diagram 8: Cypriot householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intentions on commonly applied energy efficiency measures The research team took the opportunity to ask the households about which type of renewable energy system they would consider having installed. As diagram 9 shows, most homeowners ruled out installing a wind turbine (90%), geothermal heat pump (86%) or a biomass system (62%).

Wind turbine (water pumping)

No, I do not intend

Biomass system I want, but there are barriers

Ground heat pump

Intends to apply

Photovoltaic system

I have already applied

Solar thermal 0

5

10

15

20

Diagram 9: Cypriot householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; intentions to install renewable energy systems.

The most popular renewable energy systems among the participants were photovoltaic (with 43% stating they would consider having this technology installed) and solar thermal systems (with 38% stating they would consider having this technology installed). Photovoltaic and solar thermal systems were the only renewable installations that participating households already had in place; 9.5% of participating households had a photovoltaic system and 5% had a solar thermal system.

78 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS At the first visit, when asked which measures they thought would have the highest energy saving potential, nearly two thirds (62%) of the homeowners cited solid wall insulation followed by a photovoltaic system (52%). Nearly half of the respondents (48%) thought that installing more energy efficient appliances would save the most energy. As diagram 10 shows, over half (57%) of the households did not consider the energy saving potential of replacement lighting to be significant. Just over two thirds (67%) considered that standby mode has a little or average effect on the homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall energy consumption.

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Not at all Little Enough Much Replace old lamps

Avoid standby mode

Install thermal insulation

Avoid using AC and use fans for cooling

Buy high energy class devices

Install PV system

Very much

Install double glazing

I do not know

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Diagram 10: The Cypriot householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; view of energy saving potential of measures

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

Stage 4: Undertaking energy improvements

Two households made several physical improvements to their homes. These measures included applying thermal insulation to the exterior of the roof, replacing existing light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs and installing a photovoltaic system. The electricity consumption of these households is depicted in diagrams 11 and 12. Diagram 11 illustrates the electricity consumption of the household that insulated the roof and replaced their incandescent bulbs with low energy ones. Diagram 12 depicts the electricity demand of the household that installed a photovoltaic system.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 79

4. RESULTS

Diagram 11: Electricity consumption profile of a Cypriot household that had external insulation installed and replaced its incandescent bulbs with energy efficient ones Between July 2013 and May 2014 this household replaced its incandescent light bulbs with low energy ones and had external insulation fitted. Comparing May, June and July 2014 with the same three months of the previous year, as diagram 11 shows, this householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity use fell by 19%.

Diagram 12: Electricity consumption profile of a Cypriot household that installed a photovoltaic system This household had a photovoltaic system fitted between July 2013 and May 2014. Comparing this householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumption levels over May, June and July 2013 with the same months in 2014 shows that its demand fell by nearly 97%.

Since 2013, in Cyprus a PV net metering system has been made available for households with a maximum installed capacity per household of 3 kWp. It works by drawing on the PV net metering measurements, which show the amount of electricity produced by the photovoltaic

80 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS system. Where the household’s electricity demand exceeds the amount the produced by the photovoltaic system additional electricity is imported from the grid. Where there the system produces more than the building can consume, the remainder goes back into the grid.

Every two months the bi-directional meter calculates the amount of electricity exported to the grid and compares it with the amount of electricity imported from the grid. If the result is positive (if more has been imported than exported), the owner of the building has to pay the electricity provider for the net amount of energy imported. If the result is negative (where the amount of energy fed back to the grid exceeds the amount imported from it) the owner gets this amount for free over the following two months and only pays the electricity provider a charge for using the network.

Experience of retrofit. To make these improvements the homeowners employed local companies which they found via Cyprus Energy Agency’s online installer database.

Both households reported having positive experiences of the installation and considered the work to be of a high standard. The improvements were made individually and were not as part of general refurbishments.

In addition to the households mentioned in diagrams 11 and 12, two other households installed photovoltaic systems. In order to get the permit to install these systems, the households had to submit several supporting documents to the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC). They reported that obtaining the permits took between one and three months and that the process itself was straightforward.

However, the homeowner that installed thermal insulation on his roof (the cost of which was partly covered by a grant for which the owner applied in 2013) reported having a very different experience. Getting the application evaluated by the relevant authority and obtaining the grant was complicated and took over six months. Nearly a quarter of installers participating in this project (24%) reported that in their own experience, bureaucracy is the second most important barrier to domestic energy conservation measures.

Developments in retrofit finance Government schemes Recognising the need for more energy efficient buildings, in early 2014 the Cypriot Government started consulting with relevant decision makers and stakeholders about a scheme to encourage sustainable energy renovations. Cyprus Energy Agency supported those consultations by canvassing members of its Regional Advisory Group where members had the opportunity to exchange ideas about this new support scheme called “I renovate – I save energy”. This scheme aims to improve the energy performance of homes and buildings owned by the public and private sectors. The scheme is based on doing this by providing grant funding1.

1

The Scheme is funded by the Republic of Cyprus, through the Fund for Renewable Energy Sources (RES) and Energy Efficiency (EXE), and the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union the Operational Programme “Sustainable Development and Competitiveness”. The total amount allocated for the purposes of the Plan in this call for applications amounts to € 16 million. The Scheme is for the programming period 2014-2020.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 81

4. RESULTS Cypriot home energy loans In late 2013 Cyprus Energy Agency presented the technical and economic opportunities of improving the energy efficiency of homes to its Regional Advisory Group; in 2014 the Hellenic Bank decided to design and launch a new product – a loan designed to pay for energy saving measures, called ‘Energeia’. The Energeia loan provides funding for one or more of the following: • Photovoltaic installation (up to €6000 euros).

• Thermal insulation (€4000 euros).

• Double glazing (€3000 euros).

• Replacement solar panels and water heating systems (up to €1000 euros).

• LED lighting (up to €500 euros).

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

In Cyprus, this type of home energy improvement loan is provided by other financial institutions including Bank of Cyprus, Piraeus Bank and co-operatives but can only be used for photovoltaic systems.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

Stage 5: Maximising energy savings

Occupants’ perception of energy use and energy conservation measures The research team asked the households about their electricity consumption, and specifically what devices or groups of devices they considered responsible for the bulk of their electricity consumption. Most of the participants believed that the use of split type air conditioning units (which are capable of heating or cooling) and washing machines were ‘very much’ responsible for the bulk of their electricity consumption, as shown in diagram 13. Interestingly many of the households also believed that dryers and ovens consumed ‘little’ electricity despite the fact that these appliances are relatively energy intensive.

82 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Electric oven Refrigerator I do not know

Electrical appliances on standby

Very much

Air Conditioning units

Much

Stoves

Enough

Dryer

Little

Washing Machine

Not at all

Lighting TV 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Diagram 13: Cypriot households’ estimate of energy consumption of appliances Through surveys and structured interviews, the Cypriot team tried to understand households’ perceptions of the contribution of groups of appliances to their overall energy costs.

8 7 6

Do not know

5

1 - Very low

4

2 - Low

3

3

2

4 - High

1

5 - Very high

0 Lighting

Heating

Cooling

Electrical appliances

Hot water

Diagram 14: Share of various energy uses on the total energy expenditure of the house As diagram 14 shows, most of the participating homeowners underestimated the contribution of lighting to their home’s overall energy use as they considered this area to have a ‘low’ impact on their overall consumption. As for the production of domestic hot water, the reason why most participants considered that its impact on overall energy consumption to be either low or very low could be explained by the fact that over 95% of houses in Cyprus have solar thermal collectors installed so only occasionally use other means to produce their hot water.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 83

4. RESULTS 16 14

Do not know

12

1 - Very low

10

2 - Low

8

3

6

4 - High

4

5 - Very high

2

pl ac la es rw at er he at Ex er te rn al sh ad Eff in g Ph ici en ot ov te ol le ta ct ics ric al ap pl ia nc es

ns

So

en ici Eff

ta ir

Eff

ici

en

en

tf ire

di co n

ht ig tl

tio

bu lb

s

g la zin tg ici

Eff

ici

en Eff

Th

er

m

al in

su la tio

n

0

Diagram 15: Cypriot households’ perception of impact of energy efficiency measures on energy performance Diagram 15 shows that between the first and second visits, participants’ perceptions of the impacts of various energy efficiency measures shifted. When asked during the initial visits which improvements had the greatest energy saving potential, insulation was the participants’ first choice, followed by photovoltaics. During the wave of second visits, participants considered photovoltaics to have the greatest impact on home energy consumption, closely followed by insulation. This shift in perception may be partly explained by the fact that in 2013 a subsidy scheme for photovoltaic systems was launched in Cyprus. It is likely that this scheme increased awareness about this technology and the subsidy element made it more attractive. Participants’ responses regarding the technology of energy efficient wood-burners suggest a gap in knowledge as over four fifths of respondents said they ‘do not know’ what their energy saving potential is.

Discussions about energy efficiency with the homeowners revealed that the majority (90%) left their laptop or mobile telephone chargers plugged in once the device was fully charged, unaware that an estimated 95% of the energy consumed by such portable appliances is after the charging process. Less than half (47%) of the households knew that cooking with the lid on reduces the amount of heat required for cooking by fifty percent.

Half of the homeowners replied that they never leave electrical appliances switched on without using them while 44% replied that they do it sometimes or occasionally. On the other hand, the answers were different concerning the standby mode. Specifically, just over a quarter (26%) reported that they leave their electrical appliances on standby from often to very often, while just under half (44%) reported sometimes or occasionally doing this. Just under a third of households (31%) said they never do this.

84 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Over half of the households (56%) reported that they do not leave lights on in unoccupied rooms while nearly a fifth (19%) leave the lights on sometimes, with a quarter leaving them on occasionally. As for the use of the washing machine (which is considered to be a rather energy consuming device) most (56%) respondents said they never wash less than a full load, while a 25% do this occasionally and nearly a fifth (19%) sometimes do this. Half of the participating homeowners do not wash at high temperatures, over a third (38%) do so occasionally and around an eighth (12%) of households do this sometimes.

The picture changes for the use of air conditioning units; over two thirds of households (69%) reported that they never set the temperature of their air conditioning split unit below 23°C in summer (the recommended set temperature for summer is 26oC). Over four fifths (81%) said they never set the air conditioning below 28°C in winter (the recommended set temperature for winter is 20oC). This is despite the fact that most of the participants considered air conditioning units be energy hungry appliances that are expensive to run. Half of the participants were unaware their air conditioning split unit or washing machine have an ‘Eco’ mode so have never used it.

After the initial visit by the CEA team, the homeowners tried to reduce their energy demand by applying simple measures suggested by the energy advisors. Diagrams 16 to 18 feature examples of three households that managed to reduce their electricity use by modifying their energy related behaviour at home.

In all three cases electricity consumption from May to July 2014 (where the summer period begins, prompting use of air conditioning units) was significantly lower than the same period in 2013. These homeowners reported that they had acted on the energy saving advice provided by the CEA team during the initial visit.

Diagram 16: Electricity consumption profile of a household in the Engomi district of Lefkosia

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 85

4. RESULTS

Diagram 17: Electricity consumption profile of one of a household in Pera Oreinis Village, Nicosia district

Diagram 18: Electricity consumption profile of a household in the Limassol Municipality The vast majority (84%) of the participating homeowners welcomed the project teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy saving advice and said they wished to continue receiving such support. They also stated they would apply the low cost energy saving measures to their home. However, in terms of measures requiring considerable upfront cost the results are somewhat different. Specifically, just under half (44%) of participants said they had no intention of investing in any energy efficiency improvements, or had plans to make only a very small investment.

Perhaps surprisingly, awareness of energy efficiency grants and subsidies was low among the households. Nearly two thirds (62%) of homeowners were unaware of existing schemes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of homeowners (87%) said they would like to be informed about any grant funding and â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if possible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; apply for such funding to pay for energy improvements to their home. All participants thought that grants to fund home energy improvements are very important, that they play a significant role in the decision making of homeowners, and that the Government should deploy such schemes more frequently. In the absence of such assistance

86 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS however, participants considered that households should take responsibility for improving the energy efficiency of their homes.

On a positive note, all of the homeowners believed that the commitment of every occupant of the home – especially younger ones – is crucial for reducing overall energy consumption.

Although the households stated that qualified energy experts have an important role in helping households to identify optimum energy reduction measures for their home, they also said that they would not be willing to pay for an energy assessment. On the other hand, participants believed technicians and installers have an important role to play in installing energy efficiency measures and advising on how to use them, to the extent that they would be willing to pay more to have certified companies and individuals install such measures.

Energy monitor trial – results The energy monitor trial proved unsuccessful as almost half of the households did not try to use the device. Specifically, just under a third (31%) of households said they never used it while 38% used it only sometimes or occasionally. Just under a third of the participants (32%) reported that they used the energy monitor either often or very often. Just under a fifth (19%) said that using the monitor helped them to identify and better understand their most energy consuming devices, so enabling them to save energy. The same participants also said they would also recommend the device to friends.

Conversely, the remaining 81% of participants said they would not recommend it. One possible explanation for this is that they did not understand how to use the energy monitor and were unaware of its energy saving potential. Their motivation to save energy might have waned through the research phase. The proportion of homeowners that used the energy monitor (19%) and understood its benefits were very enthusiastic about the results and the device generally.

4.2 Greece 4.2.1 Households The action for the ‘Countdown to Low Carbon Homes’ project in Greece was conducted with the following two groups of households: Post retrofit households: 20 households were selected to provide their experience and record their home’s energy performance after retrofit. An ‘energy diary’ approach was established for self-monitoring, the aim being to encourage the households to monitor their consumption or external factors which affected their energy consumption.

Pre retrofit households: The analysis focused on 20 households intending to retrofit their homes during the lifetime of the project. Homeowners were happy to participate in this group in order to receive energy advice and in return to provide feedback by documenting their experiences.

All the participating households live in the greater area of Thessaloniki city, the second largest urban area in Greece, with a population of 1,000,000 people.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 87

4. RESULTS The first step in the research was to investigate the energy performance of the homes in the sample. To do this the Greek research team used a specially developed questionnaire in order to collect data from both groups. The results are grouped in 5 sections comparing the typological and structural characteristics of the homes, the heating, cooling and domestic water systems and the electrical energy consumption. Information about the interventions and energy performance improvements already implemented were also collected from the post retrofit group.

Diagram 19 summarises the main characteristics of the participating homes. The results are similar to statistics on homes in the Athens area – presented in diagram 20 – showing that the selected Thessaloniki homes are typical of the Greek urban environment.

Characteristics Number of floors per building Year of construction Floor are in m² of the household Inhabitants per 100 m²

Mean value 3.06 1979 125.38 2.41

Diagram 19: Main characteristics of the participating Greek homes In terms of the characteristics of the participating households, 28% live in detached homes, 6.5% live in semi-detached houses, 6.5% live in houses that have been divided into two units and 60% live in apartments. A significant factor when considering retrofitting options is the position of the home in the overall building. This is particularly relevant to participating households living in apartment blocks; 75% of which were on middle floors whereas 25% were on the highest floor.

The majority of participating homes do not have an attic, as is generally the case for apartments in Greece.

The average number of floors per building is three; 9% of participating homes had only one floor, 25% had two, 5% had three and 31% had over four floors. The mean floor area is 125m2 and households with a floor area of less than 50 m2 and 100 m2 constituted 3% and 38 % of the sample respectively. Thus, the occupancy profile varied from floor to floor. The average construction year was 1980 as shown in diagram 20. Just over half of the homes in the sample (53%) were built before the implementation of the Greek Thermal Insulation Regulation (GTIR) in 1979, so have no thermal insulation at all. The majority of the homes in the sample were constructed between 1970 and 1990.

Another important parameter is the number of inhabitants per dwelling. In the Greek sample 31.25% of the houses belonged to couples, followed by families with four members (28.1%).

Households with three members and with more than four members constituted 18.75% and 12.5% of the sample respectively, whereas only 9.3% comprised single-person homes.

Overall, the average number of inhabitants was 3.03 with a mean floor area of 125.38m2.

Therefore, the corresponding average number of inhabitants per 100m2 was 2.41 for the sample.

88 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS

Diagram 20: Construction period of Greek participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes Heating systems Of the participating households, the majority (almost 43%) had central heating systems using natural gas. Another 9% of the sample homes also used natural gas heating systems, but individual units rather than a central system. Natural gas heating systems have replaced the more common heating oil systems over recent years since Thessaloniki first introduced mains gas in 2002, which was also the first Greek city to do so. Just under a third (32%) of the sample homes still used oil-fired central heating systems as their main heating source. As for the remaining households, fewer than 7% used individual heating units with oil boilers or air heaters and approximately 9% of the dwellings used heat pumps. Central heating in general was the most common heating system in the sample with most ranging from 6 to 10 years old, with an average maintenance period of 1.5 years.

Both groups are similar in terms of the types of heating systems they have, as diagram 21 shows.

However, the use of heat pumps and individual gas heaters were more common among the post retrofit group, while convection air heaters and individual oil heaters were more prevalent among the pre retrofit group.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 89

4. RESULTS

Diagram 21: Comparison of heating systems among participating Greek households Furthermore, of the participating households 58% supplemented their main heating system with additional heating sources. The different types of the auxiliary systems used are presented in diagram 22, which shows that the most widely used systems were heat pumps and ‘fireplaces’2 The majority of these systems (29%) operated on average for 3 to 5 hours per day, while 13% of them operated for less than 2 hours per day.

Diagram 22: Use of auxiliary heating systems among participating Greek households.

2

This term covers solid fuel fireplaces – where wood or coal are burned – and fuel-effect fires. These are used in new homes and apartments. Besides providing decoration and a focal point they serve as an auxiliary heating method in transient seasons (early spring or late autumn) when it is not cold enough to turn on the heating system, but the nights are cool.

90 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Space cooling systems Being mainly in urban areas, the participating homes had higher cooling needs. A combination of high outdoor pollution and the urban heat island effect all encourage the use of air conditioning with a direct impact on overall electrical consumption, as shown in diagrams 23 and 24. Demand for cooling is at its most intense at the middle of the day during the summer months and for the last decade, has also been the peak of the electrical load demand in Greece.

Nearly two thirds (61.5%) of the pre retrofit households used an air-conditioning (A/C) system, while the rest (38.5 %) used either roof mounted or portable electric fans, or did not have any cooling or ventilation system installed. Just over four fifths (83.3%) of the post retrofit households used a cooling system and 16.7% did not.

Diagram 23: Greek participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; average use of air conditioning during the summer months

Diagram 24: Greek participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; average daily use of air conditioning during the summer months (hours)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 91

4. RESULTS Participants were asked over how many months (during the previous summer period) they operated the main cooling system and for how many hours per day â&#x20AC;&#x201C; on average â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they used air conditioning. The responses are illustrated in diagrams 23 and 24 and show that use of air conditioning systems was considerably lower among the post retrofit group.

Domestic hot water (DHW) Regarding hot water use, results are categorized according to the time of use. Diagrams 25 and 26 illustrate results for the winter and the summer periods respectively. The majority of the post retrofit homes used solar hot water systems in winter and summer as a primary system for DHW. On days with low solar radiation, their hot water needs were covered by auxiliary systems, such as electric water storage boilers or tank-less water heating systems with natural gas. Just over three quarters (77.8%) of the post retrofit homes used an auxiliary hot water system, as did just over a quarter (28.5%) of the pre retrofit group.

Diagram 25: Primary hot water system use during the winter months for the Greek participating households

Diagram 26: Primary hot water system use during the summer months for the Greek participating households

92 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Electricity consumption Nearly 60% of the participating households had a three-phase electrical installation, while the remaining homes had single-phase AC installations. Diagram 27 shows the distribution of the electrical devices in the examined homes of both categories. Results reveal that 21.9% of the households had two personal computers (PCs), whereas 12.5% had more than two PC units.

As PCs usually operate for lengthy periods in stand-by mode, the above results indicate possibilities for significant reduction of electrical energy waste.

Diagram 27: Electrical devices among the Greek participating households

4.2.2 Installers The Ministry for Environment in Greece established databases listing certified installers and technicians for the different retrofit related works for every Greek region. The list is available on the ‘Saving at Home’ website and is updated regularly. It contains installers and technicians for the following works and technologies: • Heat Pumps and renewables.

• Heating control and measurement equipment.

• Central heating installations.

• Shading systems.

• Boilers (heating oil, natural gas, biomass).

• Solar domestic hot water (DHW) systems.

• Insulating materials and systems.

• Doors, windows, glazing.

• Lighting and electrical equipment.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 93

4. RESULTS Diagram 28 shows the number of installers, technicians and technical companies for each work and technology in the greater Thessaloniki region: Lighting and electrical equipment Doors, windows, glass Insulating materials and systems Solar heating systems Boilers (oil, gas, biomas) Shading systems Central Heating Installations Heating control and measurement Heat Pumps and renewables 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Diagram 28: Distribution of technicians and installers in the Thessaloniki region

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

4.2.3 Insights from Greece

1C retr onside ofit ring

As this database is reliable and updated regularly, there was no need to establish any other alternative lists or networks for this project. Selected installers from the official lists were contacted during the project and invited to participate in meetings with homeowners.

The official Ministry database was also used by the pre retrofit homeowners in their search for suppliers and installers for the scheduled energy retrofit works.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 1: Considering retrofit

During initial meetings with homeowners, the research team posed a number of questions to gauge the householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitudes towards energy retrofitting, their motivation for investing in such improvements, their expectations of this process and the results. This was the first step in the research; the second step involved the Greek research team providing impartial advice and during these discussions the topic of energy improvements was treated in a more precise, detailed and technical way.

Drawing on the results of this approach, the households had two major reasons to consider home energy improvements. For over 80% of the participating homeowners, the primary driver for retrofit was the need to reduce energy consumption (primarily for space heating) and its corresponding costs. Heating oil is still the dominant heating fuel in Greece, although this is rapidly changing. In areas where there is a natural gas distribution network, gas has replaced heating oil by almost 50% (as of August 2014). In the Thessaloniki area 49% of homes and 58% of

94 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS households have switched to natural gas for space heating and hot water from other fuels3 .

The catalyst for this switch has been an increase in heating oil prices, which almost doubled since 2012 due to an increase in tax on heating oil. Besides saving fuel costs, 65% of the homeowners believed that natural gas pollutes less than heating oil, especially in urban areas, while 34% of them stated that they thought it also has lower CO2 emissions than heating oil.

Most dwellings in Greece were constructed between the 1960s and the 1990s. Many have insufficient or no wall insulation and all doors and windows are mostly wooden and single glazed. Just over half (58%) of the participating homeowners said that changing old doors and windows with modern double glazed units was essential to save energy and consequently money. They also considered that this type of refurbishment would add value to their homes, as older doors and windows require more maintenance as time goes on. Finally, they considered this specific retrofit as an “easy one” and felt it should have a short payback period:

“It’s like having the home re-decorated, especially if this change is combined with new furniture” (PARTICIPATING HOMEOWNER)

The research team asked the participating households about solid wall insulation. Half said they thought the costs of this improvement were too high and that the installation process was complicated. When it came to internal wall insulation, participants were generally negative about this type of improvement because:

“This will lead to a considerable space reduction and we have a small house anyway” (PARTICIPATING HOMEOWNER)

Homeowners also expressed concerns about the insulation process; in particular they perceived it to be disruptive to daily life. The remaining 50% of participating homeowners had certain issues with one or more of the external walls of their homes, being either overexposed to wind, or humidity or other reasons. Almost 90% of participating homeowners reported issues with their roof.

Despite the high solar potential in Greece, very few homes have solar water heating systems.

This is due primarily to the fact that a significant proportion of homes in Greece comprise apartments in large blocks; therefore it is not easy to install a solar water heater on the roof for each apartment. Also, homes at lower levels considered it inconvenient and a waste of water to use a solar water heater that is many metres above on the roof. However, all of the home owners agreed that solar water heaters can cut the energy bills and can also contribute to overall CO2 reduction.

3

Gas Distribution Company of Thessaloniki, ‘Promoting the use of natural gas in Greece’, presented in the Press Conference of the Ministry for Environment, Energy and Climate Change, September 25, 2014

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 95

4. RESULTS Nearly all (90%) of the pre retrofit homeowners with air conditioning units reported using them for space heating only very sparingly. All of them thought such units are expensive to run although they admitted that they did not have a clear picture of the exact costs. Most of them believed that using electricity is more environmentally friendly compared to all other types of energy.

All the pre retrofit homeowners were very receptive to the idea of retrofitting their homes and considered it to be quite an appealing investment which could increase the value of their home and improve comfort besides saving energy and money. They expressed confidence that the local market could provide an appropriate solution at a price they could afford. Although the homeowners believed that there are many experienced and highly trained installers and technicians in their area, just under two thirds (65%) expected to experience difficulties in finding the best tradespeople and companies. They also expressed fears of poor quality works and said they would feel much more confident about employing tradespeople or installation companies if they had some guidance on how to select the right tradesperson or business, possibly by the energy consultants, suppliers, builders’ merchants or the Countdown team.

The primary barrier to retrofit in the Greek domestic market is the investment cost. Financial options for home retrofits have dwindled for households. Starting in 2009 and exacerbated in the following years by the financial crisis, most Greek banks are unwilling to provide loans for purchasing or retrofitting houses. This policy, in combination with wider austerity measures, has brought the Greek construction sector to a virtual standstill. Launched in 2011, the “Saving at Home” programme provides significant incentives for homeowners seeking to improve the energy performance of their homes, by covering up to 80% of the costs of retrofitting. This subsidy policy also engaged the Greek banking system and besides self-financing, is practically the only financial mechanism for home energy improvements.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

At the start of 2013 the Saving at Home programme was suspended due to all available funds being exhausted. As the programme was a success (in that it did catalyse retrofit among homeowners) a second wave of funding was scheduled for the end of 2014. However, this impacted the research as none of the pre retrofit homeowners were willing to consider selffinancing their energy improvements and opted to wait until the second wave of the Saving at Home programme, which was beyond the scope of this project.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 2: Taking action – impartial advice

Usually Greek homeowners decide on home energy improvements by seeking advice from engineers, architects and technicians they have had previous dealings with, or by conducting their own market research for installers or suppliers. Although the use of EPCs is obligatory for any change in house ownership or occupancy, this is considered a formality rather than an opportunity to consult an energy advisor on the specific needs of the home. This indicates a particular weakness in the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

96 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS (EPBD) in Greece, as the energy assessments and the corresponding EPC are not yet identified by all involved stakeholders – including accredited energy assessors – as a potentially useful tool for identifying effective energy saving measures.

However, this situation has started to change, in part due to the Saving at Home programme.

To participate in the programme, homeowners must obtain an EPC before embarking on any energy improvements. Furthermore, all planned improvements must be included in the recommendations in the EPC. Homeowners’ applications also have to include documentation on technical and financial aspects of the proposed retrofit – again, these must be in line with the energy advisor’s recommendations. These requirements mean that the homeowners must contact and consult with energy advisors at the initial stage of the retrofitting process. Placing the EPC and energy advice at the heart of the Saving at Home process in this way represents an important development towards successful, widespread retrofits in Greece.

The energy performance of each pre retrofit home was assessed by a certified energy advisor.

The advisor issued every household with an energy performance certificate (EPC) produced in line with the requirements of KENAK – the Greek implementation of the European Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) – with a report that included up to three energy improvement recommendations. The EPCs were delivered to the homeowners by the AUTH research team. Accompanying each EPC was an analysis of the economic implications of each of the recommended energy saving measures. All pre retrofit homeowners had the chance to discuss the recommendations at least twice at this stage of the project and get practical help and advice from the team on how they could achieve effective energy improvements at home.

Diagram 29 shows the distribution of the EPCs for the homes of the pre retrofit group.

The blue bars indicate their current EPC ratings and the red bars show the expected EPC ratings after the implementation of the energy saving recommendations. Most of the homes belong to energy categories D and G. Houses in category G are the oldest in the group and most of them have no thermal insulation. The only house belonging to category B was built in 2011 after the implementation of the EPBD in accordance with the national legislation (KENAK). According to KENAK, the threshold for new buildings is rating B and this is highlighted in diagram 29.

Following the successful implementation of the proposed measures for energy performance improvement, most of the houses were estimated to move to categories D and C, while 3 of them were estimated to move to category B. Recommendations produced for two of the category G homes were not estimated to improve the buildings’ energy efficiency sufficiently for them to change category.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 97

4. RESULTS

Diagram 29: EPC distribution (potential and actual ratings) of the Greek pre retrofit homes The research team discussed the recommended interventions with the homeowners.

The report explained the energy saving recommendations in technical and economic terms.

The recommendations for the pre retrofit homes can be summarized as follows: • For twelve homes three recommendations were submitted.

• Six homes received two recommendations .

• Two homes had only one recommendation.

The main categories for energy improvements were: • External insulation of walls and/or roof, terrace.

• Energy efficient doors/windows (usually PVC frame with low e-glazing).

• Replacement of heating and domestic hot water system with air to water heat pumps.

Diagram 30 shows the estimated current primary energy consumption of each home (in kWh per square metre per year) and the estimated primary energy consumption after implementing the recommended improvements. The current primary energy consumption ranges from 90 to 780 kWh per square metre. The expected savings range from 11% for the best performing homes in the group up to 75% for the worst.

98 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS

Diagram 30: Estimated current and post-improvement primary energy consumption (kWh per m²) of the Greek pre retrofit group

Diagram 31: Estimated primary energy savings (kWh per m²) of the pre retrofit homes Diagram 32 shows the estimated CO2 emissions of each home (in kilogrammes of CO2 per square metre per year) before and after implementing the proposed improvements. The current emissions range from 18 to 195 kg CO2 per square metre per year. The estimated reductions range from 10% for the best performing homes in the group up to 95% for the worst. In one home there is an estimated increase in CO2 emissions due to a natural gas-fired space heating system being replaced with an air-to-water heat pump, which although is estimated to perform more efficiently, uses electricity which results in higher CO2 emissions.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 99

4. RESULTS

Diagram 32: Estimated CO2 emissions (kg CO2 /m²) pre and post retrofit Diagram 33 shows the estimated CO2 emissions savings in % per household.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Diagram 33: Estimated CO2 emissions savings per household per year

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 3: Planning works

In Greece, energy related improvements do not require a building permit, but in most cases the local authority needs to be notified. If the installation involves external scaffolding, the local authorities must be informed about the space occupancy and the installer must conduct the work in accordance with Greek safety regulations.

100 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Usually the company supplying the materials or equipment provides the specifications for the work. If the supplier provides bundled services, then the technicians or installers are appointed by the supplier and are provided with a detailed description and plan of the work. Otherwise work planning is the installer’s responsibility. For large scale interventions, a consultant engineer or architect is normally involved in the planning process.

Under the Saving at Home programme, the involvement of banking institutions throughout the entire process is instrumental for the proper implementation of the recommended energy improvements.

Normally, the energy advisor proposes up to three energy saving recommendations for each participating home. For this project a total of 49 recommendations were proposed for the 20 pre retrofit homes. The recommendations are clustered in the main Saving at Home categories, which are: • External insulation of walls and/or roof, terrace.

• Energy efficient doors/windows (usually PVC frame with low-e glass).

• Replacement heating and hot water system with air to water heat pump.

As shown in diagram 34, the main intervention type was wall/roof insulation and this was proposed for 85% of the households in the group. Wall/roof insulation is the most effective energy saving intervention, especially for old buildings with no thermal insulation. It is always the first recommendation from a professional energy advisor. The second most popular recommendation is upgrading the heating system (proposed for 60% of the group), followed closely by the door and window replacement (proposed for 45% of the group).

Diagram 34: Homes and intervention type for the Greek sample

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 101

4. RESULTS Diagram 35 shows the distribution (in percentages) of the possible combinations of recommended interventions. In 20% of the cases only one of the above interventions was proposed, in 60% of the cases a combination of two was proposed and in 20% of cases all three interventions were proposed. The latter category includes very old homes with inefficient or no thermal insulation, old windows and heating systems.

20%

5%

only heat insulation 15% only systems door/window & heat insulation

30%

30%

heat insulation & systems all 3 intervention types

Diagram 35: Combinations of interventions recommended for the Greek participating households For each proposal, the energy advisor also calculated the costs and return of investment (ROI) period according to the rules implemented in the EPC accredited software used in Greece (TEE-KENAK).

The total costs of the proposed retrofit measures ranged from €1,000 to €20,000 due to the large variations in the floor areas of the properties in the group and the different types of interventions recommended. Diagram 36 shows the total retrofit costs of the energy saving recommendations as an estimated budget. In half the cases the total retrofit budgets are estimated to be lower than €10,000 while a group of 8 houses had estimated retrofit budgets ranging from €14,000 and €20,000. One home had an estimated retrofit budget of €28,000.

Diagram 36: Estimated retrofit budgets of the Greek pre retrofit group

102 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Analysing the budget per intervention type, the door/windows replacement budget sits between €2,000 and €7,000, with an average value of €5,000; only in the case of a large old detached house does it stretch to €13,000. The estimated costs for external wall/roof insulation improvements span a considerably wider range from €1,000 to €17,000 with an average cost of €5,500, due to the variation of the external surfaces of the homes. Finally, the budget for new heating and hot water systems ranges from €1,000 to €7,000, with an average cost of €5,000.

There was one exception; a home with a proposal for a large air-water heat pump installation.

Diagram 37: Indicative budgets for replacement doors and windows for the Greek pre retrofit group

Diagram 38: Indicative budgets for wall/roof insulation for the Greek pre retrofit group

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 103

4. RESULTS

Diagram 39: Indicative budgets for replacement heating and hot water systems for the Greek pre retrofit group The return of investment (ROI) period â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as shown in diagram 40 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for the recommended improvements is generally greater than 4 years, with the mean value of 13.3 years. The ROI is usually less than 20 years, except for couple of cases.

Diagram 40: Return on investment periods for the pre retrofit budgets

104 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

1C retr onside ofit ring

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

4. RESULTS

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

Stage 4: Undertaking improvements

At the start of 2013, the Saving at Home programme was suspended when the funds allocated to it were exhausted. Under this programme over 20,000 homes received a total amount of €400 million, making this programme the primary driving force of domestic retrofit in Greece and leaving some 160,000 pending applications for funding. The Greek government committed to running a second phase of this extremely successful programme, as soon as new funding became available. This public commitment – together with the general financial crisis – meant that all interested homeowners were put onto a waiting list. While homeowners waited for the second phase of Saving at Home, retrofit activity in Greece slowed to a virtual standstill.

Unfortunately this development happened during the research phase, when the pre retrofit households were expected to begin improving their homes. As a result, none of them undertook any energy improvements during the research period of this project. In September 2014, the Saving at Home programme was re-launched.

However, research with the post retrofit home group highlighted some common steps in the retrofit process. They included: • If the house is being completely refurbished, respondents reported that energy performance improvements would tend to be incorporated at the stage of planning the works.

• Usually the homeowner contacts material or equipment suppliers first, who can also undertake the installation works, or they suggest installers with technical experience in the corresponding works.

• Recommendations from friends and neighbours tend to be the preferred way to find an installer or supplier.

• Wall and roof thermal insulation are installed almost exclusively on the exterior of the building. Internal wall insulation was installed only in one of the participating homes.

• Some homeowners expressed disappointment at the installers and the quality of their work.

The main reasons gave were rubbish being left behind and an unsatisfactory finish.

The project team also analysed the published data on the Saving at Home programme for 2,534 dwellings in the greater Thessaloniki area whose improvements were financed by the scheme.

The most common improvement funded by the programme was the upgrade of windows and doors. The least common improvement was wall insulation, despite this being identified as the measure which would result in the highest energy savings. The main reasons for these choices were the cost of the works and expectations among the homeowners of the installation works to impact their everyday lives. With these factors in mind it is perhaps not surprising that upgrading doors and windows were the most popular improvements among households.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 105

4. RESULTS

Diagram 41: Breakdown of the three most common energy improvements funded through the ‘Saving at Home’ programme Analysis of the 2,534 households showed that a third of beneficiaries chose to implement one energy related improvement, nearly half of the households (48%) opted for a combination of two measures and just under a fifth of households (19%) commissioned a combination of three types of improvements. Diagram 42 shows the types of interventions that households opted for. only doors/windows 19% 4%

23%

only heat insulation 2% 8%

8% 36%

only systems door/windows & heat insulation door/windows & systems heat insulation & systems all 3 intervention types

Diagram 42: Breakdown of beneficiaries and intervention categories under ‘Saving at Home’ The maximum eligible budget under the ‘Saving at Home’ programme was €15,000, but the majority of projects ranged from €3,000 to €10,000.

106 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Diagram 43: Distribution of amount of top up loans taken out by households under the ‘Saving at Home’ programme

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 5: Maximising the savings

The EPBD implementation in Greece is based on the so-called ‘asset rating’ and all recommended energy improvements are targeted at improving the efficiency of the building envelope and the various systems within it (lighting, space heating). However, all the advantages of an efficient building envelope or of any heating or air conditioning system can be undermined if they are not used correctly; for example, operating the air conditioning system with doors or windows open, or forgetting to switch off energy saving lights so they are on all of the time.

Therefore, investing in behavioural changes is as crucial as investing in physical improvements.

The research team at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) worked with both groups of homeowners towards increasing awareness on a sustainable behaviour at home. This section highlights the main findings.

Post installation feedback As explained in the previous section, the pre retrofit homes did not undertake the recommended energy improvements during the research phase. Despite this drawback, valuable feedback was collected by the post retrofit households and was shared with the pre retrofit homeowners during meetings where both groups were brought together. The research team also collected relevant data during household visits.

However, as the Saving at Home programme re-started in September 2014, the AUTH research team has committed to continue working with the pre retrofit households beyond the end of this project and to involve the wider university in the dissemination of the results.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 107

4. RESULTS The post-retrofit homeowners were generally very satisfied with their energy improvements.

Some of them reported considerable energy and cost savings as a result of improving their heating systems. However, although most of them did not have a definite, quantitative picture of the actual savings to date, they reported significantly improved comfort levels. Households that had their roofs insulated reported benefits including cooler conditions during the hot summer months and reduced use of air conditioning. Some households experienced minor issues including inappropriate materials or equipment being used, and poor quality installations.

In most cases the installers acknowledged these faults and undertook remedial work where required.

Most of the homeowners had a very detailed knowledge of their heating consumption; however, this was based primarily on their heating bills. None of the 20 post retrofit homeowners had detailed data (including weather conditions and external temperatures) against which to compare their yearly consumption. Households in this group were very confused about their electricity consumption because their bills included numerous taxes and overheads; none were monitoring their actual consumption. Going a little deeper, it was quite clear that the majority of homeowners were unaware of the energy consumption of individual electrical appliances, although all of them were informed about the existing energy labelling of appliances.

Monitoring energy consumption The first step towards enabling the households to take better control of their energy consumption was to introduce energy monitoring into each home. Households in both groups were advised to start with an energy diary to capture their energy (or fuel) consumption. They were also encouraged to regularly note weather conditions, even during the summer period.

The next step involved the research team building detailed energy profiles of each household’s electricity consumption. These profiles were used to compare the consumption patterns of the pre and post retrofit groups, as well as of the pre retrofit homes before and after retrofitting.

The project team installed energy monitors in all 40 participating homes. The installation of all energy monitors concluded in August 2013, offering a full year of collected data for comparison.

The energy monitors recorded the households’ hourly energy consumption and the project team collected data every 2 to 3 months. All the recordings were stored in a huge database and processed using a specially designed tool. This tool helped to enable analysis and comparison of similar cases, as well as classifying and distributing the collected consumption data in certain consumer clusters and creating corresponding load profiles.

During the data collection process, the results were presented to the homeowners and analysed to identify areas where energy was being wasted or to spot appliances with high energy consumption. Typical examples of ‘energy hungry’ appliances included old refrigerators. Most of the homeowners were positive about being able to drill down into their energy use though:

“I check my energy logger every time I switch on an electric appliance. Some of them are really consuming a lot!”

(HOMEOWNER)

108 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Sometimes the energy logger was a source of inter-family tensions:

“I urged my daughter to come and see herself how much energy she consumes with these silly hair dryers and curling tongs!”

(HOMEOWNER)

However, most of the participants agreed with this household:

“It’s really great to know what you consume and then it is completely up to you to decide!”

(HOMEOWNER)

The data collected enabled the research team to analyse the energy behaviour of each household in depth and identify areas where further savings could be made. Diagrams 44 and 45 show a household’s consumption over a weekday followed by a weekend day. It is clear that the residents were out during working hours at work and possibly school. This is not the case for the house depicted in diagram 45 which illustrates the consumption patterns of a retired couple. In both diagrams the base loads that are evident during the night and early morning were due to appliances running (such as refrigerators) and other appliances on standby.

Diagram 44: Electricity consumption of household #16 on a typical weekday

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 109

4. RESULTS

Diagram 45: Electricity consumption of household #16 on a typical weekend day

Diagram 46: Electricity consumption of household #23 on a typical week day

Diagram 47: Electricity consumption of household #23 on a typical weekend day

110 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS

Diagram 48: Three monthsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; daily electricity consumption. Household #4 Diagram 48 shows a 3 month energy consumption profile for household #4 for the period of July 2014 to September 2014. The holiday periods are evident, as is the high level of standby power at over 1 kW. In this case, the homeowner was advised to check for appliances left on standby as well as on the recorded peaks.

Finally, diagram 49 shows a detailed daily energy consumption profile for household #31.

In this diagram the consumption of the refrigerator is evident and higher than expected.

The research team investigated and found that the refrigerator in this home was 30 years old, working properly but consuming a lot of energy. The household was advised that replacing this appliance with a new one with an energy label of A++(+) would result in sufficient energy savings to enable the investment to be repaid in under 3 years.

Diagram 49: Detailed recording of the daily electricity consumption of household #31

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 111

4. RESULTS 4.3 United Kingdom 4.3.1 Households In total, the participant group comprised 46 households with an average of 2.8 people per household4. The group includes five grade two listed properties.

Built form Spread across Stroud District and the Forest of Dean District in Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, the properties of the participating households span a range of housing types, as the diagram 49 illustrates.

Detached Semi detached End terrace Mid terrace Flat (ground floor) Park home

Diagram 50: Housing types in UK participant group Nearly two thirds (63%) of the homes are detached, just over a quarter (26%) are semi-detached, 4% are end terrace. The sample includes one mid-terrace property, a ground floor flat and a park home.

Age of Construction For ease of analysis and to make the presentation of results clearer, the homes have been divided into four groups; those built before 1900, those built between 1900 and 1965, homes built between 1966 and 1989 and those built in or after 1990. The homes in the participant group span different construction periods, as diagram 49 illustrates, with the largest proportion of homes in the group (43%) built before 1900, and 30% built between 1900 and 1965. 17% of the homes in the group were built between 1966 and 1989 and 9% were built in or after 1990.

4

The national average is 2.4. Source: Office for National Statistics, source: ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_259965.pdf

112 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Pre 1900 1900 - 1965 1966 - 1989 1990 onwards

Diagram 51: Age of construction of UK participants’ homes Heating fuels of participating households In 2012 the participating households were using a number of different main heating fuels.

Most participants had central heating systems incorporating a boiler and radiators.

The composition of the group was as follows: • 30 homes were on mains gas central heating.

• 9 homes were on oil central heating.

• 2 homes had air source heat pumps.

• 2 homes had electric storage heaters.

• 1 home had wood-fired central heating systems.

• 1 home had a coal fired central heating system.

• 1 home had a central heating system fuelled by wood and coal.

Households with renewable energy technologies At the start of the research phase, nearly half (48%) of the participating households had one or more renewable energy technologies in their homes. Twenty eight percent of the total participant group had a photovoltaic system and the remaining 20% had solar hot water systems. A small number (11%) of households had both technologies.

13 households with photovoltaic systems

Nine households with solar hot water systems

Five households with both technologies

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 113

4. RESULTS Size of household Of the 46 households, six consisted of just one person (13%), 17 of 2 people (37%), nine of three people (20%), nine of four people (20%) and the remaining five households had five people (10%). There were fifteen households (33%) where all the inhabitants (at the start of the research phase in 2012) were aged 60 or over.

1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people

Diagram 52: Composition of UK participating households

4.3.2 Installers In total, 17 local businesses providing products and services related to retrofit participated in this research project. The participating companies dealt with a range of trades and technologies, including: • Renewables (solar, biomass).

• Electrical engineering.

• Conventional heating and plumbing, heat pumps.

• Insulation (internal and external).

• Conservation restoration.

• General building and property maintenance.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s 5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

The home retrofit journey

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

1C retr onside ofit ring

4.3.3 Insights from the United Kingdom

Stage 1: Why make energy saving improvements? Considering retrofit; reasons and ‘triggers’ In order to understand the retrofit process from the perspectives of all relevant actors, throughout the research phase the project team worked with households, installers, tradespeople, planners, suppliers, conservation staff and building control. Semi structured interviews were conducted with homeowners and installers; focus groups comprising all the main actors were also held.

114 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS The first activity the research team undertook with each participating household was to conduct an energy survey of their property and discuss the home and its history with the owners.

This provided a good way to find out more about the improvements the household had made to date; their experiences of making these improvements, any outstanding issues and further works they planned – or wanted – to do and their thoughts on how they might tackle them.

These conversations continued throughout the research phase, with the households and the project team catching up on a regular basis through emails, on the phone or through visits.

This section explores the primary reasons given by households and other actors for considering investing in sustainable energy retrofit. Although the reasons are listed below, they are not as linear as the list suggests; in reality they are all inter-connected and at times, can compete against one another. When deciding on which improvements to make, homeowners have to make multiple trade-offs between drivers, motivating reasons and effects and prioritise according to the time and resources they have, their needs, preferences and what works best for their home.

Improving comfort and saving money (through lower energy bills) were the most fundamental and commonly cited reasons given by all participants for making home energy improvements.

Reasons for investing in home energy improvements do not crop up solely at the early stages; they affect every stage of the retrofit process. Interestingly, reasons why a household chooses to invest in an energy improvement can sometimes also deter them from doing so.

Households and installers cited the most common reasons for retrofit as being: • Improving comfort and tackling cold or damp areas of the property.

• Saving money and protection from future energy price rises.

• Improving the fabric of the home and adding value.

At a basic level, households want to enjoy their home and that involves being comfortable.

When asked why they wanted to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, participants’ responses were along similar lines:

“To make a comfortable home” (HOMEOWNER #17)

“…save money, but be more comfortable and have a common temperature across the house, a reasonable temperature to live with, not be freezing in some places.”

(HOMEOWNER – FOCUS GROUP #3)

For homeowners that incorporated energy improvements into structural and cosmetic improvements, the work was also about making their home ‘liveable’ as one household put it.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 115

4. RESULTS As these quotes illustrate, saving money and lowering energy bills are intricately connected to comfort. Comfort was often the first reason given by households for improving home energy efficiency, but they wanted to be able to afford to keep their homes comfortable in the longer term. Most participating installers considered saving money as the primary reason why households make their homes more energy efficient. Avoiding wasted energy also emerged as part of this, but primarily it is about reducing and managing a home’s running costs, not just now but in the future. In particular, participants of retirement age expressed concerns about future energy price rises and said one reason for investing in energy saving measures was to protect themselves from these:

“We’re on fixed pensions, so we don’t want our gas bills to go through the roof.”

(HOMEOWNER – FOCUS GROUP #3)

Improving the fabric of their home and adding value was cited more often by households than installers as a driver for domestic retrofit. Most households undertaking improvements or who planned to, recognise that doing this is an investment and one that can also improve the durability and value of their home. Participants cited this reason in relation to different types of improvements, including glazing, external wall insulation and renewables. One participant had recently moved into a park home. For her, insulating externally was about:

“Comfort and improving the structure. Looking at it long term, I wanted it to last, add value”.

(HOMEOWNER #32)

Reducing their home’s environmental impact was raised as a concern by a handful of participants. Two mentioned energy security as important issues to them, expressing concern that their children and grandchildren would inherit a degraded planet so reducing their home energy use was one responsible thing they could do about this. This echoes with feedback from installers, who agreed that environmental concerns crop up occasionally with their domestic clients as reasons for making energy improvements. Discussing their decision to improve their glazing, one household illustrates how this reason is interconnected with the other reasons for retrofitting:

116 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “We were concerned about global warming issues and our carbon emissions; we’ve got a detached house that has solid stone walls – so it’s pretty inefficient – and very old, sash windows that were very leaky, single glazed. So we were sort of aware…we did it a couple of years ago, when gas prices started to go up, and we thought ‘Oh my goodness, where is this going to end?’ So even though we couldn’t really economically justify what we did, in terms of what gas prices were then, we were thinking ‘Hopefully this is going to last us for 20 years and by that time gas prices are going to be way up from what they are now.”

(HOMEOWNER – FOCUS GROUP #3))

Another household illustrated how interconnected the reasons are:

“I want to make energy efficiencies because I want to reduce my impact on the environment. I think that we need to take responsibility for our own emissions as far as possible. I am also concerned about increasing costs and naturally want to minimise my expenses. However I tend to keep my home colder than recommended and would like to increase comfort levels without increasing emissions or running costs.”

(HOMEOWNER #22))

REASON

TRIGGERS

...ACTION?

Discussing reasons for retrofit revealed some common triggers; factors which enable or prompt households to act on their reasons or motivations for making energy improvements. Acting on motivations could involve getting quotes or more information taking advice or – in the case of acute need such as a broken down boiler – commissioning works quickly. Installers were more forthcoming on the common reasons for retrofit than households’ underlying reasons and motivations; this could be due to the nature of client-installer conversations. Common triggers include: • Incorporating energy saving measures as part of repairs, building works or general refurbishment.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 117

4. RESULTS • Acute need: making a ‘distress purchase’ (such as a boiler).

• Cost: if the price is competitive, or conversely, if a particular technology has high running costs, this can prompt households to explore alternatives.

• Government incentives and grants: Feed in Tariff, the Renewable Heat Incentive and grant funding under the ‘boiler scrappage’ scheme and Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT).

• Life change: retirement, when a child goes to university, when someone moves in.

Incorporating energy measures into maintenance, repairs or wider refurbishment was cited by installers as a common trigger for retrofit, and it emerged through the actions and behaviour of many the households. When the research phase started in spring 2012, a quarter of the participating households had been living in their home for two years or less, so they were still ‘moving in’ and customising their home. Between spring 2012 and summer 2014 all of those who were still moving in made at least one energy related improvement as part of a refurbishment; most undertook multiple, energy related improvements which were incorporated into cosmetic and structural works. One household voiced the approach shared by many of the other households engaging in a wider refurbishment:

“Moving into a new house and starting to put our own stamp on it, you naturally put things by priority. Naturally our bedroom, the en suite was a priority, the PV was a priority for maintaining the FiTs. Then it was a case of which rooms do we want to do and in what order?”

(HOMEOWNER #29)

Most of the remaining households conducted some kind of repair or improvement between summer 2012 and summer 2014. This was not surprising as all the households (including those in homes with relatively high SAP ratings and with no pressing cosmetic or structural needs) reported having at least one potential improvement they were investigating or planning.

Consequently, the research team found that dividing the households up into two groups of ‘pre’ and ‘post’ retrofit was something of an arbitrary exercise; all the households reported at least one issue they wanted to address and saw their homes very much as a ‘work in progress’.

Improving one’s property does not always mean reducing its net energy consumption, however.

Before investing in energy saving measures a couple of households had been under-heating their homes. One homeowner had experienced ill health for some years before being in the position to make improvements; the property was poorly insulated and very draughty.

She incorporated energy improvements as part of a refurbishment – which also included extending the floor area by 45%. When she replaced her heating system and extended her home she assumed the estimated energy costs would increase as a result, even with the addition of lots of insulation. The homeowner saw that the advantages of having a better performing, more spacious and comfortable home outweighed any potential increases in energy bills. In reality, her estimated energy use and running costs actually fell as a result of the improvements.

Before making improvements, another household had been under-heating his home (compared to national averages – in terms of units of energy consumed for a home of similar size and type).

118 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS At that time he had not long moved in, was still gauging how much his home cost to run and getting to know the heating system while trying to keep his running costs down. Over 2012 and 2013 the homeowner installed insulation and a wood-burner; another person also moved in.

The household’s overall energy use did go up over the next calendar year but taking weather patterns into account, the rise was negligible. Compared to national averages for three bedroom semi-detached homes (which this was), the heating levels remained very low. The homeowner gets a lot of pleasure from the wood-burner and feels his home is much more comfortable and cosy as a result, so clearly this was a trade off the household was happy to make.

Boiler breakdown, leaking roofs and degrading external render provided triggers for a fifth of the participating households to make improvements. When repairing or replacing their roofs, several homeowners used the opportunity to add insulation. However, one household had considered including external insulation when replacing the render on one elevation, but decided not to because of the cost of doing so.

A handful of households cited safety concerns as a trigger to considering or investing in energy related improvements. One participant was prompted to replace the halogen bulbs in her loft with LED lights after attending a course on electrical safety and discovering that mineral wool can pose a fire risk if in prolonged contact with hot halogen lights. Two households experienced a gas leak, another noticed their oil boiler making odd sounds and emitting a burning odour.

These events prompted them to explore replacement and alternative boilers.

For both the pre and post retrofit households, the need to replace a boiler prompted them to reconsider their entire heating system. Five households incorporated solar thermal systems when replacing or reconfiguring their heating systems. Households using oil that planned to replace their boiler (but did not change it during the research phase) engaged the energy advisors in numerous conversations about alternative heating technologies and fuels.

A key factor in switching fuel types appears to be how quickly the household has to make the decision. For households on mains gas, fuel switching made no financial sense, so when they replaced their boilers they upgraded their existing unit with a more efficient one, although when a rapid replacement had to be found, this still appeared to cause some concern. In spring 2013 one household was prompted into getting a new boiler following a gas leak:

“All of a sudden we are having a new boiler next week... felt rather rushed into saying yes and we’re in the hands of our plumber so hope [we] have got the right one!”

(HOMEOWNER #18)

Fear of no heating or hot water prompted this household to go with the plumber’s recommendation and they replaced their standard boiler with a condensing one. Afterwards the household discussed the decision with Severn Wye’s energy advisor who advised that modern replacement boilers tend to be condensing as this is the most efficient type. This seemed to put the homeowner’s mind at rest and she did not report any issues with the boiler. An installer cited an example of how the circumstances – and the amount of time available to make a decision – can play an important role in whether a household uses the opportunity of a new boiler to entirely change their heating and hot water system – or not:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 119

4. RESULTS “We had one customer who decided against a heat pump and went for oil – but that was a breakdown and not surprising because they wanted to get something back in there as quickly as possible.”

(HEATING ENGINEER/PLUMBER – INTERVIEW #24)

Other households that changed their boiler, fuel type, or incorporated renewable energy into their heating configuration were in the slightly more advantageous position of having time to weigh up the options for some time beforehand. The exceptionally cold winter of 2010 to 2011 prompted two households to switch from LPG to air source heat pumps. The cost of keeping their homes warm combined with difficulties in getting LPG deliveries made to their homes were sufficient to prompt them to commit to alternative heating systems. As part of a refurbishment another household on the mains gas network chose to replace their standard boiler with a weather compensating model.

Not all the households in the group with solar thermal systems incorporated them the same time as changing their boiler. Some of the households with solar thermal systems incorporated them into their existing systems. However, changing the boiler was identified by households, installers and other relevant actors as an important entry point to households switching fuel type, or at the very least, investigating alternatives.

Conversely, the potential for repairs or having to make swift decisions on elements like heating can also act as a barrier to implementing certain improvements. One participating household ruled out photovoltaics because their roof is over 70 years old and needs to be replaced; so the roof would have to be tackled before anything was attached to it. Other households decided not to internally insulate areas of their homes because of the need to address underlying issues like damp. Another household keen to replace their older oil boiler with a renewable or lower carbon alternative had to buy a replacement oil tank when theirs leaked. This cost around £1,500 and the unexpected expense put their plans for an alternative system on hold.

This issue of repairs is closely linked to another factor integral to any home improvement – the prospect of potential upheaval. One reason why home renovations are a common entry point for improvements – whether energy related, structural, cosmetic or a combination – is because the household is prepared for a certain level of upheaval. Additional upheaval as a result of another related improvement as part of the overall refurbishment is often marginal; short term disruption is perceived to be outweighed by the longer term benefits.

One focus group pointed out how some works can provide an opportunity to undertake other improvements. Another owner echoed this sentiment and said she wished she had taken the opportunity to re-wire her home while she was having internal wall insulation fitted.

The barrier at the time was lack of capital to pay for the electrical work. One homeowner said had the funds had been available, they would have put in a wood-burning stove when their walls were insulated. Another homeowner had ruled out underfloor insulation but started to reconsider as he had to replace the skirting in the hall and saw an opportunity to insulate for marginal additional disruption.

120 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS So while this shows how marginal additional upheaval can be viewed as a price worth paying, potential for disruption can still be a deterrent to getting even basic home energy improvements done. Participants of one focus group pointed out that in their experience, piggy backing lots of other work onto work that needs to be done quickly (for example replacing a boiler) can make the whole process too stressful and disruptive for owners.

Installing internal wall insulation is often disruptive because it affects pipework, wiring, doors and skirting; it also can generate lots of dust. One household reported having to move out while the walls of their home were being internally insulated. The potential levels of disruption involved in internal wall insulation can act as a deterrent to households having this measure installed, especially if the household has lots of items that need to be moved first. One installer (#8) remarked how – surprisingly – this issue still came up regularly.

Participants of one focus group comprising representatives of a national charity, local authority housing, building control and conservation staff, suppliers, installers and households highlighted the significance of upheaval for elderly homeowners. They pointed out a number of issues to consider, including: • Cost – this is the primary main barrier to any kind of improvement work.

• The stress of upheaval and ill health can cause older households to halt work midway (this possibility may have to be factored in at the start).

• Many elderly clients need encouragement about home energy improvements and the benefits.

• Many elderly clients may have no-one to turn to if they are anxious.

• There is widespread fear among older homeowners of not getting the kind of improvements that they want and being ’fobbed off’ to accept something else.

• Often there is no local family support nearby, so elderly people may not have anywhere close by to stay while work is going on, which can be a major barrier.

• Post work support is extremely important.

• Willingness to have energy improvements made may be affected by ability to understand the technologies, the benefits and what the installation process involves, even if there is grant funding to pay for them. Literacy and numeracy levels can have an impact on this for some households.

Dealing with belongings comes up in relation to loft insulation. One installer that has undertaken lots of government funded loft insulation work remarked that ensuring clients clear their lofts prior to insulating can still be an issue:

“In the case where loft areas are full of items – which you often find – there is still an issue. There’s the removal of items, whether they are taken out, skipped or whether the client is unable to remove them…that’s quite a challenge.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #5)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 121

4. RESULTS There are a number of examples in the UK of good practices and support schemes to help older or vulnerable homeowners to get repairs and improvements done, including practical support for jobs like loft clearance. Examples include the work of ‘home improvement agencies’ (typically funded by local authorities through delivery of private sector housing regeneration and repair budgets), and caring agencies such as Age UK, some of which have run ‘handyperson’ schemes in the past to do small practical jobs which it can be difficult to find a builder to do.

“We have worked with these kinds of schemes and in this case we would refer the client back to them, the agency would clear the loft, notify us that this had been done and we would go back and install the loft insulation.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #5)

Many of these schemes appear to have ceased as a result of cuts in local authority budgets.

The cost of improvements is closely linked to saving on fuel bills and was mentioned by all participants as a chief factor in whether households will proceed with – or will even consider – energy improvements. This factor permeates the retrofit process, coming up at all stages as an enabling and deterring factor, so is explored further throughout the remainder of this chapter.

Households in the group that have had the means to pay for energy improvements and the intention to invest in them have tended to analyse costs slightly later into the retrofit process as they weighed up which improvements to invest in. However, the prospect of upfront cost alone often deters households from investigating potential improvements if they do not have the means to pay for them, are not eligible for any grant funding and/or are unwilling to take out a loan. Cost is the DNA running through thinking and planning around home energy improvements, but it is – like all the factors – intricately connected with others. One family sums up the barriers stopping them from taking steps to improve the energy performance of their home:

“Having to pay money upfront and time to think about it properly and to organise things – such as the loft insulation.”

(HOMEOWNER #26)

Reluctance to take out loans is another key barrier, especially for older households. Most of the households participating in this project that undertook major, multiple improvements did so with their own finances and were unwilling to take out loans to fund further improvements.

One installer was slightly more sceptical about households’ motivations for improving the energy performance of their homes:

“I also think that energy efficiency is not the client’s primary concern – their priority is cost. Energy efficiency comes second to that every time. They’re more interested in; ‘What can I get?’, ‘What sort of grants can I get?’ and that sort of thing.”

(INSTALLER FOCUS GROUP)

122 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Financial incentives were cited by installers as one of the triggers to households investing in renewable technologies. Installers specialising in photovoltaics reported a surge in demand before the rate of the Feed in Tariff changed at the end of 2012. Throughout 2012 and 2013 installers dealing in renewable heat reported they were using the introduction of the Renewable Heat Incentive to attract new business and interest existing clients. One homeowner prioritised fitting his solar panels after moving into a new property in order to benefit from the higher rate Feed in Tariff before it changed:

“We moved in on 2 November and…knowing that the change in the FiTs was 8 December, that was a priority so it [the photovoltaic system] went in more or less first!” ( HOMEOWNER #29)

Renewables as an investment: for the households approaching or in retirement with a lump sum to invest, the Feed in Tariff influenced their decision to invest in photovoltaics.

This technology ticked various practical boxes; it provided free, clean energy during the day when the household would be able to use it, reducing the amount of energy the household would have to buy back from the grid, so helping to keep their bills low. Photovoltaic systems are relatively quick and easy to install. Crucially, investing in such a system offered participating households a more favourable return on investment at a time when interest rates were at historically low levels. One homeowner summarised how these factors encouraged them:

“…we had money in the bank which was earning 2% or whatever. Could I beat that by offsetting some of the bills we knew we were going to have in the next umpteen years? I did start to look at things more on the basis of payback times and things like that...With a lot of the things we’ve done, I think there is an economic case, particularly whilst money in the bank earns so little.”

(HOMEOWNER, FOCUS GROUP #3)

This idea of renewables as part-energy-source, part-investment was echoed by another household. This homeowner wanted to invest in a photovoltaic system and obtained three quotes, the price of which he managed to negotiate down. Despite an estimated payback period of eight to ten years he decided against investing in such a system because of the value he placed on having the money to hand and accessible, rather than depending on future returns:

“For me the main thing is that it cannot be considered an investment and I may need access to the £8,000 in the meantime…I don’t want to tie it up for 10 years before seeing any return…I would gladly trade the future returns for a lower initial cost and reduced time to break-even.”

(HOMEOWNER #6)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 123

4. RESULTS Again, this highlights the way in which homeowners can perceive the value of energy improvements in terms of their ‘return on investment’; that is, how long they will take to pay back. This experience was echoed by one installer, who cited the economic climate as a challenging one in which to encourage take up of renewables:

“Consumer confidence. I think that will come back. It takes a while, especially with new products. Renewables was never going to be an easy sell because there’s a lot of upfront cost.”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #24)

The participating households with solar renewables paid for them using a variety of means including; savings, investments coming to fruition and zero interest loans.

‘Nice to have’: while upfront cost and saving money in the future are crucial for households, not all energy related changes are subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis or perceived purely in terms of return on investment. One example is the wood-burner. A number of participating households have one but their decision to invest in one was less due to the estimated impact on their heating bills (which can be difficult to measure), but rather that they provide additional heat and are an attractive feature which makes the home ‘feel’ more cosy. Their primary appeal was more subjective than objective. One homeowner illustrated this when comparing his decision to invest in a solar voltaic system with his decision to invest in a wood-burner:

“…the log burner – it’s nice to have but the economic case isn’t really there.”

(HOMEOWNER, FOCUS GROUP #3)

Participants in focus group #1 comprising pre and post retrofit households echoed this point, in that subjective factors – although less easily quantifiable – still matter. They made the point that these subjective factors do creep into decisions on home energy improvements. Citing double glazing as an example, the group argued that although it has a very long payback time in terms of energy saved, it improves comfort and reduces noise levels, making the room or home a nicer place to be in. The group highlighted that these factors matter but because they are less easily quantifiable they have the potential to be downgraded or dismissed.

Installers viewed this issue from a slightly different perspective. They considered that the viability or desirability of many energy related improvements are judged purely in terms of return in investment, while other big home improvements or personal purchases are not subject to such rigorous cost-benefit analysis:

124 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “When I go to do solar PV (photovoltaic) systems the first question people ask is; ‘How quick do I get my money back?’

I say, if you buy a new car, how quick do you get your money back? They say that’s not the same – but it’s exactly the same.

It does a job, just like your car. But the thing about a solar PV system is that you do get your money back!”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #4)

Renewables installers expressed some frustration about what they consider to be a ‘payback’ culture around energy improvements, in particular micro renewables. While they acknowledge that incentives such as the Feed in Tariff and Renewable Heat Incentive have benefitted their businesses, most pointed out that incentives like these have – perhaps inadvertently – created a payback culture, which can overlook the other, multiple benefits of micro renewables.

Their point was that this payback is not always applied to other home improvements:

“There is no expectation of payback on a new kitchen or bathroom. When I first saw the FiT rate I could not believe it – I thought, are they absolutely bonkers? People will be producing their own energy; surely that alone is an attraction.’ In my lifetime double glazing came out and I can remember living in Scotland when I was little and the wind blowing through the windows. And now we have it, no-one’s ever come along and said ‘If you put that in your house, we’ll give you money for doing it because it will save you money.’

Why are we doing it with PV?” (SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #20)

“There does seem to be a sense out there that if you invest in anything that reduces or saves energy there has to be a payback. We don’t join our thinking up. People go out and buy a new kitchen or a new car – you don’t ask about the payback when you do that. But for some reason around energy as a commodity, there has to be a payback when you invest in it in any way. That’s a very tough nut to crack. They either want to do it or they’re not that interested. You have a big job to get around that argument.”

(INSTALLER FOCUS GROUP)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 125

4. RESULTS The impact of grant funding: prior to the introduction of the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation, free loft and cavity wall insulation was available to eligible households under the Government’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) programme. Installers cited schemes such as these and the ‘boiler scrappage’ scheme as key triggers to domestic energy improvements. One company that has delivered Government funded energy efficiency measures claimed schemes like CERT and boiler scrappage build awareness of, and momentum around, particular improvements; under CERT it was insulation. The installer pointed out the major advantage of the boiler scrappage scheme was that it encouraged people to be proactive about upgrading their boiler before it broke down. One participating household reported replacing their boiler due to this scheme.

CERT provided funding towards a measure or covered the entire cost of the works and under this programme participating households had loft, cavity – and in a small minority of cases – external wall insulation fitted.

Life changes such as retirement, redundancy and children going to university all play a part in households’ plans for their home. One household said they planned to fit additional insulation and re-plaster their child’s room in the roof once they went to university because they would then have access. Households approaching retirement said they were starting to think about making their homes more manageable for older age. One homeowner with a log fired boiler said he did not want to be chopping wood forever so was exploring a more automated biomass system; another household living in a remote rural area was considering alternatives because they had to regularly drag coal and wood supplies from the delivery lorry up a steep lane to their home. Approaching retirement age, this was an arrangement they knew could not continue indefinitely.

A handful of households had multiple energy saving measures installed as part of a complete structural and cosmetic refurbishment because they planned to spend their retirement in that property and had no plans to move again. They were willing to accept the short term disruption for what they perceive to be considerable, long term benefits.

Life events can also have a brake effect on progressing with energy improvements; as does how long the household anticipates remaining in that property. In one household a young person returned from university and could not find permanent work and pay off debts, so the parents put their home improvement plans on hold to help repay their child’s debts.

One household plans to downsize in a few years. While she recognises that having energy saving measures installed will improve the value of her property and help save energy, she is unwilling to invest in any technology with an estimated payback longer than eight to ten years, as she does not plan to be in the property for that long so will not directly benefit. However, as one solar installer pointed out, even if the homeowner plans to move before the estimated payback period is over, some improvements do add value to one’s home:

126 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “I can think of one customer in particular – not loads – that has been put off because they know they will be moving in five years’ time. But to be fair, I don’t agree. But I can’t tell the customer that. PV does add value to your house – even on DECC’s website it is cited as one of the top desirables that people ask estate agents for. It’s not essential, but it is one of the top desirable things that people ask for. That’s good. That 25 year contract has a value, and you can sell that on.”

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #20)

One homeowner recognised the additional value of their photovoltaic system. Before moving to his current property, he had offered to sell his photovoltaic system to the incoming owner as an ‘optional extra’:

“[The PV system] was an optional extra if they wanted it. But they’d have to pay me. My idea was if they said yes, we’ll have it, we’ll pay you what you ask for, it would have funded getting some more here. They weren’t prepared to pay for it so we took it with us.”

(HOMEOWNER #29)

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Consequently, the owner brought it with him and installed it on his home just before the rate of the Feed in Tariff reduced.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 2: Taking action – impartial advice

Advice plays a pivotal role in households’ decision to make energy improvements to their homes. When asked what the barriers were preventing or had prevented them from making their homes more energy efficient, over half of the participating households cited lack of information or knowledge of the options available to them, the best approach or most suitable technologies for their home.

The research team found that the households were at different stages in terms of their advice needs. Some households had sought advice and information on the energy improvement options available and the most suitable measures for their property. Those with some level of technical knowledge and expertise wanted additional advice from the Severn Wye energy advisors to clarify or confirm options they had already considered. All the participants remarked on how they valued having access to Severn Wye’s energy advice. They particularly valued the fact that Severn Wye is an impartial organisation, with no commercial interest in the choice of measures that are taken up.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 127

4. RESULTS In the course of this research project homeowners wanted different things from advice, and enquiries ranged from the very broad to very specific.

Researching the options: when asked what energy saving advice they had sought previously, most of the households said they had conducted some level of research, which included searching on the internet, speaking to friends about work they had completed, attending trade fairs, exhibitions, showrooms and open homes events. A minority of the post retrofit households had also taken part in open homes events themselves.

Energy performance surveys and recommendations To benchmark all the homes using a common methodology, the energy advisors conducted surveys on the 46 research households using the Reduced data Standard Assessment Procedure (RdSAP) methodology. Each survey generated an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and report containing recommendations for improvement, based primarily on recommendations generated by the EPC software. The advantage of using EPCs is that they provide a common, nationally recognised benchmark and the EPC forms an integral part of energy assessments required to access finance and possible funding under the Government’s Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) programmes.

The EPC provides estimated three yearly, current and potential energy consumption (total and per square metre) figures and costs (per home) for lighting, heating and hot water.

The calculations are based on certain assumptions about the property’s heating patterns, such as that the property is heated under standard occupancy conditions of 21 degrees Celsius in the main living area and 18 degrees Celsius in the rest of the home, with the heating on for 9 hours a day during the week and 16 hours a day at weekends. However, this rationale is not explained on the EPC itself.

During summer 2012, Severn Wye’s energy advisors carried out energy surveys for all 46 participating households. Every survey generated an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

The energy advisors incorporated this into a short report containing estimated yearly energy consumption, running costs and carbon emissions along with recommendations for improvement with the estimated savings.

Headlines about the participating households included: • Just over two thirds (67%) of the homes in the participant group were either C or D rated.

• None of the homes were A rated and just over a quarter (28%) were either E, F or G rated.

• The average EPC rating for the group was 60 – the same as the UK average.

• The distribution of the group’s EPC ratings ranged from 17 (G) to 82 (B).

• The median value was 60 (D).

128 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS G E

Number of households

C A 0

5

10

15

20

Diagram 53: Distribution of EPC ratings of UK participants’ homes Diagram 54 compares the SAP ratings of the homes in the participant group with the period in which they were constructed. For ease of analysis and to make the presentation of results clearer, the homes have been divided into the same four groups as previously; homes in group one were built before 1900, the homes in group 2 were built between 1900 and 1965, the homes in group three were built between 1966 and 1989 and the homes in group four were built from 1990 onwards.

90

81 (B)

82 (B)

80

78 (C)

77 (C)

70 67 (D)

SAP Rating

60

57 (D)

50 40

SAP rating of individual home

35 (F) 30 20

17 (G)

10 0 0

1

2

3

4

1 = pre 1900

2 = 1900 - 1965

3 = 1966 - 1989

4 = 1990 onwards

Diagram 54: Comparing SAP rating of UK participating homes with their age of construction Group 1: The homes built before 1900 range from a property with a SAP rating of 17 (G), which is a solid wall Grade Two listed property off the mains gas network with single glazing and insufficient levels of insulation. The highest rated property in this group is 77 (C) which – interestingly – is also Grade Two listed. It is on the mains gas network with secondary glazing, photovoltaic panels and high levels of insulation. Although this property is on the gas network, this comparison highlights how older, listed properties can be improved to levels where they are relatively energy efficient.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 129

4. RESULTS Group 2: The homes in group 2 range from a 1960s chalet bungalow with a SAP rating of 35 (F).

At the time of the survey this property had no central heating system and very little insulation.

The highest rated property in this group and of all the homes in this participant group has a SAP rating of 82 (B). This house was built between 1950 and 1965, has high levels of loft and cavity insulation, an efficient boiler and a solar voltaic array. Excess solar power is also diverted to heat water.

Group 3: The lowest rated home in group 3 is a chalet style house built in 1970 with old heating controls and low insulation levels, rated at 57 (D). The highest rated home has a SAP rating of 81 (B). Built between 1977 and 1981, this home has high levels of loft and cavity insulation, an efficient boiler and a solar voltaic array.

Group 4: The newest homes in the participant group â&#x20AC;&#x201C; those built in or after 1990 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; range from the lowest (67) D; a house with a solar water heating system and solar photovoltaic system, off the gas network and using an oil boiler. The highest rated property in this group is 78 (C) built in 2005 with cavity wall and loft insulation and a high efficiency gas boiler.

There is some correlation between a propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EPC rating and its age, with older buildings more likely to have features such as single-glazed windows and uninsulated solid walls. National building regulations started to be introduced in the UK from the mid-1960s onwards, so it is not surprising that properties built before then (that have not undergone significant energy improvements) are less energy efficient.

As the SAP rating is based primarily on running costs, limitations with the software mean that low carbon heating technologies such as heat stores and biomass systems tend not to score as highly as gas based systems even though they may be less carbon intensive. The home with the smallest estimated annual carbon emissions in the group (0.6 tonnes) does not have the highest EPC rating. It has an EPC rating of 72 (C) and was built in the last 25 years; it is not on the mains gas network. The home with the largest estimated yearly carbon emissions (21 tonnes per year) does not have the lowest EPC rating, but is a pre-1900 property and has the largest floor area of the participant group (278 square metres).

Initially, Severn Wye energy advisors produced an EPC and accompanying energy report containing additional recommendations and ideas for improvements. Each report proved very time consuming to produce. After an internal review and acting on initial feedback from households, the project team simplified the report and replaced it with a single sided summary of the details of the property (taken from the SAP software), with a covering letter containing recommendations, informal advice and feedback.

The Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and accompanying reports provided discussion points for follow ups with households. During the research phase the UK project team also captured the views of installers and trades on EPCs. Unlike the households, they were not asked specific questions about the EPC or RdSAP; comments they made came up in the flow of conversation.

The response to the EPCs: varied amongst the households. Some were surprised by the energy rating for their home, some not. Several of those living in pre-1900 properties were not surprised at the relatively low rating their home achieved, but a couple of these households were pleasantly surprised at what their estimated rating could be after improvements.

130 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS A handful of households for whom floor (and internal wall) insulation were recommended had already made such improvements wholly or in part. These homeowners could not provide documentary evidence of these improvements (a contractor’s invoice or guarantee) and expressed frustration at not being able to include these improvements. The energy advisors explained that unless a domestic energy assessor can see and photograph improvements in situ, documentary evidence proving they are there has to be supplied by the household. A verbal assurance from the household will not suffice, nor will their own photos. The households most affected by this requirement for proof were those who made significant improvements some years ago, or had installed the insulation themselves.

A common complaint from households was about what they perceived as the ‘one size fits all’ approach of the EPC, in particular the way: • The EPC considered ranges, such as Rayburns or Agas, and also wood-burners to be ‘secondary’ heating sources, even when the household relied on them primarily for space heating.

• Some types of energy improvement (such as thermal stores) could not be included.

• The EPC did not take into account whether a property was listed or in a conservation area.

Participants in such properties pointed out that some of the recommendations were of limited relevance to them due to planning restrictions on their home.

Those households in listed properties (that had not undertaken significant energy saving measures) initially thought their home’s protected status would prevent them from implementing most energy saving improvements. When this query arose, the UK team explained that restrictions do not forbid improvements, rather they have to be implemented sympathetically with the cooperation and approval of the local planning authority and that some modifications could be necessary (installing secondary glazing instead of double glazing for instance). To illustrate this, the team shared case studies of owners living in listed properties that Severn Wye worked with under the Target 2050 project. In partnership with their local authority, these case study households were able to significantly improve the energy performance of their homes. Severn Wye also highlighted that local companies specialising in adapting measures for period properties could help, and pointed the households to the Link to Energy network, which includes companies with this kind of expertise.

Other households expressed disappointment at the rating their home received. Reasons included: • They had already made improvements so expected the rating to be higher (although they did not state what that they thought that ‘higher’ rate should be). This was a common response among those households that had undertaken significant improvements and for whom there was little left they could do.

• The rating did not reflect how they used the property – they reported making a conscious effort to minimise their energy demand and carbon footprint. The energy advisors explained at this point that the EPC is based solely on the estimated performance of the building and takes no account of the occupants’ actual usage.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 131

4. RESULTS • Several households expressed hostility towards the findings of the EPC for the reasons above but also because they strongly believed the relatively low rating would negatively affect the ‘saleability’ of their home. The advisors explained that all EPCs were draft only and would not be lodged unless the homeowner specifically asked them to.

These different responses revealed the wide ranging nature of the households’ understanding of the EPC. A focus group comprising installers, building control, suppliers, planners, households and a domestic energy assessor (DEA) also echoed these findings; the group highlighted how poor EPCs can prompt homeowners to worry about how it might impact the value of their home. They pointed out that often such hostility arises from a lack of understanding about the purpose of the EPC, what it measures and what the results mean.

These findings highlight a number of things. First, the EPC is limited as a stand-alone document and that in order for it to be comprehensible to and useful for the homeowner, it needs to be unpacked and explained by an energy advisor or assessor. In a focus group one domestic energy assessor highlighted that in their experience, households that are initially sceptical of the EPC, generally warm to it if it is fully explained. This experience was shared by the UK team; most of the households that had expressed initial disappointment and scepticism were less hostile to the content once the rationale and purpose of the EPC had been explained. However a small minority of households still considered the EPC to be an unhelpful misrepresentation of their home.

Homeowners that had already made significant improvements to their homes (primarily the post retrofit group) considered the EPC to be of limited use to them. This was partly because they had already ruled out some improvements due to practical or other considerations. They also considered the EPC to be of greater use to households looking at home energy efficiency for the first time.

Those with limited or no knowledge and experience of the EPC had lots of questions around the estimated running costs for their home, the estimated savings and the estimated costs and impact of the recommended improvements. The advisors explained that being estimates, the figures were based on assumptions on typical energy use patterns for that type of property.

There was no consensus among the homeowners on the purpose of the EPC. This might help explain why the queries were so diverse; the EPC is different things to different people.

Recommendations generated by the EPC ranged from loft insulation to flue gas recovery devices. Diagram 55 lists the recommendations contained in the 46 EPCs, in order of frequency:

132 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS High performance external doors Flat roof insulation Fan assisted storage heaters and dual immersion cylinder Hot water tank insulation Heat recovery system for mixer showers Flue gas heat recovery device in conjunction with boiler Roof room insulation Loft insulation Cavity wall insulation Draught proofing Double/secondary glazing Central Heating controls Wind turbine New boiler Solid wall insulation Solar water heating Low energy lighting Solar PV Frequency of EPC recommendation Floor insulation 0 10 20 30 40

Diagram 55: The frequency of measures recommended in the 46 UK energy reports The recommendations provoked myriad questions and comments from the households.

Looking at the three most frequently recommended measures, feedback included: 1 Floor insulation was the most common recommendation, featuring in most (89%) of the EPCs. As mentioned, five households for whom floor insulation emerged as a recommendation had actually insulated a part of their ground floor but could not prove this (through paperwork, nor could the assessor see the insulation) so it could not be counted in the energy assessment.

Nearly all of the households with floor insulation as a recommendation considered this improvement to be too disruptive to be viable. Those who did not dismiss this recommendation already had plans to repair or replace flooring or skirting. Most of the households considered the estimated costs on the EPC for floor insulation (£800 to £1200) to be too low, especially for a solid floor. Many households also considered floor insulation to be a poor return on investment. Based on the figures cited by the EPC one homeowner estimated it would take him 30 years to recoup the energy savings for this measure, prompting him to ask why anyone would do it at all?

On the other hand, some of the households that had no intention of insulating under their floors welcomed the recommendation because they thought its inclusion in the EPC raised awareness of this type of improvement. By raising awareness of this measure they thought it would increase the likelihood of households incorporating it into other, related work if feasible.

2 Photovoltaics (PV) was a recommended measure in nearly two thirds (61%) of the EPCs. It also featured in the EPCs of the listed properties. About half of the households expressed interest in PV but cited recent changes in the Feed in Tariff, uncertainty on where the panels could be sited, concerns about neighbours’ reactions, lack of capital, and the cost generally (which some obtained by getting their own quotes) as the main reasons why they discounted installing it.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 133

4. RESULTS Several households expressed disappointment at what they considered to be low potential savings estimated by the EPC; they also remarked on what they perceived to be high costs for a system. In 2012 the EPC cited the indicative costs for a 2.5 kWp domestic PV system as £9,000 to £14,000. On estimated yearly savings of £238 per year, this translates into a payback period lasting from 37 to 59 years.

Severn Wye’s energy advisors pointed out that the EPC only currently states the savings the household would make on their electricity bill and does not take into account the income generated by the Feed in Tariff (FiT) scheme. They pointed out that these additional calculations would be made by the installer and householder when assessing the potential for purchase. One possibility is that the EPC could mention this more clearly if unable to include estimated FiT income.

When the energy advisors were explaining the costs and recommendations to households, they normally pointed out that the actual starting costs for PV are now much lower than those cited by the EPC. However one installer expressed alarm about the estimated cost cited for a 2.4kWp domestic system:

“…I had a new EPC report through to me for a house, which incorporates PV under the Green Deal, along with the return investment and the cost investment, and I thought…it’s not accurate. It could mislead people quite quickly - in either way.

I thought the cost was grossly exaggerated and people won’t touch it. If it were more accurate, people would consider it.”

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #20)

“Currently, payback on a PV system is 10-12 years.”

(SOLAR INSTALLER #10)

3 Low Energy Lighting5 came up in nearly two thirds (61%) of the EPCs. Most of the households for whom it was recommended expressed surprise that it had come up at all.

When this occurred, the advisors explained to the households that RdSAP does not take table lamps into consideration – which can provide the primary source of light in some rooms, particularly bedrooms. A common complaint among households was that the indicative costs provided by the EPC are too low (£100). This is because the EPC bases the costing on CFL energy saving lights and most of the participating households expressed a preference to upgrade their lighting to LEDs – which are more expensive than CFLs. Estimated energy consumption stated in the EPC: Most of the pre retrofit households did not query their electricity consumption, while some of the post retrofit households did, in particular homeowners that had made significant improvements. At least half of all the households asked questions about the estimated heating costs for their home.

5

Defined as bulbs with an efficacy of 40 lumens per circuit watt. Typically CFLs and fluorescent tubes but this can also include LEDs as they are more efficient.

134 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS One participant said she could not make sense of the three yearly costs or savings, because she lives and budgets month by month. Some dismissed the estimates as inaccurate and arbitrary because they take no account of the household’s behaviour. Households that were not on the mains gas network claimed the estimated heating costs were too low (especially those on oil), while those on gas said they were too high. Households with wood burning stoves asked what if their stoves provide more than half of their heating? These questions prompted Severn Wye’s energy advisors to explain the assumptions behind the software.

Overall, the EPC raised as many questions as it provided answers. Over two thirds of the participant group considered it to be lacking in detail and not specific enough to their home and patterns of energy use. Participating installers and domestic energy assessors agree that the purpose, assumptions and rationale of the EPC should be explained to the household. Ideally this would be done before the survey so the homeowner understands the methodology and what to expect.

Too much information: Most participating households had undertaken some degree of research about potential improvements (whether as a result of EPC recommendations or not).

Many of these households acknowledged that while there is a wealth of information on energy saving and home improvements, this can actually have a paralysing effect on decision making; there can be too much information, and consequently, too many implications and choices.

Households expressed confusion as to where to go for reliable sources of information, how to sift and prioritise information and make informed choices. Households (in listed and non-designated homes) reported not understanding the full range of choices open to them.

This ‘burden’ of information and choice was raised primarily by the households without technical knowledge and/or prior experience of undertaking major energy related improvements. These participants reported struggling with different and sometimes conflicting information. This problem was acutely felt by households in full time work, and/or with a young family with multiple competing pressures on their time and energy. Given the time it takes to research different energy saving options and weigh them up, the task can end up feeling too overwhelming to make a decision, as one householder summed up:

“We still have not replaced the spotlight light bulbs in the kitchen. This is something we really want to do. I tried a Google search but got completely confused by the colour of bulbs and how bright we need the light in the kitchen. There is too much to choose from and I feel like I need to do a lot more research in types, prices, before I can make a decision.

Which of course all takes time and I do not have that at the moment. We went to B&Q to see if there was some LED light bulbs we could buy, but again this was confusing and ended up with us arguing and falling out so we gave up!”

(HOMEOWNER #8)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 135

4. RESULTS One of the recommendations on this household’s EPC was for low energy lighting. However, the initial upfront cost of replacing the halogen bulbs caused her to hesitate; she considered the outlay significant and was concerned it would be money wasted if the bulbs did not perform as she expected. She spoke with an advisor who informed her that she could replace the halogens one by one and signposted her to suppliers, which gave her the certainty and confidence to go ahead. This example shows that relatively simple decisions such as changing light bulbs can be delayed, if not postponed indefinitely if there is uncertainty or doubt about that technology’s effectiveness.

‘Bits of knowledge’: One installer echoed the experiences of this household, underlining how doubts about a technology can delay any decision. However, this installer also pointed out how other factors all influence homeowners’ choices, including their own needs and priorities, opinions and experiences from friends and family:

“…what we come across a lot in measures around insulating old buildings, there are lots of little bits of dangerous knowledge out there. People have talked to different suppliers, they’ve talked to friends, they’ve got their own thoughts and feelings about certain solutions, and often all those bits of knowledge don’t mesh together very well into a seamless solution. People can procrastinate – sometimes for years. I’ve got one client who’s been talking about getting external wall insulation for over 4 years now. He’s still keen to do it; he’s just struggling with the inconsistency of the advice and information that’s out there.”

(INSTALLER, INSTALLERS’ FOCUS GROUP)

A big challenge is raising awareness among households of what their options are, as one installer stressed:

“I’ve got to say, Severn Wye are quite good at putting information out there and maybe as an installer I read your factsheet and think ‘Yes, that’s correct, that’s concise, it tells me everything I need to know’. But I think generally, people don’t know what their options are. When we mention RHI (the Renewable Heat Incentive) to people who don’t know anything about it; that they could be paid for heating their homes their reaction is ‘No!’ So there’s an ignorance out there of what’s available and what’s up and coming.”

(BIOMASS AND SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #22)

136 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Asking installers: A minority of participating households consulted local tradespeople and installers for advice on implementing energy improvements. Some of those that did this already had worked with the installer in the past and had good relationships with them; there was a high level of trust already in place.

One pre retrofit household renovated their property when they moved in and employed installers they had worked with before. As the household had trust in their work and judgement, they were confident to take the installer’s advice and were open to their ideas. The same household had their central heating system split into zones, something they would not have considered were it not for the heating engineer suggesting it:

“…you see that’s down to me. This is something I’ve been doing for some time, offering that where we can. You can get a big saving. If you’re in a normal house you’re running the heating all night because you’re sat in the lounge, so the bedrooms are being heated when they don’t need to be. So now they can sit in the lounge in the evening and just the ground floor is being heated. The heating upstairs comes on half an hour before they go to bed. So there’s a big saving there. That makes a big difference.”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #4)

Another household was comparing quotes for replacement double glazing, one quote was for a like for like replacement but the other provided a more detailed quote containing ideas on replacing the existing doors and windows with units that would give the household much more flexibility, besides appearing more balanced and attractive. The installer also made time to go through the quote in detail with them, to explain his rationale. Both quotes were similar in terms of cost, but the detail and thought that had gone into the second quote, along with the time the installer had taken to go through it, helped to secure the business:

“He measured things, drew detailed diagrams, gave us a quote, I think his quote ran to eight or nine pages with details of the pattern of each window, type of glass…types of handles, which panes were opening…he said ‘When you have an opening pane and a non-opening pane, you’ve got this unbalanced size’. So he suggested, ‘It looks marginally neater if you have a floating mullion and both panes can open’. And we liked that idea…He suggested an outward opening back door; we liked that idea as well. We got one other quote…almost within pennies, very much the same. He [the other glazier] might have been able to start marginally earlier. But his quote was very limited information.”

(HOMEOWNER #46)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 137

4. RESULTS Some installers stressed the importance of their initial surveys and consultations with a potential client. These participants did not view these surveys and consultations primarily as an opportunity to sell their services but more as a two way conversation, to enable them to find out more about the potential client’s home, they expectations, budget and lifestyle. The installers highlighted how a crucial part of this initial conversation is for them to diagnose whether the technical solutions they can provide would be workable for the client. One installer summarised this approach:

“Now if you are focused on selling something, you’re always going to put the efficiency of the system and the customer experience second, because you’re just looking for as much profit as you possibly can get out of a single sale. That’s not what we do. That’s not how it should be. You have to design the system and find a way to maintain the system integrity and sell it at a price that someone can afford to pay for it.

To look at price and selling before you look at technical solutions is putting the cart before the horse.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

Lack of trust in advice from installers: was a barrier for a number of households.

These households had concerns that installer advice was not impartial, that they would be sold a solution they did not need, want or that did not suit their property or lifestyle.

One homeowner said:

“[I] worry about how much it will cost. I’m also nervous about how to choose people to do any work that may be required and about being encouraged to do unnecessary work”.

(HOMEOWNER #26)

Concerns about being sold an inappropriate solution were echoed by a focus group of pre and post retrofit homeowners, who stressed the need for impartial advice at the planning stage:

“It seems like you need an objective advisor to come in before you even start thinking about these things, if you get the installers in, they’ll take you on a road where you’re not sure you want to go….They take you on their road, don’t they?”

(HOMEOWNERS’ FOCUS GROUP #3)

Six households from the participating group were referred by the Severn Wye team for subsidised loft and cavity wall insulation under the CERT scheme. One household who had subsidised loft and cavity wall insulation under the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target programme (CERT) stressed how going through an impartial agency such as Severn Wye gave them confidence to have the work done:

138 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “The cavity wall insulation has been good…We wouldn’t have had this done without the survey. We would have been too suspicious of the salesman but his figures of what we would save matched yours and gave us the confidence to go ahead. We also wouldn’t have known we were eligible for free cavity wall insulation.”

(HOMEOWNER #26)

The installer that made the improvements acknowledged there is a level of mistrust among the public in terms of the motives of installation companies. This installer stressed how the crucial role played by being in partnership with impartial organisations like energy agencies and local authorities, and the legitimacy this confers on their activities. As the homeowner highlighted above, the legitimacy of the ‘messenger’ matters as much as the information and service they are providing:

“Because we’ve been invited in and we’ve been endorsed – the local authority projects and things like that – there’s an element of trust regarding the advice we provide and we appreciate that. The fact is we’ve been invited in, endorsed by the local authority in most cases, the advice we provide is listened to” (INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #5)

One installer specialising in heating, plumbing and renewables reported experiencing this kind of wariness among his domestic clients:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 139

4. RESULTS “For the last two or three years I’ve been offering a survey of people’s houses free of charge to show them how they can save money but we’ve had very few takers…We often come across people who are moving house, they want a boiler serviced. We go in and they will tell me they are moving house and I will ask ‘Are you moving locally?’ and they will say ‘We’re not moving far’. I’ll say to them ’Well if you want me to have a look at a property before you purchase it, quite happy to do that and we can talk about what you can do with the house in terms of new heating systems, renewables or whatever.’ We try to get in there and help people plan what they are going to do before they start. People always seem receptive to it but not too many have taken me up on it. If you don’t know them, or they don’t know you and you haven’t got that trust, people are worried that you’re going to get your foot in the door and they’re not going to be able to get rid of you without signing some sort of contract!”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #4)

Trust in the installer also comes to the fore if the household is considering investing in a relatively new technology. One homeowner with photovoltaics and a solar hot water system stressed how homeowners have to put a lot of trust in the contractors they employ, especially for renewables:

“There’s a huge amount people have to learn and people don’t know what they need – you are offered different advice and options, which way do you go? And the technologies are changing all the time.”

(HOMEOWNER #40)

One focus group comprising planners, installers, building control officers, suppliers and households pointed out that for many homeowners, their first contact with energy saving technologies like insulation may be through door to door selling or cold calling over the telephone – which is more likely to turn them off the technology completely. The group thought that ideally, a households’ first contact with such technologies should start with information from an impartial source. If households know the information comes from an organisation with no commercial interest, they are more likely to take it seriously.

Lack of trust in the technology: One installer reported their experience of homeowners refusing free or subsidised cavity wall insulation for fear the improvement would actually cause problems. Similarly, the same installer reported homeowners refusing to have their walls insulated because they did not consider it necessary as if the cavities were not filled when the home was constructed there must be a valid reason for this:

140 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “I think there are stories that used to go around about cavity wall insulation put in by cowboys, causing problems like damp and so on. I’ve talked to a few people who still say ‘I don’t want it. I don’t want it on my house; I don’t like causing any problems’. I say if it’s done right, it will be fine. But they will not do it.”

(INSULATION AND RENEWABLES INSTALLER, INSTALLERS’ FOCUS GROUP)

This highlights the need for ‘official’ endorsement to give legitimacy to Government funded schemes.

Concerns about new technologies came up in conversations with homeowners. One homeowner with a solar hot water system and photovoltaic array expressed how when investigating the new technologies initially, he and his family wanted to be sure they weren’t saddled with a ‘lame duck’ technology:

“It’s like Beta Max and VHS.” (HOMEOWNER #40)

Another concern among households with a highly visible technology such as a solar hot water system or photovoltaic array was what their neighbours would think. One solar electricity installer summed this up when describing how they quell people’s fears about investing in a relatively new technology:

“Many people want confidence that they are doing the right thing…[we] get round this by putting prospective clients in touch with existing ones. People want to be sure their neighbours are not going to be laughing at them in two years’ time.”

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #14)

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

Stage 3: planning works

Once a homeowner has decided to proceed with improvements, they may need approval from the local planning authority, although this is not mandatory for all types of energy improvement.

However, any physical change to a listed building normally requires planning permission and major improvements such as external wall insulation also require approval from the local planning authority. Planning permission may be required for any structural change – which indirectly – can affect energy related measures if they are being incorporated into structural and/

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 141

4. RESULTS or wider refurbishment works. This section explores the experiences of the households and the perspectives of the other actors on planning and building control. This section focuses on: • Listed buildings and planning permission.

• Permissions and non -designated buildings.

• The order of work.

LISTED BUILDINGS IN THE UK A ‘listed building’ is a building, piece of land, object or structure that has been deemed to be of national importance in terms of its architectural or historic interest. In addition to buildings, listed ‘buildings’ also include historical battlefields and parks, wrecks, and conservation areas. Listed buildings are included on a register called the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. An entry can also include more than one building – such as a terrace. In England there are around 374,081 listed building entries.

A building is listed in its entirety, which means that both the exterior and the interior are protected. Any object or structure fixed to the building, and any object or structure within the curtilage of the building (which although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1 July 1948) are treated as part of the listed building.

Listed building control is a type of planning control, which protects buildings of special architectural or historical interest. These controls are applied in addition to any planning regulations which would normally apply. Listed building status can also result in the requirement for planning permission where it would not normally be needed.

This special form of control is intended to prevent the unrestricted demolition, alteration or extension of a listed building without the authorisation consent of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.

Altering a listed building without authorisation is a criminal offence. Although all buildings must comply with Building Regulations, this does not apply to historic buildings where such compliance would compromise the character or fabric of the building.

Source: English Heritage and www.Planningportal.gov.uk

LIVING IN A CONSERVATION AREA Those living in or running a business from a property in a conservation area may need permission from their local Council before making alterations including cladding, replacing windows, installing satellite dishes and solar panels, adding conservatories or other extensions, laying paving or building walls. Local authorities can change the types of alterations that need permission so homeowners living in conservation areas are advised to consult their Council before making changes like these to their property.

Source: English Heritage

142 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Listed buildings and conservation areas In terms of historic – and listed buildings in particular – there is inevitably a need for compromise between preserving the aesthetics and character of the building and improving the energy efficiency. In retrofit terms, restrictions may apply to highly visible changes including glazing, external and internal wall insulation, and solar panels. Focus groups held with key actors in the retrofit supply chain included planning, building control and conservation officers, who stressed that with listed buildings comprising such a small proportion of the overall building stock, retaining their character supersedes the need to reduce their energy consumption and carbon emissions (which, by the nature of the properties, tends to be higher).

However, they agreed that pragmatism is needed with listed homes; in order to preserve them they do need to be habitable, and a balance found between these priorities by assessing the needs and characteristics of each building and reaching a workable solution. Focus group participants stressed that if it can be shown that the character of a listed building will not be adversely affected as a result of energy improvements, there is greater chance the work will be permitted. They also stressed that installers, trades people and households need to fully understand this. Participants added that any installer dealing with a period building needs to understand the types of sympathetic insulation needed and be willing to consider other insulation options that will also comply. This kind of expertise requires in depth knowledge and experience.

Focus group participants also remarked that – in their experience – homeowners tend not to know enough about the implications of building control or living in a conservation area; or even whether they live in a conservation area. The participants highlighted that problems can arise if a homeowner finds out mid-way through improvement work that the work is not permitted, because it may result in them having to change or ‘undo’ the work. Participants stressed that homeowners and installers need to investigate these fundamental issues before proceeding with any work. In their experience they found that homeowners often lack knowledge of the different options available to them and that there can be alternative ways to improve their homes in ways that are permitted. They added that homeowners buying a period property need to do their research and understand the implications of having a period home and any possible restrictions on it.

Four of the five participating UK households in listed properties reported dealing with their local planning departments. One post retrofit household made initial enquiries about having double glazing installed in the original part of her home. She had insulated her home extensively and replaced the boiler. She thought she may get permission for double glazing as it was allowed in the newer extension on her home. The local planning authority made it clear that double glazing would not be permissible in principle and that the homeowner would have to investigate secondary glazing or replacement single glazing. The homeowner’s primary issue with this proposal was cost; quotes for secondary glazing were more expensive than those she had for double glazing and her quotes for single glazing were similar to those for double glazing.

Naturally, the homeowner wanted to maximise the energy savings for her investment.

She asked if the local planning authority could visit the property to discuss alternatives, but due to time and staff constraints within the local authority, this was not possible. The local authority suggested that the homeowner submit a proposed solution for some pre application advice.

This put the home owner off and she did not replace the windows.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 143

4. RESULTS One other pre retrofit household in another local authority area paid £80 to be visited by their local Conservation Officer. In return they received a report on what glazing was permitted.

The Officer found that double glazing is permissible in the newer extensions but not in the main, older part of the property, where secondary glazing was recommended to retain character.

The household plans to follow up on these recommendations.

It was in the course of applying for planning permission for replacement glazing that another post retrofit household discovered their home was listed. This household had permission granted retrospectively and had worked with a glazier specialising in period restoration work.

The household spoke highly of the installer. To reduce the cost of their secondary glazing, one post retrofit household in a listed property made and installed the secondary glazing for the rear elevation. This highlights how it is possible for cheaper, DIY measures to be installed in a listed building.

If the property is not listed or designated, then improvements can be certified by installers that are members of a Competent Person’s Scheme, or by the Building Control department of the local authority. The following sections outline the experiences of households and installers in terms of their experiences of planning and building control. It concludes with perspectives from building control and planning staff themselves.

The homeowner perspective: In addition to the households in listed properties, nine other participating households had dealings – to varying degrees – with their local planning and building control departments, whether to get clarification on an issue or to get applications approved.

The installation of a wind turbine was a recommendation in 12 of the 46 EPCs and was dismissed by all households as they did not think they would get planning permission for this technology.

Two households contacted their local authorities for clarification on certain energy improvements. One was considering investing in a wood-burner in her electrically heated home. She reported that she had learned that her Local Authority would need to approve the installation of a wood-burner (because she is in a ground floor flat). This development prompted her to postpone her plans. The cost associated with obtaining approvals, along with the time and the resources required to pursue this, deterred her from taking the matter any further.

The other household planned to re-felt and insulate the flat roofs above the dormer windows in his chalet home and asked the local building control department if they would have to approve such improvements. The department informed him that whilst their approval was not obligatory (because the proposed areas constituted less than 50% of the total roof area), without it he would not have any official paperwork to pass to the next owner of the property, which might be an issue were he to sell the property in the future. The homeowner weighed up the necessity of such paperwork; an exercise that also involved thinking about how long he planned to remain in the property.

In discussions with roofers, the homeowner discovered that he could commission a roofer to undertake the work under the Competent Roofers Scheme. The homeowner reported that a number of installers with whom he had discussed the work were not registered under the scheme and were dismissive about the need for Building Control approval. He noted that

144 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS their quotes were cheaper than the contractors registered under the scheme. In the end the household commissioned a roofer registered under the ‘Competent Roofers’ scheme.

COMPETENT ROOFERS SCHEME ‘Competent Roofer’ is the Government-licenced Competent Person Scheme for England and Wales. It allows professional roofing contractors to self-certify that their roof refurbishment work complies with Building Regulations. The scheme includes all roofing types for domestic, industrial and commercial properties and any roofing contractor can apply to be within the scheme.

If 50% or more of a roof has to be replaced than Building Regulations stipulate that the relevant Local Authority needs to be notified at least 48 hours before work starts. Failure to notify the local Building Control department risks the property owner incurring a fine of up to £5,000, plus the cost of rectifying the work if it does not meet the required standards.

Source: http://www.competentroofer.co.uk/

One of the pre retrofit households had solid wall insulation fitted to the exterior of her home.

Being a park home, she had to seek permission from the owners of the park (who own the land on which the home is sited), who granted it without any queries. Another pre retrofit household had external wall insulation fitted to her detached house, but had no contact with the local planning authority as the installer dealt with the relevant permissions.

Two other pre retrofit households hired external consultants to deal with the local planning authority on their behalf. Both households were incorporating energy improvements into structural and cosmetic works. In one home, two rooms were being knocked together to create a kitchen/diner. The builders commissioned to complete this task suggested that if the homeowners were unable to navigate the planning process themselves, they ought to employ a planning consultant to liaise with the authority on their behalf. Despite not having budgeted for a planning consultant, they took the builders’ advice. Obtaining the relevant authorisation took longer than the owners had envisaged, primarily because of the size of the large rolled steel joist (RSJ) used to support the first floor. In total, six drawings were submitted and three months after the initial application was submitted, the household was given the green light to proceed.

The other pre retrofit household employed a trainee architect to produce plans for another gable end on her property. The plans were rejected by the local planning authority and after a number of disagreements they parted company and she employed a local structural engineer to revise and submit the plans, which were accepted. The homeowner reflected she was glad that the process had turned out this way:

“I was pleased that the first planning application was rejected because it meant I came out with a better design.”

(HOMEOWNER #3)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 145

4. RESULTS The installer perspective: One company specialising in external wall insulation described the normal course of their dealings with local authorities:

“We all say to the customer; ‘There’s a charge for the planning control so it might be £150 and we have asked that you contact them and let them know what you’re having done’. We would then send out a specification of what we are going to do to the property, the day we start with that we call building control and say ‘Right we will be here on this day and you can come mid-week and you can see another stage of the job’, and they would then get involved and the guys that are actually carrying out the installation will then say ‘Ok this is when we’ll be finished’…Although we did have a phone call the other day – a home we finished in Plymouth three years ago – the client had had a letter from building control asking if they had had the work done because no-one had ever been out to look at it or sign the work off. In those circumstances the Council were informed but they never went out to see it. They wanted to know what had been done because the planning consent had run out. So we had to straighten that out. That’s the only issue we’ve ever had with building control.“ (SOLID WALL INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

The types of works that are granted planning consent can vary from authority to authority.

One national installation company well accustomed to working with local authority planning departments highlighted how different approaches among neighbouring local authorities can cause problems. To explain this point this installer cited its experience of one Midlands city which falls under the jurisdiction of different local authorities. Urban areas in the city region are within the remit of different local authorities who differed in terms of improvements permitted.

Consequently residents on some streets were permitted to have external wall insulation on their properties while residents living nearby in similar properties, were not. This inconsistent approach fostered confusion among residents about what was permitted and what was not.

It also fuelled resentment among some homeowners which prompted them to criticise the installation company and accuse it of choosing not to insulate certain properties when in reality it could not obtain permission to insulate them.

This report also reported a development over the last two years which has impacted this company’s external wall insulation work:

146 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “Up to October 2012, we had done in excess of a thousand properties. Very few, we had applied for planning permission on. The ones we had fell into a conservation area or an area of natural beauty. Before then we never had an issue. Then in October 2012 it was as if planning around the country just woke up and said you can’t do that anymore, you need to do a full application. We said, ‘Since when?’ They said ‘It’s always been there, if you check’.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #1)

This development caused the installer to take a much more cautious approach in its future dealings with local authorities. The onus shifted to the installation company to evidence that a development was permitted, which meant it had to manage its client’s expectations carefully both in terms of whether the work would be permitted, but also in terms of the time it would take for the permission to be granted:

“Now every time we attend a property it either falls under permitted development (PD) or it is an application but we still have to write to the planners to find out if it is PD or not.

In January 2013 the Government released the permitted development document but the planners quickly got a way round this and said ‘You’ve got to do your application’. It’s £172 we pay for the application, or £28 to some authorities just to ask the question. They won’t answer the question without the £28. Some [charge] £48. If we believe it is [permitted development], under the basis where [the property is] already rendered or in a street where there are a lot of other properties that are similar, it’s a property on its own…we send all the evidence. [By doing this] It can be three weeks instead of three months, so it helps the client.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #1)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 147

4. RESULTS The same installer described why getting full permission for external insulation is so important:

“Should the planning department go ‘I’m not happy about that, off’, you’ve got, depending on the house, an average sized three bed semi, 80 metres… you’ve probably got a thousand holes drilled in, randomly. The board goes up so you’re drilling through central bricks and taking into consideration it’s an old property, to rematch the bricks it’s going to be quite difficult and expensive. So I will not take that risk. It’s got to be – have we got consent? Building control have been in? Everybody’s happy, there you go.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #1)

The planning and building control staff perspective: Unsurprisingly, participants from local authorities echoed the sentiments of this installer, stressing that homeowners are always advised to check with their local authority as to whether they need permission to make any alterations to their homes. This is because the judgement does not depend solely upon whether the building is listed or otherwise designated. Similarly, while the need for listed building consent is a complex judgement there are plenty of situations where consent would also be required for alterations to a modern extension.

Order of work: The issue of what order in which to make home improvements (often when energy improvements were being made alongside structural and cosmetic improvements) came up frequently for the participating households, especially when discussing the recommendations generated by the initial energy survey and accompanying report. Participants highlighted reasons that made it difficult for them to understand the best order in which to have improvement works completed. These reasons include information: conflicting information, or too much or too little. Other factors like changes in their personal and financial situation also prompted some households to change the order in which they planned to undertake works.

When some households changed their mind about a particular improvement this had a knock on effect on other changes they planned or wished to make.

Participants asked how they ought to prioritise – should they opt for the measures delivering the biggest energy savings, with the shortest return on investment or those that were easiest to install? Two participants in a focus group comprising pre and post retrofit households summed up the common issues voiced by other households, especially those that were incorporating energy improvements into structural and cosmetic improvements:

148 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Household 1: “And what order to do them in? We nearly did the bathroom beforehand and we put a pump in, and then we delayed it, because we decided to go down the thermal store [route] which changed what we did in the bathroom.

And we’ve just insulated under one floor so far in the house and just when we were doing it we’re wondering about whether we want to put in a wood-burner. And it’s like, oh if we want to then have a flue, the floor’s going to have to come back up again…..

Household 2: “That’s right…You don’t have enough knowledge to make these decisions do you? Unless you sit on the internet a lot.

Household 1: “You need little flow charts (gesturing as if visualising a flowchart) ‘You must do that, before you do that, you must do that before you do that….’

Household 2: “That right, that’s right! That could be useful.”

Household 1: “Yeah, I think the biggest problem when we had the thermal [store] put in was actually trying to figure out where the truth was, in terms of which kind of system we ought to be going for. We ended up going for the thermal store, which – it turns out – we really got on with, but we had two completely separate factions saying ‘Thermal stores are rubbish’ and ‘Thermal stores are great’. You read the stuff and you think ‘Oh, what do we do?’ In the end it worked out pretty well for us but it was just pot luck really…it could have turned out otherwise.”

(FOCUS GROUP #3 – 2012)

The experiences of the households cited in this section all underline the need for bespoke energy advice, tailored to an individual’s home and lifestyle. The effectiveness of any energy improvement is in large part down to whether it is best suited to the property and the lifestyle of the household. Considering technologies in isolation of these factors may cause some potentially valuable improvements to be discounted or conversely, to the installation of wholly inappropriate solutions.

Local authority participants made the point that in their experience, separate applications for improvements make the approval process slightly harder because they make it more difficult to evaluate the combined impact of such modifications. Taking a holistic approach and submitting an overall application for multiple improvements makes evaluation much more straightforward as they can be considered in the round. Participants also stressed the benefits of installers and planning staff collaborating on applications.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 149

4. RESULTS One household also echoed the benefits of adopting a holistic approach:

“If you’ve got somebody who wants to do something to their house, don’t just think; ‘I’m going to redecorate and put some new windows in’, think about the overall house, what else can we do? Think a bit more laterally when you’re looking at a project, don’t rush into it. Sit down and think about it. And ask. Local authorities have got energy conservation officers, pick up the phone or go and see them. Say ‘Look I want to do to my house, this is what we’re thinking about, is there anything you can suggest to improve the environmental energy efficiency of what I’m doing, before we’ve done it and it’s too late?.”

(HOMEOWNER #29)

Participating building control, planning staff and installers also highlighted how previous remedial or improvement work can have a bearing on future changes. Improvements may have been made to a property that did not take into account future needs. Such an approach may cause problems in the future, possibly before the warranty runs out, even. An installer may assess a potential job, spot such issues and decide not to proceed for fear of worsening the situation. The implication here is that improvements should be conducted with an eye on the future; even if all improvements cannot be made in one sweep, efforts should be made to prevent unintended, negative consequences.

Most of the participants stressed the importance of the planning phase and of the initial surveys and meetings with energy advisors and installers. Participants agreed that although it is not possible to pre-empt all problems at the start of any home improvement process, the final outcome is likely to be better if the installer and household spend considerable time in the planning/commissioning phase going working through the detail and identifying potential problems. The alternative to doing this is trying to iron out issues after the work is completed, which is inefficient, stressful and may lead to trust breaking down between the installer and homeowner.

Solid wall insulation and glazing: One pre retrofit homeowner had external insulation installed and glazing fitted. While planning the work she was initially unsure about the order in which the work should be completed and received conflicting information from installers about what ought to go in first. This issue was later resolved when the homeowner sought further advice.

Several focus groups comprising local authority staff, installers, suppliers and households across three geographical areas discussed this issue as it comes up frequently. They concluded that when commissioning glazing and solid wall insulation at the same time it is more advantageous to adopt a whole house approach where both technologies are factored into the final design and considered as one technology rather than two.

150 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS These concerns were echoed by installers, who stressed the importance of factoring both technologies in at the design stage and not considering either in isolation. The installers also stressed the importance for extensive discussion between the household and installer about the household’s plans for the future:

“It’s a question we tend to ask at survey stage; if there’s any intention for replacement windows in the next three to five years. If there is, we tend to let the client know then that it’s far better to do the windows first. Because once you once you fit the EWI [external wall insulation] system to the reveals, it’s a waterproof seal. If you replace the windows, you break the seal. You potentially can crack the render, the top coat, then after that, depending on the glaziers and how heavy handed they are, you can actually make the warranty null and void. In several cases what we have advised the client is to say ‘Look, it’s all about finance, so if it means the EWI has to go back a year, two years, then we would much rather prefer to do that, than have issues with it thereafter.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #1)

This sentiment was also echoed by a glazier:

“To get it right – it’s a process, everyone needs to work together. It’s quite normal for us to have at least or two meetings with both the builder and the architect, with the client involved if they want to be. We’ll go out and do a survey and do everything we can to try and drive it along and make sure everyone knows exactly what they’re doing, exactly what they’re getting and make sure the job gets done. There are companies I know, from my own experience, that literally just turn up, [say] ‘Oh there’s a hole’, put a window in it, right it’s your problem, away we go.”

(GLAZING INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #12)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 151

4. RESULTS “The job that I’m quoting for, there are glaziers going in there as well. The windows go in and even when they’re not having new windows fitted, you’ve got to put new extensions on the sills. You’re putting a thicker board onto the wall; the sills have got to come out. So all the double glazing company needed to know was the thickness of the insulation board. They would extend the sills out, the EWI would go on afterwards and she would get a guarantee on both” (INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #21)

Officers in building control, planning and conservation, plus installers and suppliers agreed that making multiple energy saving improvements in tandem can deliver various benefits. Some of these benefits can be opportunistic; for example, one household took the opportunity to use the scaffolding that went up for their solid wall insulation to repoint their kitchen. Another household insulated their pipes when floorboards were up.

Participants highlighted that different technologies are more likely to work better together if they are planned together. The costs and upheaval involved in getting more than one job done at any one time can be less than if they were carried out separately. If a household is using the same contractor for more than one improvement they are in a position to get the work carried out at a better rate than if the jobs were carried out by separate companies.

From the installer’s perspective, being able to offer other complementary improvements also has its benefits. One participating installer started out offering solid wall insulation and customer demand for additional, complementary improvements became the catalyst for the company to expand its portfolio:

“When we first set up if we went to a job and someone wanted to have a new roof, glazing, insulation for their park home or skirt, we’d find they would feel more confident if they had the same installer to undertake all those measures.

I would provide it and I’d outsource it although not necessarily advertise all of those services. Then over the first couple of years of being in business I built up the portfolio, built up the photos to be able to offer them in the mainstream ….in the last four years or so they are things we’ve been offering right across the board…Also if we don’t provide those services, clients will only go to another company and get that company to do the same things. It was beneficial to us to be able to offer everything.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

152 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS From a local authority perspective, separate applications for improvements makes the approval process slightly harder because it’s more difficult to evaluate the combined impact of such modifications. Participants stressed that homeowners who take a holistic approach and submit an overall application for multiple improvements makes evaluation much more straightforward.

Participants also stressed the benefits of installers and planning staff collaborating on applications.

In situations where both technologies cannot be designed and planned together, installers, building control and planning staff stressed that glazing needs to be upgraded before the external insulation is fitted. This is because external wall insulation is a sealed system which can be compromised if windows are removed after it has been fitted to a property.

Potential impacts of grant funding for single measures: One focus group highlighted an issue that was reflected in the experience of a pre retrofit household – that restricting funding to single measures can have unintended, negative consequences.

As outlined, if a property needs a glazing upgrade and external wall insulation, it is generally advised that the windows are replaced before the insulation is fitted. The focus group cited an example where a household that was eligible for solid wall insulation could not have it because their windows were in such a poor condition. The household could not afford to replace them nor was funding available to cover the cost of the glazing. Consequently it was not deemed worth going ahead with the solid wall insulation. The group also pointed out how a client may qualify for funding towards glazing but not external wall insulation only to later qualify for the insulation which is then put on later – with the types of problems outlined earlier.

One pre retrofit household encountered a similar situation. They qualified for grant funding towards the cost of external wall insulation under the Carbon Emissions Reduction target scheme (CERT), but their windows were in a poor condition so needed to be replaced.

The household had limited resources so was unable to fund both improvements themselves and no funding was available to cover the glazing. The homeowners did get the grant funding for the insulation, but the funding became available at short notice and had to be spent quickly which meant the owners were unable to use the glazier they had originally planned to employ and used someone that was more expensive.

The experiences and opinions of the group and the example of the household, suggest that grant funding could be more effective if it were more flexible in terms of what it’s used for and not so heavily time restricted.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 153

1C retr onside ofit ring

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

4. RESULTS

2 Im

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

Stage 4: Undertaking improvements

Of the 46 participating households, 25 made home improvements during the course of the research. These improvements ranged from replacing halogen lights with LEDs, through to renovation and structural changes incorporating insulation, new heating systems and renewable technologies. Six households made multiple improvements to their homes, with the remainder undertaking one or two energy improvements.

Structural changes Heating controls Renewables Lighting/electrical Repairs/maintenance/cosmetic

Number of households

Heating Glazing Insulation 0

5

10

15

20

Diagram 56: Frequency of improvements undertaken by the participating UK households As diagram 56 shows, 22 of the 25 households incorporated energy saving into their home improvements. The remaining three households made improvements primarily concerned with maintenance, repair and aesthetics. Insulation was the most common improvement with fifteen households adding insulation or draught-proofing to a part of their home. Many of these households fitted internal wall/sloping ceiling insulation, loft insulation and cavity wall insulation. Two households had external wall insulation and a further two households had floor insulation fitted.

Glazing was the second most popular improvement with ten households opting to upgrade some or all of their windows and doors. Heating was the third most popular improvement with seven households replacing their existing systems. Of these households, four replaced their primary heating system (boiler) and three had secondary sources of heating installed (woodburners). Of the households that replaced their primary heating systems, three replaced their old gas boilers (with one adding underfloor heating) and the others replaced their old, expensive LPG systems with air source heat pumps.

Households finding installers: Installers and tradespeople installed most of the improvements in the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homes with a minority undertaking the measures themselves and/or working closely with the installers. A minority of households also sourced materials themselves to save money; these households tended to work with installers or make the improvements themselves.

154 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS With the exception of the six households that Severn Wye referred for free or subsidised loft and cavity wall insulation under the CERT scheme, the majority of the other households that commissioned installers found them through word of mouth recommendation.

Most households expressed a preference for employing local companies and this may help to explain why they opted for personal recommendations first. They were referred either by another tradesperson or company, friends or family. A minority of homeowners found installers by using the Link to Energy Network and searching on the internet. One household commissioned a heating engineer after meeting him at an open homes event and another visited the company’s showroom. Households that looked further afield for companies tended to do so because they could not find any firms locally offering the technology/ies.

Most of the households that considered or undertook improvements obtained at least two quotes. Focus groups comprising households all reported difficulties in finding installers and obtaining quotes; a third of the households that made improvements during the research phase reported difficulties like these. They included; tradespeople not turning up for initial consultations (and not providing reasons why), or cancelling at the last minute; having to chase up quotes, which sometimes were not provided at all. One household praised an insulation company she approached, who although could not undertake the work, were very clear about what they could and could not do. Other households expressed their wish that if an installer or tradesperson could not undertake the work, that they would tell them straight away rather than saying yes and then not communicating with them. Households expressed frustration at some companies being slow to respond to their queries or stopping communicating with them altogether, again with no explanation given. One household struggled to find any local companies who could deal with park homes and had to search further afield.

One household contacted an installer about the possibility of having solar panels on her roof.

The company did not visit the property but located it on Google maps. The company said that – based on the information in Google maps – shading from a neighbouring property meant such a system was not worth investing in. The household considered this response somewhat impersonal and ‘arms-length’ – her front roof is south facing, so felt her enquiry was worthwhile and that she was not wasting the installer’s time. The household did not enquire about this with any other companies.

The experiences of this homeowner were not a surprise to one solar installer who expressed dismay at some of the sales practices employed by a minority of businesses in that sector, particularly when the Feed in Tariff was at its highest:

“Some customers have been told by other companies that they wouldn’t come out to see the house unless the household paid a deposit first. The company wouldn’t talk to them or look at the property. The cheek of it!”

(SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #20)

From the installer’s perspective, providing information and quotes can be costly in terms of time and resources if this activity does not result in new business. One installer said he had experienced a few incidences where he was invited to quote but on reaching the property it was very clear that the household was not going to give his company the business either because they wanted another quote to compare against the one they already had or had unrealistic

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 155

4. RESULTS expectations about the costs of the work, or what it involved. Or they had just invited the company to be – as the installer put it – ‘the other quote’. This installer stressed how timeconsuming this can be, especially for a small company. However, as he explained, he tries to avoid visits like these:

“I’ll try to eliminate that in the phone call by asking what the purpose of the visit is…and see if they are looking for a second quote. I’ll give them a rough idea of what the costs would be before I get in the car, or you have half a day’s journey to their home knowing that they didn’t want me to do the work in the first place.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

Installers finding households: Installers reported a number of ways they use to generate business. All of them reported that most of their business came from repeat custom from previous customers, word of mouth recommendations or referrals through local organisations such as Severn Wye. They also generated new business through their online presence – via the company website and using search engine optimisation. Some businesses generated leads by attending shows and taking out stands at open homes events. A minority advertised in local directories and the local press and through direct mail-outs to households. When starting up the business, one installer reported spending significant funds on this kind of advertising:

“In the first four years of the business I was spending between ten and forty thousand a year on advertising which could be in magazines, signs, paying to put them up in places.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

Several heating engineers had agreements with boiler manufacturers and warranty work generated repeat business for them, as did their listing as an approved installer. A minority of installers cited the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) website as a source of new business. Specifically, a small number of clients had found them through the MCS website and asked them to address issues with their renewable systems because the company that had originally installed it had since gone out of business.

156 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS BUILDING REGULATIONS Unlike planning permission which is about the principle of whether development should go ahead or not, Building Regulations are designed to ensure new buildings meet health, safety, welfare, convenience and sustainability standards. They are concerned with the specifics of how a building should be constructed. Numerous home improvements including boiler and heating system replacement, major electrical work and re-roofing need to be notified to and approved as being compliant with building regulations by a building control body. This can be done by the building control department at the local authority or by a private sector approved inspector. However if the work is carried out by installers registered with a Competent Person Scheme, they can self-certify that their own work is compliant.

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government – http://www.competentperson.co.uk/

An installer registered with a Competent Person Scheme is qualified to carry out specific types of work in accordance with Building Regulations. They should both notify the local authority of the work and issue the customer a certificate of compliance with Building Regulations either directly or via their accreditation body scheme through which they are accredited. However, although there are accreditations for many types of home energy improvements, not all require building control approval.

Accreditations Examples of accreditations include: • NICEIC – this scheme aims to prevent unsafe electrical installations by assessing the technical competence of electricians. It maintains a register of qualified, competent electricians and periodically looks at a representative sample of the contractor’s work, their premises, documentation, equipment, and the competence of their key supervisory staff. Contractors registered with NICEIC are regularly re-assessed to ensure high standards.

• Gas Safe aims to improve and maintain gas safety to the highest standards and protect the public from unsafe gas work by regularly inspecting Gas Safe Registered engineers, investigating incidents of unsafe gas installations. Gas Safe also works to educate and raise awareness of gas safety. It also maintains the Gas Safe register and comprises a list of gas engineers who are registered to work safely and legally on boilers, cookers, fires and all other gas appliances. All gas engineers are legally obliged to be on the register.

• Solid Wall Guarantee Agency (SWIGA) provides technical guidance and an independent guarantee for internal and external solid wall insulation systems fitted by approved installers in the UK, covering all building types and tenures. Membership demonstrates commitment to competence and workmanship standards (which can include integration with the Competent Persons scheme).

• Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) – this scheme certifies technologies and installers, and enables consumers to receive the government’s financial incentives for installing renewable heat and electricity generating technologies. If the installer is not MCS certified, then a certified company must commission the installation.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 157

4. RESULTS Most of the installers interviewed had at least one accreditation. Most were receptive to the concept of accreditations, understood why they were needed and their aims. They agreed that accreditations can help to eliminate bad practices and help push out ‘rogue’ companies.

Common feedback among all the companies interviewed was the additional resources required to secure and manage accreditations. One larger company with a track record in tendering for and delivering large scale work for public sector clients reported having an entire department tasked with dealing with accreditations and ensuring compliance. It needed its accreditations in order to secure grant funded work but highlighted the considerable resource this required.

These sentiments were echoed by the owner and director of a micro business specialising in heating, plumbing and renewables:

“You need a full time administrator and obviously that’s a big overhead. Of course lots of small plumbing companies couldn’t carry that overhead. We’re struggling with it a little bit – that’s why I’m growing. And hopefully our turnover will increase and we will able to carry that overhead quite easily.

But a one man band couldn‘t do it really. We could put a PV system in in a day and there’s about two days’ paperwork.”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #4)

One accreditation that attracted the most comments from installers dealing with renewable technologies was the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS). Like other accreditations, most installers understood what the system is trying to achieve, but struggled with the implications as a small company:

“I can understand the whole premise, really it’s consumer protection, you’re protecting their interest and making sure the job’s done properly. But the amount of paperwork you’ve got to do is very, very time consuming.”

(BIOMASS AND RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #3)

158 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS One small company that designs, manufactures and installs heat pumps explained the impact of the MCS accreditation and certification on their business:

“The one big thing – and I’m sure you’ve heard this from elsewhere – is the whole MCS process. It probably adds about 30% to our cost base. It is an administrative nightmare.

The rules are constantly changing. Just take a simple thing; testing the units to prove their COP (co-efficient of performance). Now when we started out in current money terms we were probably spending about £40,000 a year on testing and test reporting. Last year that cost was £370,000 on an equivalent basis. That cost is all driven by the MCS process.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

Another heating and plumbing company (that installs heat pumps but does not design or manufacture them) highlighted that the cost of MCS certificates costs substantially more than equivalents for other accreditations. In the same vein, over half of the installers pointed out that in order to deliver work that is accredited and meets minimum standards normally pushes up the overall cost, some or all of which has to be passed to the client. As discussed earlier, obtaining authorisation from a local planning authority incurs a cost and ensuring compliance with Building Control can also generate additional charges, which are often passed to the client.

One household found that the roofers he approached that were certified under the Competent Persons scheme presented higher quotes than those who were not, despite other factors being the same or similar.

Other MCS accredited companies pointed out that its emphasis on systems means it cannot prevent poor workmanship, which they thought to be of primary importance. A number of installers – individual businesses and a focus group of installers – pointed out that becoming MCS accredited and maintaining that accreditation require a large if not disproportionate amount of time and resource, which they feared was deterring small businesses from entering or staying in the renewables industry. One installer expressed fears that the rigours and costs of the MCS process could ultimately stifle innovation, drive small companies out of business and concentrate the industry into very few hands – a sentiment echoed by others. One household reported struggling to find a MCS accredited business in his locality to approve and sign off his solar hot water system that he had installed himself. One installer summed up the concerns expressed by a number of participants:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 159

4. RESULTS “If you go to the MCS installer list and look at how many companies drop out through the process, there’s a very high attrition rate. Because they’ll go in with the best of intentions, getting qualified as an installer, and then they’ll find out what the process actually involves and if they don’t drop off at that stage, they’ll drop out once they’ve got the job of maintaining their quality management system. Which is just mind blowing. If we were trying to enter the market now to do what we’re doing, there is absolutely no way we could do it.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

An installer focus group pointed out how the cost and responsibility of warranty bound work generally can deter smaller businesses from undertaking it, meaning more work of this type ends up with larger companies. There are potentially negative consequences of this. First, it stifles growth in the numbers of small, certified businesses, leaving the larger players able to take on this kind of work. It also results in reduced choice for consumers, who as mentioned, prefer to use local businesses when possible.

Installers are aware that cost is the primary factor in households’ decisions to invest in energy efficiency improvements and generally are reluctant to charge clients more than they have to.

A focus group of installers were of the opinion that the proliferation of cheap and subsidised insulation over a number of years – while it has delivered multiple benefits – has also helped cultivate an expectation in households that home energy improvement work should be of a high quality, yet also cheap and subsidised. They pointed out that installers are expected to train and become accredited which costs them time and money but also means the work they do needs to be of a decent standard. Participants agreed that if improvement work is to be undertaken properly, it needs to be valued properly and remunerated appropriately. The issue here is the disconnect between the push towards quality and standardisation – a ‘professionalisation’ of the industry as it were – which although well intentioned and with clear benefits, ultimately costs businesses more, in particular smaller businesses. The focus group of installers agreed that households need to become more aware of this.

A mixture of planning and building control staff plus installers, mentioned how higher standards can slow the retrofit process down. They cited one example; the Solid Wall Insulation Standards Agency (SWIGA) provides a 25 year guarantee and any SWIGA accredited installer or company can offer this 25 year guarantee. The benefits are clear; the accreditation offers peace of mind for the client and recourse if things go wrong. However, this more rigorous, standardised approach also slows the solid wall insulation process down primarily because more parties have to be involved. The planning process can take from eight to twelve weeks. Other parties may have to be notified such as the Highways Agency and telecommunications providers. If external wall insulation potentially infringes a public right of way, the Highways Agency can block an application. Moving telecommunications cables can take up to three to four weeks.

160 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Accreditations generally strive to protect the public from dangerous and sub-standard installations; many tie in with the Competent Persons Scheme and offer clients somewhere to turn should an installation (undertaken by an accredited installer) go wrong. However, not all accreditations provide guarantees against sub-standard work. Nearly all of the installers interviewed said that few of their domestic clients ask about accreditations:

“Some don’t understand it, some take a keen interest in it and read through the literature and ask about what these accreditations are, some people might take a glance and say ‘Oh they’ve got all these accreditations’ but not really know what they are. So they are not necessarily that recognised, no.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

There were a couple of exceptions to this; one participating installer is a member of the Federation of Master Builders (FMB). The installer said they needed FMB membership when they entered the home improvement market and reported that their clients tend to look for it. The other exception was an insulation installer who is a Member of the Guild of Master Craftsmen – this is also written on his van. This installer considered that this membership gave him kudos with clients and cited an example of this when a client shook his hand and said ‘It’s nice to see a tradesman’.

However, this experience was very much the exception rather than the rule. The Severn Wye project team also experienced low levels of awareness among participating households about accreditations and what they mean in practice. As opportunities arose, they explained about initiatives such as the Competent Persons scheme and about the array of accreditations and the technologies they covered.

Participating installers were divided in their opinion of the value of accreditations; some considered them costly and ineffective (because they do not necessarily guarantee quality work), while some considered them valuable in the sense that they help to drive up standards and flush out ‘rogue’ traders. Strongest advocates of accreditations claimed they provide assurance of their work in a crowded market. These installers recognised that potential clients – households in particular – are wary of ‘rogue’ companies and looked to accreditations as a means to reassure clients and gain a competitive advantage:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 161

4. RESULTS “Not having had very much competition in the beginning when we set the company up, now with a lot of other companies setting up and trying to capitalise on the industry, in order to stand out from them and get the recognition we deserve having been around for longer, we need to stay ahead of the game so to speak…so the accreditations are beneficial to our company. We can give the customer confidence that we’ve been around for a long time and deliver what we say we can…they make us stand out as the professional company that we really are.”

(INSULATION INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #6)

Only a minority of households however acknowledged the importance of accreditations which indicates that awareness and understanding of accreditations among homeowners is low and needs to be raised. This includes making homeowners aware of additional costs that may be incurred as a result of conducting their business in a responsible way. Using glazing as an example, one focus group comprising planners, building control staff, households and installers stressed that while accredited glaziers are obliged to dispose of their waste responsibly – which incurs a cost – some ‘rogue’ companies resort to fly tipping of discarded glass and frames in order to keep their costs as low as possible. The group pointed out that this is not always made clear to the customer.

Given the importance of the experience of the actual installation phase, and the relationship between homeowner and installer, what then are the key ingredients for a ‘positive’ retrofit installation experience? The participating households that made energy improvements to their homes during the research phase had mixed experiences; a minority did not report any issues at all, but most reported an issue of some kind, or some aspect of the installation they considered to be an issue. Of course what constitutes an issue for one individual may not constitute an issue for another. Factors including time, money, the household’s energy levels and the installer’s ability to deal with problems promptly can easily transform minor issues into problems. There is no fixed definition of what an ‘issue’ is and in its dealings with all the participants, the research team left it to them to identify what they considered to be issues and problems.

Similarly, there is no fixed agreement or definition among the participants of what constitutes a ‘successful’ home improvement process – but the characteristics of a positive installation process tended to include: where improvements were made largely on time and within budget (unless there were valid reasons otherwise), where there was trust and effective communication and between the household and installer/s and that the improvement delivered what the homeowner anticipated.

Through the work with all the participants, some common themes emerged. As with the other themes and factors, these are also interconnected.

162 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Effective communication. This emerged as one of the most crucial elements of any home improvement process and it overlaps with many of the other factors in this section.

The importance of effective communication was stressed by installers, homeowners and other decision makers including planners and building control. One installer summed up how integral it is to any home improvement project involving external contractors:

“I would say it’s the number one thing – if you don’t have communication right from the start, you’re doomed, you’re going to end up with problems. Before we send out quotes we like to talk to people about what exactly it is that they want, what they need, hopefully what their budget is, we can offer them the best package we can for what they want to spend. Communication right from the start is absolutely imperative.” ·

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

Households that reported having effective communication with and high levels of trust in the installers and tradespeople they employed tended to view their retrofit experiences positively.

Poor or insufficient communication featured in all of the negative retrofit experiences of the group.

Post retrofit households emphasized how important it is for trades and homeowners to be on the ‘same wavelength’; that is, they share the same vision and fully understand what the improvements are trying to achieve. This requires the homeowner to fully understand what they are trying to achieve and to convey this clearly to the installer, and crucially, not simply assuming the tradesperson or installer understands their vision. One homeowner assumed her builders would insulate around a space for a new window:

“I had a mullion taken out of that window as I needed a new lintel, and a bigger opening for the big picture window. I didn’t really keep much of an eye on them as they were doing it. There was a huge void above it! They hadn’t insulated – it wasn’t in their minds to insulate! And I’d been talking to them about insulation. So in the evening, after they had gone, I was up a ladder trying to stuff bits of insulation in there, it’s not as good as if they’d put in the insulation as they’d gone along.”

(HOMEOWNER #3)

One household keen to achieve high levels of air tightness deliberately filled in the gaps between the insulation boards in his home. This surprised the contractors who said they had never encountered this before. The same homeowner recalled returning home to find one of the contractors cutting through the outer layer of filler surrounding his windows. Consequently the work had to be re-done. Common feedback from post retrofit households was that communication and trust ought to be a high priority when commissioning a tradesperson or company. They believed that it is worth employing a contractor they could communicate effectively with, that they could trust, even if that contractor was not the cheapest.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 163

4. RESULTS One owner who incorporated energy improvements into structural work summed it up simply:

“The builder is critical. You’ve got to be able to get on with the builder.”

(HOMEOWNER #3)

Households that had undertaken retrofit work advised others to do the research and ask lots of questions. However, installers also highlighted the fact that the homeowner is not the expert either and that it is down to the installer to ask lots of questions and to explain the process in detail and the impact of the installation process on daily life, not to assume that the homeowner knows this before work starts. One homeowner had external insulation fitted and while very pleased with the results and the company’s professionalism and workmanship, was taken aback by this:

“They were really good, they were nice guys, they were thoughtful and everything, they talked me through the processes, they didn’t mind how many questions I asked about the stages they were going through, so I had no problems on that side of things. I wish the company had been a little bit more forthcoming in what the process actually entails. I don’t regret doing it; I would just have liked to have been forewarned really. I was totally unaware they would need to use electrical items, and it wasn’t just the odd electrical item here and there. And generally just how messy it would be.”

(HOMEOWNER #32)

Dealing with problems: a range of participants thought the installer’s ability to deal with problems promptly and efficiently was integral to a positive and successful retrofit process.

Households fully expected problems to arise during works but expected the companies they were working with to address them quickly and efficiently and keep them updated on progress.

One pre retrofit household had to change building and glazing companies when both failed to address problems that arose in the course of their work. Two other households with ‘hard to treat’ cavities expressed frustration when insulation companies said they could not fill the cavities but failed to suggest any alternatives. One household had to employ a consultant to get revised structural designs through the local planning department – an expense they had not budgeted for but one they did not regret. Another household had their initial structural design rejected and when her architect could not develop an alternative, she found a structural engineer who produced a better design more in line with what the homeowner wanted.

Collaboration and flexibility: while most households supervised rather than undertook energy improvement works, a handful of households carried out some improvements themselves. For them, doing this was driven by a combination of a need to keep the costs down, to keep an eye on the work and a wish to learn about the technology involved.

164 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS One owner decided against commissioning a particular company because it had ignored his requests for detail in the quote it supplied. The owner wanted the detail so he could identify tasks he could feasibly undertake. He found another company that was willing to collaborate and over a number of months they worked together to install and configure his heat pump; a process both parties founds rewarding and fruitful:

“At various stages I asked ‘Can I do this? Can I do that?’

Yes, no, [we] bounced emails backwards and forwards quite happily.”

(HOMEOWNER #46)

“If you start off with the attitude ‘We know this individual’s going to need a lot of help along the way, and we’re prepared to spend the time working with them’, there are no surprises there, it’s not a problem.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

One other owner employed a renewables specialist to inspect and sign off a solar thermal system he had installed himself, an arrangement which worked well for both parties.

“Our qualified engineer looked at it and said, apart from putting a couple of safety valves and if you show us some photographic evidence afterwards, he was spot on. The quality, you couldn’t fault it.”

(BIOMASS AND RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #3)

Another household worked alongside handymen and an electrician in order to keep costs down, an arrangement that the owner found useful:

“It’s good they’re happy for me to work with them, you can see what’s happening as you go along.”

(HOMEOWNER #3)

One other homeowner expressed regret that he had not overseen the building application for his patio doors and collaborated more with the glazier.

A key benefit of collaboration is that it enables improvements to be conducted in a more holistic way; a point that was raised by installers, homeowners, building control and planners. Several installers pointed out how they value being able to collaborate with other trades working on site:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 165

4. RESULTS “We always like to talk to – at least – the architect and the builder, if there’s not an architect we definitely like to speak to the builder directly and involve the client, as much as they want us to involve them. To get it right – it’s a process, everyone needs to work together. It’s quite normal for us to have at least or two meetings with both the builder and the architect, with the client involved if they want to be.”

(GLAZING COMPANY – INTERVIEW #12)

The question of project managing retrofit came up in discussions with participants. None of the households that made multiple improvements to their homes saw the need to appoint a project manager; one post retrofit household considered it but then decided it was a task they could undertake themselves.

For one of the households undergoing retrofit, one of the trades (with whom the owners had a long standing relationship and who had been longest on site) informally assumed a project manager role. At one point he was joined by a builder and an electrician on site and all three worked alongside one another. The owners left written instructions for the contractors who worked together effectively and provided updates at the end of each day for the owners.

A handful of households reported experiencing resistance from their builders, who questioned why they wanted to insulate above minimum standards, or aim for high levels of air tightness.

One installation company specialising in high end glazing and ‘Passive House’ installations also reported experiencing similar kinds of resistance. The company acknowledged that when this occurs, it can be dealt with through open and honest communication:

“There are builders out there who totally understand what the customer needs. There are also builders out there who don’t. Sometimes it’s a struggle. We get the ‘why do you need this, why do you need that, we’ve never done it like that before, why should we do it like that?’ That’s making our life more difficult – some builders get it, some builders don’t.

We’ve had a lot of experience in this – we all come from a construction background, we find we can talk to a builder on their level. We have knowledge of construction generally and sometimes builders do try and pull the wool over customer’s eyes, they’ll tell them they can’t have something or something’s not good simply because it makes their life easier. That is something we need to look out for.”

(GLAZING INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #12)

166 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS A focus group comprising households was of the – perhaps slightly cynical – view that a tradesperson or installer who has to undertake interconnected improvements is likely to execute their work more diligently than one who does not because they will have to deal with the consequences if something goes wrong. For renovations where there are multiple improvements and a structural element, one household suggested that builders are well placed to be project managers as they have a holistic view of a home and can bring in other trades as and where necessary.

Several installers highlighted the importance of the supply chain in the success of their businesses; in particular of being able to design, supply and fit the products themselves.

They valued their relationships with suppliers with whom they had established long term relationships. One biomass installer was an importer of Swedish biomass equipment, so had a long standing relationship with the Swedish manufacturer. One glazing company which started out just installing glazing, decided to expand its operations by designing and manufacturing its own units. It took this step in response to problems with meeting existing orders. Despite the size of this step and the investment required, the company has no regrets and acknowledges the advantages of being able to bring everything ‘in house’ as it were:

“If the windows turn up and they don’t fit, there’s no argument as to whether it’s the installer’s fault or the supplier’s fault because it’s a one stop shop. We were having a lot of problems with the supply of the short orders, which is what the majority of the domestic market is. Which is why we started manufacturing our own. We’ve got a lot more control over that now, it means we can go to site, we can fit the windows, we can measure up for all the bits and bobs you need afterwards, and we can make them ourselves, complete control, it just a more efficient service. It’s better for us and it’s better for the customer.”

(GLAZING INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #12)

These considerations were echoed by a heating and plumbing company that designs and manufactures heat pumps:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 167

4. RESULTS “The other big issue that you have as a recurring theme is where you have different companies involved in manufacturing the units, designing the systems and then installing the systems. Because what happens to the end user is that if there’s a problem with that system, then who do they blame? Is it not working properly? Is it the system designer that got it wrong? Or is it the installer that has badly installed it? Time and time and time again we go out to look at systems where people have thrown up their hands and said ‘I can’t get this put right. Please help’. It’s normally that the system has been designed to lower the price.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

Customer service: Most households that made improvements commented on the importance of professionalism, reliability and approachability; in other words, good customer service.

One homeowner praised efforts made by an company to complete external insulation work as quickly as possible:

“It was three of them in the end doing all the rendering because they wanted to get it all done and then they had to go up to Hull so I thought to myself: ‘God, are they going to rush it through at the last minute?’ But in fairness to them, they didn’t. They just had an extra bloke on so they could do it quicker. I am pleased with the result.”

(HOMEOWNER #32)

One installer pointed out the importance of stressing their reliability and professionalism, not just the quality of the workmanship:

“People want to know that if someone says they will be there on Tuesday at 9 they will be there on Tuesday at 9. It’s not Wednesday at 10 or even Tuesday at 12.”

(HEATING/PLUMBING/RENEWABLES INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #4)

Funding the improvements: Most of the participating households that conducted works during the project, funded them through savings and/or investments. One household extended their mortgage to pay for the improvements. Eligibility for CERT and ECO funding assessed as a matter of course in all cases but was not generally applicable for the homes and measures in question. Although a small number of households initially expressed some interest in using the Green Deal to fund their energy improvements, none of them followed through to take out a Green Deal Plan. General feedback from households on the Green Deal included: • Not wanting to take out any more loans or incur additional debt generally

168 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS • A belief that the interest rate was too high – especially when interest rates nationally were so low • A perception that the Green Deal was too complicated • A perception that a charge against their property would make it difficult to sell.

One household had received cold calls about the Green Deal which had put him off. One homeowner expressed frustration that Green Deal funding could not be used for insulation materials which he wanted to fit himself. Generally, the households that showed some interest in in the Green Deal were unwilling to commit because the scheme was in its infancy. For the participating households, they wanted to wait and see how it developed.

The launch of the Renewable Heat Incentive triggered interest in Green Deal assessments among households with renewable heat systems. However, the primary reason they wished to have assessments carried out was because this is required in order to claim the Renewable Heat Incentive. None of the households expressed any interest in taking out a Green Deal loan.

The majority of the participating installers expressed scepticism about the Green Deal.

They shared many of the household’s doubts about the scheme. They also voiced other reasons why they did not want to commit to it yet. One was that they saw the Government’s approach to incentivising domestic retrofit as confusing and alienating for the public. The Feed in Tariff for new installations had originally been planned to reduce gradually, the aim being that the price of the installations would also be reducing as the market matured. However, the take up was higher than anticipated and at the end of 2012 the Government reduced the rate suddenly.

After a great deal of turmoil in the industry a new plan was established for the reducing tariff.

While a number of installers acknowledged the need to bring down the rate of the Feed in Tariff and considered it to be unsustainably high, they thought the transition was handled poorly.

The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) was delayed and details were slow to emerge, despite its launch originally being planned for autumn 2012, which aroused concerns. A focus group of installers voiced concerns raised by many other interviewed:

“The Green Deal’s the next big thing they won’t trust.

“It was the FiT initially, but look at the RHI, and all the dates and times that they kept changing that, and the criteria.

You’re right, it’s the next big thing that people are going to get disillusioned with.”

(INSTALLERS’ FOCUS GROUP)

A solar installer did not want to risk being associated with the Green Deal until its ‘teething problems’ had been ironed out and saw reputational risk in getting associated with it too early:

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 169

4. RESULTS “We can either jump on when we need to when the issues have been ironed out or we can stay away from it and say OK there’s a negative aspect, it’s not working. Forgive me if I sound cynical; if it doesn’t work and the public regard it suspiciously, we don’t want to be tarred with the same brush.”

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #23)

A number of installers admitted finding the Green Deal confusing and were unwilling to commit to it until they understood it themselves:

“It’s awareness with us, we need to understand it. A lot of people I’ve spoken to find it confusing. If we’re finding it confusing, God help Joe Public!”

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #20)

That said – in the months following the launch of the Green Deal (during which most of the installer interviews took place) a minority of installers did apply to be Green Deal accredited.

Their commitment to the Green Deal was not without its doubts though, in particular the economic climate in which it was launched:

“There are an awful lot of sub-contractors that probably wouldn’t touch it because it’ll be too complicated. That’s the problem – over complication. There’s not a lot of appetite out there to spend money anyway, even if you can have the job done – you’ve still got to pay for it. If they had launched it five, six years ago it probably would have taken off, but people are very suspicious of banks and governments because they’ve changed the goalposts so many times with renewables, people are more likely to get a loan out. If they want to sell their house, there’s nothing attached.”

(HEATING/PLUMBING AND HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #24)

Developing the community hub In developing the community delivery model, Severn Wye tried to ensure that homeowners would be supported through the whole retrofit journey, including awareness raising and outreach to develop interest, advice and assessments, and sourcing installers and finance.

This involved offering accredited advice and home energy assessments – which Severn Wye achieved by becoming an accredited Green Deal Advice Organisation. The second piece in the jigsaw was to develop the local installer network, Link to Energy. A third element was to develop a local loans programme to complement was on offer nationally. A fourth element was to support post retrofit user behaviour. And finally, the challenge was to integrate these elements effectively and in a way that ensured that Severn Wye’s costs were covered, so ensuring the sustainability of the model over the longer term.

170 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS This involved ensuring the right systems and procedures were in place for taking a homeowner through from initial contact and advice, home energy assessment, identification of priority measures and installers and finance options, to installation and user advice.

Link to Energy: the launch of the Green Deal offered installers of sustainable energy improvements access to a potential new or expanded market. To be involved within the initiative, and to make the best of the opportunity, installers have to become accredited to a new British Standard PAS2030, and understand where their place in this new market might be.

Link to Energy helped installers considering entering the Green Deal by providing impartial information on the accreditation process and probable costs, by hosting information sessions that address the Green Deal, and where possible offering training that enables installers to demonstrate competence against PAS2030. As part of this assistance Severn Wye produced a guide book ‘Routes to Green Deal’. Severn Wye also sent installers on training days with insulation manufacturers such as Knauf Insulation and Kingspan.

Severn Wye were clear from the outset, however, that the Green Deal could not be the only path for homeowners to make home energy improvements or for installers to provide them, not least because of the limitations of the finance offered, and the cost and complexity of the process which risked excluding many potential micro and SME companies. The focus on payback in the way the finance is structured may also tend to limit the measures selected, rather than encourage a more holistic approach, and this might result in missed opportunities to install measures opportunistically alongside other works. Link to Energy is aimed as much at the general tradesperson able to include energy improvements in their portfolio as it is to the specialist installer.

The online database brings local tradespeople and businesses to households and it is free for companies to register as a member. Members complete an online application form that asks for location and service information. The online profile for the member then provides information to users on the technologies and services they offer as well as any accreditations they hold. Visitors to the site can search for local businesses by postcode and the technology or improvement they are interested in. The closest installer to them will always appear at the top of the list. An enquiry form can then be completed by the user and sent to one or multiple businesses to request a survey or further information.

Severn Wye staff monitor enquiries to installers on the database and will chase enquiries if an installer has not responded to a customer query, preventing delays in correspondence. To cover its costs and keep the service viable, Link to Energy asks for a referral fee of 3% from the total cost of every completed job that has originated from a referral from the site. There are no ‘lead fees’ or membership fees. As the diagram below illustrates, the Link to Energy installer database draws on several potential markets; customers going through the Green Deal (who are obliged to use Green Deal accredited installers and can search for them on the Link to Energy database), clients taking out a local loan (who are obliged to use an installer from the Link to Energy network) and able to pay customers who find installers on the Link to Energy database.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 171

4. RESULTS Link to energy

Green Deal

Able to pay

Local loan

All participants (households, installers and other actors) welcomed the Link to Energy network for numerous reasons. Firstly, as the network is impartial and run by a non-commercial body (Severn Wye Energy Agency). Households understood that Severn Wye does not screen the businesses listed on the database (this would drive up costs and make the network unaffordable for small companies) but considered it to a useful way of finding reputable companies in their area and making the search for local companies far easier. Some of the households reported using Link to Energy to find installers in their areas. Some of the installers interviewed for this project had registered on the Link to Energy database at the start of the project and others (who were not on the database but were interviewed for this project) later joined it.

Developing the local loans programme There were several reasons for including the development of a local loan as part of the delivery model. Severn Wye experience of home energy advice and retrofit programmes, and research prior to the launch of the Green Deal6 had indicated the need for a loan that is flexible enough to cover all the measures and ancillary works (unlike Green Deal which is limited by the Golden Rule capping loans to an amount that results in repayments no more than anticipated fuel bill savings – in effect limiting to the highest return measures, or the complication of a loan for only part of the cost of the measure), and to complement an ever changing grant-aid environment and market. It was also hoped that it would be possible to develop an approach that was relatively streamlined, to avoid complexity, confusion and high costs.

Severn Wye enlisted the expertise of Hungarian consultancy GESB to help develop the loan product, with the aim of adapting the approach they had used successfully in Hungary – the Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund – to the UK owner-occupier market.

6

‘Unlocking the Green Deal’ (2011) co-authored by Severn Wye Energy Agency, in cooperation with National Energy Foundation and B&Q, with support from the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. This research paper examined the practical, financial and motivational barriers to sustainable energy retrofit. It also reviewed a real life caseload of existing homes, to assess what it would take in practice to achieve deep cuts in energy consumption and carbon emissions: http://www.severnwye.org.uk/ resources/selected-reports-and-publications.html

172 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS REVOLVING RETROFIT GUARANTEE FUND (RRGF) Developed by Global Environmental Social Business (GESB), the Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund (RRGF) is a financial mechanism that makes loan finance more accessible and less expensive by providing a low cost guarantee. As loans are repaid this replenishes the fund providing capital that can be loaned out to other households.

Proposing to refer clients to either Green Deal or for RRGF loans required Severn Wye to demonstrate compliance with the Consumer Credit Act and to have a Consumer Credit Licence.

Obtaining this required Severn Wye to complete a detailed application process and supply supporting procedural and policy documentation. However, in order to make referrals for the RRGF loans, Severn Wye and Global Environmental Social Business first had to establish the local loans product and then raise the funding both for the guarantee fund and the loans pot.

The original aim was to set up the fund during the first year, so as to be able to run a full pilot for the approach during the three year Countdown to Low Carbon Homes project – however this was not achieved in practice, and a pilot was eventually launched in 2014 and will run on beyond the end of this research project. The development work has nevertheless provided useful learning which is included here.

The work to set up the pilot included the following steps: • Adapting the model: used for the Revolving Retrofit Guarantee Fund in Hungary to the requirements of the UK owner-occupier market.

• Collating and mapping local retrofit markets: Severn Wye collated data on the housing stock and potential for measures for the core delivery area for the project, which GESB reviewed in order to draw up the first portfolio to take to potential financers.

• Developing a draft prospectus: Drawing on local housing data, a draft prospectus was developed for the programme, for a pilot of 300 to 500 homes, and a loans fund of £5.6m.

• Identifying potential commercial partners: The original plan was to recruit commercial providers of retail finance to invest in the loans, and potentially the guarantee fund itself. GESB and Severn Wye compiled a list of potential commercial funders (banks) and Severn Wye and GESB spent several months contacting them to explain the programme.

Although there was some interest, the general response from the banks approached was an unwillingness to commit to a new initiative outside of the Green Deal at that time.

• Establishing the Guarantee Fund: In view of the problems encountered in recruiting commercial partners, it was decided to try and set up the Guarantee fund and then to try again. With the help and advice of one of the supporting funders, Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, a plan B was formulated – to establish the Guarantee Fund with local authority support, and then to set up a mini-pilot using social finance in the first instance.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 173

4. RESULTS Four Local Authorities had supported the project from the outset, and had followed progress. Representations were made to senior personnel, including finance, and time spent explaining the mechanism and objectives of the programme. Three of the four Local Authority partners (Stroud District, South Gloucestershire and Wiltshire) agreed to put their own funds into a Guarantee Fund, having put the concept through their internal decision making processes.

A key benefit of this approach was that the guarantee funds were provided at zero interest, as it was understood that this was a potential way forward to supporting home energy improvements for residents in the transition away from grant aid. These local authorities had in previous years been able to provide significant funds for home repairs and improvements, but by this time it was clear that such funds would not be available in future, in the light of the economic downturn and cuts in public funds in general.

• Investigating options for loans administration: The next step was to investigate options for loans administration. Local authorities are permitted to provide loans and Stroud District Council had in-house capability and experience in this area, having administered the Pay as You Save pilot. The other two local authorities in the consortium had agreements with a ‘Community Development Finance Initiatives’ – CDFIs) to administer loans. Severn Wye contacted the two closest CDFIs and discussed options with them. Both had the capability to administer the loans but their involvement would significantly increase the cost of the loan.

• Establishing the loans pot: having established the Guarantee Fund, commercial lenders were again approached to invest in the loans pot against this guarantee – but again without success. The second part of ‘Plan B’ came into play; Severn Wye invested their own charity reserves of £250,000 into the fund, which was matched by the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, for lending to Stroud District residents only, as Stroud District Council had agreed to administer the loans free of charge. This meant that the only charges applied would be a (relatively low) interest levied by these social lenders, and one-off fees for scheme management (including energy advice), energy assessments (unless already done) and Land Registry fees where applicable. The latter were used for the larger loans as an additional security. The Council added some funds of their own, and the loans pot for the mini-pilot grew to £650,000.

South Gloucestershire Council had an agreement in place with a CDFI – Wessex Home Improvement Loans – and decided to provide a certain amount of capital free of charge, so that loans administration might be paid for as annual interest.

While neither of these pilots were as originally planned, it was agreed that they would serve as a useful test of two alternative ways to provide local loans. It was also agreed that this could be the basis for a longer term programme, which once established might attract further social or local finance, or potentially form the basis for a community offer, if commercial finance continued to be unpromising.

• Establishing the legal agreements: Wessex Home Improvement Loans had the administrative resources and procedures in place to administer the scheme and an existing agreement with South Gloucestershire Council for delivery of other loans. Therefore the primary development and legal work was with Stroud District Council. Although Stroud District Council and Severn Wye had collaborated on the Target 2050 and Pay As You Save

174 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS (PAYS) programmes, significant additional development work was needed to develop an efficient process for administering this local loan scheme.

Legal agreements were needed between Severn Wye and the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust on the one hand and Stroud District Council on the other. The former was straightforward, but the latter proved to be a lengthy and complex process. This may have been exacerbated by the fact that the legal officer in charge at the Council during this phase was a locum and was not engaged in the long term aims of the project. This situation meant that the traditionally risk averse position of local authority legal teams was not modified by other influences, and the legal officer did not have interest or engagement that a more long standing member of staff might have had in seeing the programme through. â&#x20AC;˘ Agreeing loan product details and processes: It was decided to offer loans for up to 5 years, to complement the Green Deal approach and in view of the social funders now offering the capital. Staff mapped out the processes required by Global Environmental Sustainable Business (GESB), Stroud District Council and Severn Wye to refer and administer the loans.

The resulting customer journey was lengthy, complex and too detailed to be workable for all the partners. Severn Wye staff stepped away from the detail and devised a shorthand version that all partners could understand. By this stage, Severn Wye staff had a high level of understanding about the constituent parts of the process. Their main aim at this point was ensuring it could be understood by all the partners.

An important detail that arose at this stage was the local authority confirmation of their role in delivery, and assessment of their own powers to do this. Stroud District Council saw this as requiring them to support only those households that could not be helped through the market, in particular lower income or vulnerable households. In practice this meant that they applied restrictions on household eligibility in the form of an income and savings cap. â&#x20AC;˘ Checking compliance with regulations: This was a particularly onerous and timeconsuming task, in particular with regard to developing the correct APR information on promotional materials. The calculation of APR was outside the expertise of the financial department in the local authority, and experts consulted provided conflicting opinions on what should be included. Ultimately, the Council felt obliged to employ an expert consultant to confirm the right approach. â&#x20AC;˘ Adapting the system to ECO: It was important to enable customers to benefit as far as possible from grants under ECO and to be able to blend this effectively with loans, or with their own funds.

Severn Wye advisors had to adapt considerably to accommodate the shift from CERT to ECO. CERT comprised high volume, relatively straightforward improvements (mostly loft and cavity insulation) to a wide demographic. The scope of ECO was smaller and more specific. In practice this meant dealing with fewer, mostly vulnerable clients with relatively intricate issues including fuel switching, new boilers and solid wall insulation. Consequently, the advice team were finding they had much more diagnostic work to do with clients both in terms of what they qualified for and what their needs were. More information had to be obtained from each client, which on occasion could be a barrier; for example, clients needed to know the make, model and age of their boiler.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 175

4. RESULTS

By September 2013 the refined customer referral process had incorporated the requirements of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). A small number of clients had gone through the process and not encountered any problems.

• Promotion and marketing: Promotional materials were produced for the loans, and a launch event was held in Stroud based on a community bus, with energy advisors and a local Councillor in attendance.

• Delivery: By June 2014, both local pilots in Stroud District and South Gloucestershire were underway. By mid-October 2014, the loans had been discussed with over 180 interested clients, and two loans had been taken out.

Discussions with clients revealed interest in a variety of measures including: damp proofing, underfloor insulation, secondary glazing, solid wall insulation, biomass, ASHP, sloping ceiling insulation, flat roof insulation, changing current heating to gas central heating and boiler replacement.

One key learning point was that the development process was ongoing. While a significant amount of work had to be done at the outset, it was necessary to build in enough tolerance to accommodate changes in the finance available for retrofit, especially where these were outside the control of the local delivery programme, such as Green Deal and ECO. The requirements of obtaining a Consumer Credit Licence – which Severn Wye needed just to make referrals for loans – proved to be very time consuming. Developing a functional customer referral process with the customer and advisor in mind was complex, especially: • Ensuring financial regulation compliance at all stages • Understanding the detail and mapping it out in a way that was easy enough for external partners to understand.

• Developing a process detailed enough so all partners understood what was required but flexible enough to accommodate changes in guidance on the Green Deal and ECO.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

A combination of action, reflection and refinement enabled staff to map out and bring together four, complex customer journeys with three separate financial mechanisms: ECO, Green Deal, local loans and ‘able to pay’ (where people paid for the work with their own savings).

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

Stage 5: Maximising the savings

Reducing energy use through behaviour change: The ‘post installation’ phase is integral to the retrofit journey. Making material improvements to the home is one important step but ensuring they deliver the anticipated energy savings depends in large part on the activities and behaviour of the inhabitants, as Janda (2009) summed up quite simply:

176 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS

“

”

People use energy, not buildings

7

As explored in the introduction, a building’s energy performance depends primarily on the behaviour of its inhabitants as Gram-Hanssen points out (2010):

“

Housing occupants can use three or more times as much energy for heating as their neighbour, while living in exactly the same type of home 8

”

A key element of this project was exploring energy savings through monitoring, encouraging changes in energy related behaviour around the home and identifying practical issues around these areas. The research aimed to explore the household’s experiences after retrofit, to encourage them to monitor their own energy consumption and note any factors that impacted upon it.

To do this the research team set up each post retrofit household with their own online energy account with which they could monitor and get visual feedback on their energy consumption, spend and associated carbon emissions. The tool had a facility whereby comments could be entered alongside meter readings and households were strongly encouraged to use this; in effect this was their ‘energy use diary’. This approach to the diary was adopted because email diary questions were first circulated to the post retrofit group in the autumn of 2012 but the response rate was low. The research team thought households might be more inclined to include comments with meter readings and this method was easier and quicker than including them in a separate email. At intervals the team provided feedback on each household’s energy consumption and put this into context. Lastly, the team also distributed ideas and tips on reducing energy consumption around the home.

When asked what they wanted from this research project, there were few differences in terms what the pre and post retrofit households wanted to achieve. Both groups had ideas about implementing energy related improvements and wanted more information about the options available to them along with costs and estimated returns. Both groups wanted to reduce their energy use, prevent wasted energy and improve comfort. The post retrofit households saw their homes as a ‘work in progress’ and most had identified additional improvements they wished to make.

Households with photovoltaic (PV) systems wanted to maximise their renewable energy use and reduce the amount of energy bought from the grid while a couple of households stated they wished to reduce their home’s carbon footprint. Several wanted to gain a more holistic understanding of their home’s energy consumption. Some of the post retrofit households said they felt able to tackle lifestyle issues now that the main energy improvements had been made to their homes.

7

Janda K B (2009) ‘Buildings don’t use energy, people do’, Proceedings of the of the 26th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA), pp 9-14

8

Gram-Hanssen K (2010) ‘Residential heat comfort practices; understanding users’. Building Research & Information 38(2), p 175186.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 177

4. RESULTS Post installation issues: Some of the post retrofit households reported experiencing issues after improving the energy efficiency of their homes. A common thread running through these issues was a lack of follow on support from the installer – in particular about how the households should modify the way they use their homes in response to the new technology.

One household whose home was externally insulated in 2010 experienced damp issues afterwards. Suspecting this was down to inadequate ventilation, they made a conscious effort to leave doors and windows open to address this problem. However, had there been a complete handover after the installation with support, this issue may have been avoided.

Other households reported being given manuals with their systems but no practical advice on whether they needed to change their energy use patterns around the home and if so, how.

The same households also had questions about how their new systems would interact with the rest of their home, for example how a solar thermal system could best interact with a gas boiler.

One focus group participant summarised experiences reported by other post retrofit households:

“I think I was expecting an experience of having work done in that the installers would help us use it, with some guidance.

They put it in and walked away. So OK we’ve now got to work out how to make best use of this. I asked some questions but there was nothing there in terms of advice.”

(FOCUS GROUP #3)

An installer explained why the installation company or tradesperson needs to explain the principles behind any new technology so households understand what they need to do to maximise the benefits:

“…if for instance you had PV put on your own roof, you’ve got to change your habits to be able to use that power most efficiently and effectively. And you’re limited because the options aren’t there. A normal home is set up to be heated at certain times of the day – the whole principle is different – short, sharp bursts of heating or whatever…all of the renewable, economical ways of living are slow and steady.

Heat levels are lower, so you have to have it on for longer.

The sun doesn’t provide everything in an hour, if you compare that to your gas boiler – which, if you put it on at four by five you want everything to be hot. That’s so different. Solar thermal is all day, voltage optimisation is all the time, there’s the pattern.”

(SOLAR INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #23)

Another installer explained how once this basic understanding has been established, the installer’s next job is to ensure the household understands the details of the system and has a point of contact in case of future queries:

178 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “By the time you get to the handover of the system the customer normally understands the principles that the system is going to operate under. So for example they will understand that generally, it’s about a continuous heating process rather than an intermittent one. So the customer – by the handover point – has bought into the technology and then it’s a question of making sure the controls are well understood. Then making sure the customer has got a point of contact, whether it be six hours, six days or six months in the future, if they find they want to do something and they don’t know how to do it.”

(HEAT PUMP INSTALLER – INTERVIEW #2)

One post retrofit household found that their solar hot water and photovoltaic systems were fitted incorrectly. The multiple issues with both systems only emerged when the household tried to switch off their PV system and found they were unable to. Attempts to solve this issue unveiled a host of other issues which the household followed up with the installer.

Ultimately, the matter had to be settled in the small claims court.

Common energy use questions: when it came to using energy around the home, common questions from the post retrofit group concerned understanding how the energy consumption of different fuels compared to one another, or appliances. Such questions included: • Heating water – which is cheaper, using oil or electricity?

• Cooking – which is cheaper, a toaster or the grill?

• How much more efficient are LEDs compared to CFLs? • Which is more efficient overall; heating the home in short bursts or having the heating on low all the time?

• Which behaviours make the most difference to overall consumption?

• Identifying bad habits and understanding how to change them.

• Using the boiler most efficiently.

• Which appliances use most energy?

• Measuring oil consumption.

• Concerns about embedded energy versus buying a new appliance.

With every home being different and appliances being different, there are no single answers to these questions. A measure that works well for one household may not work well for another household. The Severn Wye energy advisors encouraged the households to try out measures themselves, to monitor their energy consumption for possible impacts and to note these.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 179

4. RESULTS Getting households to do this proved very difficult. Some of the reasons why are explored in this section.

Learning from others: several focus groups were held and households from the pre and post retrofit households were invited. Besides sharing experiences on retrofit these discussions also included energy saving behaviours around the home. Participants valued these opportunities to meet and share information with fellow households. Some asked if replacing an old appliance with an efficient one saves more energy overall? One household shared with the group how replacing their old chest freezer with a newer one cut their electricity consumption by around forty percent:

“The biggest change we’ve ever had in our electricity consumption was when I wasn’t keeping much track of it and we had a period of about six to twelve months where there were no readings. I kept our bills so I had to have a look at them to try to bridge this gap. And I saw that before the gap, we were using – whatever the value was – and afterwards, it had come down by about 40 percent. And this was on price, so I wasn’t expecting it to come down, I was expecting it to go up. So we tried to work back to see what we’d actually done in that time to reduce our electricity consumption; no major building works, no big insulation things, no major works at all. The only thing we could think of was that we’d replaced our chest freezer which was in the garage. It was an old one; we replaced it with an A rated one and didn’t think it was going to save that much. But I think the thermostat had gone as well, it was going flat out for 24 hours a day, at probably however many watts the motor takes – a fair few. So that saved about 40 percent of our electricity.”

(HOMEOWNER, FOCUS GROUP #3)

Energy monitoring: to encourage and enable the post retrofit households to get into the habit of monitoring their own energy consumption, the project team set up online energy monitoring accounts for each one. Details about each home including the floor area, type of building, the heating system in place, glazing and insulation levels were all included in the online accounts.

Accounts were also configured to the nearest weather station so heating performance could be compared against local weather conditions. Where possible, the research team uploaded a year’s historical data to each account.

The research team provided each household with written instructions on entering meter readings and interpreting the data, which the software provided in the form of graphs. The team had the log on details of all the post retrofit households so were able to check their accounts regularly, nudge them if they stopped entering meter readings and tackle problems as the households reported them.

180 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS In the autumn of 2012, accounts were set up for 23 households. Two households already had their own online accounts and shared their log on details with the research team.

Monitoring oil consumption: 4 of the 23 post retrofit households were on oil heating.

The online software dealt with meter readings so was configured primarily to deal with electricity and gas. As oil is not metered in this way, the consumption of the four households could not be captured with the same degree of accuracy as their electricity, which some found frustrating. To address this, the research team found an oil monitoring spreadsheet developed by another energy agency9 and trialled it with three households. The team offered to work with the households on the spreadsheet but in order to do that the households had to measure their oil storage tanks, acquire a dipstick capable of measuring the volume of oil inside the tank and obtain regular meter readings. Doing these things proved unviable for the households, especially over the winter months when getting the readings involved venturing outside.

Evaluating the energy monitoring tool: at the end of the research phase, the households informed the UK project team about which features of the online tool they had regularly used since their account had been created. The most common ways in which the households said they had interacted with the online monitoring tool were: • Entering monthly and weekly meter readings.

• Looking at monthly and yearly energy use patterns and costs.

• When they consciously changed the way they used energy at home, checking the impacts on their energy use patterns and costs.

While it was encouraging that a few households reported doing this, it was somewhat frustrating for the research team that even fewer went a step further and included a written commentary on changes to their energy consumption. However, the aims of this project were not to establish which energy saving measures are the most effective – as one size does not fit all. Rather, the project aimed to trial mechanisms that enable participants to better understand their energy use as one part of the overall support programme to help households reduce energy consumption, and see which methods work, which do not, and why.

In their evaluation of the energy advice and support offered, most of the households said they found the online tool helpful in terms of understanding their energy consumption. When asked why, responses included:

“It‘s easy to see peaks and relate them to the cause – and also to try to ‘beat‘ the previous year‘s results.”

“Able to give an overview and a vehicle for analysing consumption.”

9

Tipperary Energy Agency (TEA)

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 181

4. RESULTS “A constant reminder of how much or little energy we’re using.”

“It has made us more aware of how much we use and on what and got us thinking about how we can cut our usage further – especially the need to think about energy ratings when buying/replacing items.” “...it does the analysis for me.”

“Have learnt new things such as not to leave plugs in on standby.”

Just over half of the post retrofit households said they intended to continue using the online tool once the project had ended.

Issues with energy monitoring: However, not all the post retrofit households found the online tool useful. By the summer of 2014, 16 of the 23 households were continuing to enter meter readings into their accounts. The two households that already had online accounts continued using them. The group reported various issues with regard to energy monitoring. One was the time required to obtain meter readings regularly, made more difficult by meters being in a place that was difficult to access, as one household pointed out:

“With a full time job, taking the readings was one of the things that didn’t get done. The gas meter is in a locked cellar with external access, which didn’t help.”

Households on oil heating struggled to accurately measure their consumption because the tool was primarily geared towards metered energy. This did not deter all the households on oil, but did prompt one to stop using their account:

“Added little value over my own spreadsheet so I gave upon it and reverted to my own spreadsheet. Easier, simpler. The oil usage capture was inappropriate.”

Another household was unhappy at how the tool captured the energy generated by their photovoltaic system. In the autumn of 2013 the tool was upgraded and not all the households found the new version easier to use, as one household highlighted:

182 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS “It doesn’t take into account our solar panel. Also the redesigned website is less friendly – I haven’t found any useful representation in my data. I’m sure it’s there but I can’t find it.”

Another household moved out of the area.

What kinds of behaviour change advice do households find useful?

This project aimed to explore the types of support that households find useful.

Feedback and context: in early 2013 each household’s energy consumption for 2012 was compared to their baseline year (2011). Based solely on the data in each participant’s energy account and using screen shots and figures from the online tool, the analysis included: • A summary of the household’s overall energy use in terms of how much they used and the estimated cost.

• Energy used by that household in 2012.

• Putting the household’s gas use into context by adjusting for weather conditions.

The analysis also included a comparison of the household’s energy usage against Ofgem’s classifications of low, medium and high household use. Ofgem’s figures are based on a three bedroom, semi-detached property. The summary included screen shots including:

Diagram 57: Screen shot from one of the UK household’s online energy monitoring tool as included in the summary

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 183

4. RESULTS

Diagram 58: Screen shot from one of the UK household’s online energy monitoring tool as included in the summary The aim of the summary was to providethe households with: • Feedback on their energy use, so encouraging them to continue using the tool, submit meter readings and think about causes of any peaks and troughs.

• Context on their energy use, by comparing it to national low, medium and high use thresholds.

• Information on what the tool could do. This was aimed primarily at households that had not explored the tool fully.

Energy saving information and ideas: accompanying these summaries were a selection of heat and electricity saving ideas, along with contact details for the research team at Severn Wye should the household have any questions or need help. In the evaluation survey, most repspondents reported that they found the summary quite useful. When they received the summary, some reported they had already familiarised themselves with the tool:

“We had in fact extracted a lot of this ourselves so that we could show to others in our group. But it’s useful to have additional ‘third party’ back up!”

And others valued the personal advice provided over the ‘phone:

“Verbal explanation clearer – appreciated that” A minority of respondents said they did not find the summary very useful for reasons including the historical data not being very granular (because it had been obtained from quarterly bills) and that they were aware of all the data presented, so the summary did not present anything new.

184 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Over the spring and summer of 2013 the research team compiled energy saving information and ideas. These were circulated around the post retrofit group. They covered areas including: • Washing and drying.

• Cooking.

• Gardening and DIY. • ICT. • Making the most of energy produced by photovoltaics.

Around two thirds thought the information and ideas were useful and easy to understand, while a third said they were too basic and that they were already doing some or most of them.

This feedback was not surprising as the the post retrofit group comprised households with widely varying levels of awareness and knowledge.

When asked how the information could be improved, one household suggested that the tips could have been labelled as ‘introductory‘ – that is, aimed at households trying to introduce energy saving behaviours. This suggests a potential need for more challenging, advanced energy saving ideas and information for the ‘pioneers‘ who have already covered the basics.

Interestingly, the fact that ‘pioneer‘ households are asking for more challenging ideas and information also illustrates how – even with relatively high levels of awareness and knowledge – energy saving at home is a work in progress, something that never ends.

Given the fact that the post retrofit group was self selecting and had experience (through retrofit measures) of energy saving, this suggests a level of interest and expertise so it comes as little surprise that some of them had already tried the hints and tips. One household offered a couple of energy saving tips of their own and another pointed out a limitation with one of the tips.

Although the tips were distributed via email to save resources, one household commented that emails run the risk of not being read and that the hints and tips could have been sent via the post.

When asked whether they had implemented any of the energy saving ideas, just over half said they had tried at least one with nine shouseholds reporting they were continuing to implement them. They included: using the tumble dryer less, buying a slow cooker and using it in place of the electric conventional oven for some meals, washing clothes more often at the lower temperature of 30°C, using appliances with energy generated by their photovoltaic system, changing the settings on their heating programmer and replacing an old microwave. All post retrofit households were encouraged to keep energy diaries and noting when they changed their energy use. The online tool has a function that enables users to include a coment with each meter reading. However, despite much encouragement, only a minority of households did this on a regular basis.

Group energy saving challenge: In February 2014 the research team invited the post retrofit group to take part in ‘Find Out February’ – a challenge to adopt at least one energy saving measure for the month or to note any changes to their energy use over that period. February was selected because it is the shortest month and with the sun still low in the sky, the impact of solar technologies had a lesser impact. Results were collected for 17 households and each household’s consumption for the month was compared for the three years 2012-14.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 185

4. RESULTS Heating related measures adopted in February 2014 included: • Reducing the duration of heating periods by adjusting the heating programmer.

• Reducing the room thermostat by 0.5°C to 1.5°C depending on the time of day.

• Using the wood-burner more (and heating less).

• Experimenting by leaving the heating on all day.

• Addressing heating issues such as pressure losses and replacing faulty parts such as valves.

Other occupancy factors affecting households’ energy use included: • Recuperating after an operation – so being at home more.

• Having visitors to stay.

• Appliances out of action or using them more.

• Being away from home.

Comparing gas use in February 2012, 2013 and 2014 25.00 20.00 15.00

Feb 2012 Gas Feb 2013 Gas

10.00

Feb 2014 Gas

5.00 0.00 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Diagram 59: UK post retrofit households gas consumption in kWh/m2 Factors affecting the interpretation of results included the fact that between February 2013 and February 2014 two post retrofit households enhanced the energy performance of their homes through improvements including boiler replacements, which affected their overall heat demand. Households 3 and 13 were on oil heating, household twelve used storage heaters and households 14 and 17 heated their homes with air source heat pumps.

The warmest February of the three years was in 2014 and February 2013 was the coldest.

This helps to explain why gas consumption for households 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 was higher in 2013 than the other two years.

186 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Looking at the households in detail: • Household 7’s gas consumption rose markedly in February 2014 compared to the same month in 2013 and 2012. This household reported that they were convalescing at home after an operation so the heating was on more than usual.

• Household 15 experimented with the heating by leaving it on for longer which helps to explain why gas consumption in February 2014 was slightly more than in February 2013.

• The other households undertook measures to shorten the heating time and/or turned down the thermostat or noted changes in their energy use. These included being away for a few days, having visitors over, using the wood-burner more, being at home more due to illness and implementing a small technical change with their heating system.

• Household 1 reported issues with gas readings in 2012, which levelled out in 2013 and 2014 – hence the increase.

• Household 9 reported under-heating their home in 2012, and heating it to more comfortable levels in 2013 and 2014, hence the increase in gas use.

• Household 4 is the largest home of the group and is occupied during the day. Reasons why its energy consumption per square metre is low relative to the group include its weather compensating boiler and the occupants’ willingness to wrap up warm at home. Despite February 2014 being a milder one than February 2013, this household reported having guests to stay for two weeks in 2014 which may help to explain why this household’s gas consumption rose in 2014 instead of falling.

• Between February 2013 and February 2014 household 10 replaced its boiler, which helps to explain its large drop in gas use.

Electricity related measures adopted by the group included: • Using the slow cooker in place of the electric oven.

• Replacing halogen bulbs with LEDs. • More frequently using big appliances to coincide with peak daily solar power generation.

25.00 20.00 15.00

Electricity Feb 2012 Electricity Feb 2013

10.00

Electricity Feb 2014

5.00 0.00 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Diagram 60: UK post retrofit households electricity consumption in kWh/m2

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 187

4. RESULTS • Household 12 used electric storage and immersion heaters and had the highest electricity use per square metre of the group. In February 2014 this household turned the heat input down slightly in the living room and was away for several days.

• Households 14 and 17 had air source heat pumps. Household 17 reduced its daily heating period in February 2014.

• Households 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have photovoltaic panels. Household 17 commissioned its panels after February 2013, which helps to explain the drop in electricity demand from February 2013 to February 2014.

• Household 15 had the lowest electricity use per square metre in 2014. This is despite its electricity use growing slightly since 2012. This increase from 2012 may have been due to seasonal variation affecting the output of the solar panels and/or additional appliances.

• Household 11 had the second lowest electricity use of the group; this household reported replacing two CFLs with LED lights and one 40W bulb with an 8W CFL. The household also used the slow cooker instead of the oven. This household also ensured the washing machine was used when the photovoltaic system was producing the most power.

Energy monitors: The research team distributed electricity monitors to any household that requested one. Over half of all the post retrofit households requested a monitor; two already had their own.

When asked if the device helped the household to understand their electricity consumption, most considered it did. When asked why, the feedback made for interesting reading. Mostly, the usefulness of the energy monitor stemmed from the way in which it made electricity consumption much more visible:

“I could see how much things consumed when left switched on. This has made me make more effort to switch things off in order to keep the monitor reading low! Interesting to compare one thing with another eg room lights, TV etc.”

“The monitor has been the best way for us to reduce our energy use even further. We have it on the shelf in our main room so we can see it when we pass in and out of the house.

We now know how much energy each device uses and can see if we have anything on that shouldn’t be.”

“Easy to see unexpected peaks in use and address them” “If I heard it bleeping I always checked why.”

188 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

4. RESULTS Several households with photovoltaic systems requested an energy monitor and one of the participating households shared a factsheet that he had written on how to use an energy monitor in conjunction with a solar array. The households found the energy monitor useful:

“Instant output. Also shows PV power availability (net) which helps when deciding to use the dishwasher for example.”

“Could see the effect of leaving on garage (and Christmas) lights and could maximise use of solar power.”

Thermal imaging: Over the winters of 2012-13 and 2013-14 the research team conducted a programme of thermal imaging. As with the energy monitor, any participant that requested it could have thermal images taken of their home. The thermal images proved to be very popular with nearly all the post retrofit households requesting it; a small number of pre retrofit households also asked for thermal images to be taken of their homes. In order to take the thermal images, Severn Wye’s energy advisors visited each property, bringing the camera with them. These visits offered the households the opportunity to meet with a Severn Wye energy advisor, ask questions and discuss their energy use. It also offered the Severn Wye team a chance to check in with households. During the visits the households discussed areas in the property where they suspected there might be heat losses. Households were offered the chance to use the camera themselves and take their own images if they wanted to. The energy advisors took conventional images to correspond with the thermal images and these were sent electronically to the household afterwards.

Most of those whose properties had thermal images taken of them found the images helpful in differing ways. For some, the images highlighted cold spots:

“Could see where cold spots were” For others it highlighted areas of their home in need of attention:

“It showed up several insulation gaps left in the loft, skylight, dormers and doors that we would very likely have not discovered otherwise.”

The images confirmed the benefits of previous improvements and for some, acted as a spur to further improvements:

“Confirmed benefit of double glazing.”

“We could see how effective the internal plasterboard is in some rooms.”

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 189

4. RESULTS “Were reassured that 30 yr old cavity wall insulation was still working well. We appreciated which walls/parts of walls lost heat and saw energy loss round window frames and front door (now double glazed)!”

“Before and after images of patio door – now replaced.

Significant difference. Cold north facing bedroom wall.

Now insulated and much improved. The thermal images were important in motivating change.”

For other households the images helped to explain persistent problems:

“I noticed (was told) that the wall cavity insulation had settled in places which also explains condensation forming on some walls. I’d like to do something about it but can’t afford it or don’t have time at the moment.”

“We externally insulated our home but the detailing wasn’t done well, so it’s very leaky.”

A thread running through participants’ feedback on the online energy monitoring tool, the energy monitor and the thermal imaging were how it increased the visibility of energy use, the consequences of it and the need to address where it was being wasted. It made the case for energy efficiency measures more compelling. Where energy use is a by-product of other activities, the more visible it can be made, the easier it is to understand and control.

190 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Considering retrofit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; reasons and triggers........................ 192 5.2 Considering retrofit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; obstacles............................................ 194 5.3 The role of impartial advice................................................... 196 5.4 Planning works......................................................................... 197 5.5 Undertaking improvements................................................... 199 5.6 Maximising the savings........................................................... 201 5.7 The community scale delivery model................................. 203

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 191

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

5. CONCLUSIONS 5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

5.1 Considering retrofit – reasons and triggers Reasons for retrofit As the findings from all three countries show, there are common reasons for homeowners deciding to invest in home energy improvements. Most homeowners are receptive to the idea of improving their homes and adding value and view energy improvements as part of this.

However, the most common drivers to invest in retrofit (and to modify energy use patterns around the home) are around saving money. UK participants expressed a desire to ‘future proof’ their homes against energy price rises. For many households, improving their home is part of a continual process; in addition to general maintenance, there are always more ways in which their home can be improved.

Improving thermal comfort is a key reason for participants improving the energy performance of homes. Addressing damp or cold areas of the home was cited by both installers and households as a key driver for improving thermal efficiency.

Triggers to retrofit Common triggers for retrofit emerged in all three countries. One was rising fuel costs, in particular heating oil. Households and installers pointed out how rising oil and LPG prices can act as a trigger to homeowners to explore alternative heating fuels and systems. This presents a valuable entry point for installers to introduce alternative heating technologies such as solar, biomass and heat pumps, as well as higher efficiency boilers, improvements in heating controls, and the full range of options for thermal insulation. Electricity price rises are similarly significant, with the cost of running air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration and other household electrical appliances of primary concern in the warmer climates of Greece and Cyprus.

However, the experiences of some households also showed that high prices are not always enough to prompt a definitive shift; it is crucial that detailed advice on running costs is also available at this point so that the homeowner can compare running costs of their present systems, appliances and levels of insulation with alternatives.

Investing in a new technology such as solar thermal, photovoltaics, or switching to an alternative fuel, heating system, or both, all require the homeowner to be informed and confident in the technology. This also applies to insulation. Investing in any kind of new system – whether it produces or saves energy – can involve heating the home in a different way, learning how to operate a new system or using energy at different times. These factors play a major role in whether a household will adopt a new technology, switch fuels or both. Some participating households had concerns not only about the running costs of alternative fuels such as biomass, but issues like manual handling and the practicalities of operating new systems.

Concerns like these and lack of information can cause paralysis in decision making. Households and installers highlighted how concerns about investing in what might turn out to be a ‘lame duck’ technology, or one that becomes rapidly obsolete, can also delay decision making.

192 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS Government incentives can prompt households to invest in sustainable energy measures.

UK households that invested in photovoltaic systems acknowledged that the Feed in Tariff played a pivotal part in their decision to invest. The Renewable Heat Incentive in the UK prompted other households to explore alternative heating options. Arguably the issue with incentives of this type is the fact that investing in renewable systems generally (currently) requires a considerable upfront investment, which may not be possible for lower income households, who may stand to benefit considerably from reduced running costs. Frequent changes to Government incentives and schemes can also create confusion among the public and fuel frustration and scepticism within the industry.

Repairs and general maintenance present valuable opportunities for retrofit. Households used repairs, refurbishment, structural, cosmetic and general maintenance work as opportunities to incorporate energy saving improvements. Examples of this included adding insulation when repairing leaking roofs, insulating internal walls prior to re-decorating, and adding a waterproof membrane at the same time as fitting underfloor or external wall insulation.

Installers, homeowners and other relevant people such as planners and building control staff all highlighted how some works can provide an opportunity to undertake other improvements besides maintaining or improving the home and adding value. Installers, tradespeople and general builders are well placed to introduce energy saving measures and incorporate them into other work.

However, some installers said they do not do this with every client for fear they would be perceived as ‘over selling’. The extent to which they feel they can recommend additional measures appears to depend on the level of trust they have with the household. If the household has employed the tradesperson or installer before, had a positive experience and there is good relationship they are more likely to consider any additional advice offered.

Doing this also requires confidence on the part of the installer; one reported that generally he points out the energy saving aspect of additional insulation work and the cost of this, but also strongly encourages potential customers to do their own research on it before making a decision. That way, they can see that such additional work is expected to deliver savings and why he brought it to their attention in the first place.

Introducing additional energy related options to clients can also depend on the installer’s estimate of how receptive they think the homeowner may be to new technologies. Or it may be a combination of all these factors. For example, one participating UK household commissioned a company to fit a photovoltaic system and during the installation mentioned the difficulties they were having with their LPG central heating system (it was expensive to run and gas deliveries were restricted) and that they were looking at alternatives. The installation company mentioned they also fitted air source heat pumps. The photovoltaic installation was successful and the prospect of an air source heat pump was appealing to the homeowners, who then commissioned the same company to fit one.

A ‘distress purchase’ such as replacing a broken boiler was also cited by installers as a common reason for investing in a new heating system. This offers a good entry point to introduce heating alternatives the homeowner has not considered and possibly insulation.

Even if the homeowner is on mains gas and it is not cost effective to switch fuel type, replacing the boiler can still present a good opportunity to add renewable elements such

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 193

5. CONCLUSIONS as a solar hot water system. Again, installers are well placed to offer a range of options to households. However, as some installers pointed out, a client’s need to replace a boiler quickly (and remain with technologies they are familiar with) can override an opportunity to switch to more sustainable fuel types.

Major life events play a role in when retrofit decisions may be made. The times when homeowners decided to make energy improvements included moving house, someone moving in or out and children going to or returning from, university.

5.2 Considering retrofit – obstacles Financial. The main barriers to retrofit at all levels and as cited by all participants, are financial.

One is the upfront cost of energy improvements. In Greece and Cyprus, this factor is exacerbated by the fact that income levels have shrunk as a result of a period of economic austerity. Bank lending for energy efficiency purposes had contracted in these countries and participants in Greece and Cyprus cited a lack of financial options (grants and loans) as a barrier to retrofit. At the end of 2013 a new loan scheme was launched in Cyprus for energy efficiency measures. Over half of the Cypriot participating households were unaware of this scheme, suggesting that further efforts are required to raise awareness about it.

Demand for subsidies and loans to help with the upfront cost of home energy improvements remains high, particularly in Greece and Cyprus. During the research phase the ‘Saving at Home’ programme in Greece was oversubscribed and suspended, which caused national levels of domestic retrofit to fall considerably. Around a third of Cypriot participants thought that new home energy efficiency subsidies could increase levels of sustainable energy retrofit among homeowners with over four fifths expressing interest in grant funding. However, Cypriot households also agreed that in the absence of such assistance households should take responsibility for improving the energy efficiency of their homes, indicating an awareness of shared responsibility for reducing overall energy costs and emissions.

Although emerging from a recession, the UK has not experienced the degree of financial turmoil faced in Greece and Cyprus. However, in the UK subsidies and financial incentives for renewable and energy efficiency measures have been contracting with a shift towards loans as a means of financing improvements. Despite this, among the participating UK households there was not a huge appetite for loans and most funded their home improvements themselves as and when they could afford to do so. However, a handful of households took advantage of government funding to part-fund their home improvements which included loft, cavity and solid wall insulation. Interest in the Government-led Green Deal scheme was low, with the response from households and installers that the interest rate was too high and the scheme too complicated.

While most participating installers acknowledge that energy related grants and incentives have boosted demand for their services, they pointed out that they have – perhaps unintentionally – also helped to create a ‘payback’ culture around energy efficiency and micro renewables that overshadows their other benefits. They – and other decision makers such as planners – also pointed out that this focus on payback is not applied so rigorously (or at all) to other types of home improvements. They highlighted that grants may also have contributed to an expectation (among the public) that energy related improvements should be subsidised to some extent, thereby devaluing them or at least, obscuring their true cost.

194 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS Homeowners’ perceptions of payback times are important factors in retrofit decisions across all three countries. In Cyprus, over half of the participating homeowners considered that energy efficiency improvements generally had similar payback periods, with only a minority stating that the payback period depends on the home and the technologies installed. These findings suggest a need to raise awareness and understanding among households not only of the financial options available, but also that each home is different, so the technologies, costs and payback periods will also be different. As there is no ‘one size fits all’ energy efficiency solution, so there is no ‘one size fits all’ payback period. Independent energy advisers are well placed to deliver this kind of bespoke information, support and advice to homeowners.

Instability in the market is a barrier to installer investment. In the UK an installer said that although providing a welcome boost for the industry, three yearly national funding programmes such as the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) also have the effect of creating a ‘boom and bust’ cycle for the retrofit industry, whereby a period of funding generates huge demand and stretches the industry to its limits. This is then followed by a significant contraction of demand when funding stops. To some extent this has happened in Greece with the Saving at Home programme whereby demand for retrofit has stalled due to suspension of funding; an unwelcome pause after a recent increase in capacity and activity in the sector.

The same UK installer pointed out how the effect of short term cycles such as these can prevent the industry from adopting a longer term view and building capacity in a strategic, holistic way.

It is trapped in a reactive cycle.

As mentioned, micro businesses such as local installers, builders and associated trades are well placed to offer energy related improvements alongside structural and cosmetic measures.

However, being able to provide a more holistic service may mean putting in additional time to source, cost and learn to install new technologies. Where specific accreditations are required, there is the additional cost of mandatory training and qualifications, with associated quality checks and memberships to pay for. The smaller the business, the higher the cost of this kind of investment relative to turnover, and the more difficult it can be for them to spare the money and the time. Such costs have to be borne by installers at their own risk, which – given the economic climate – may not be feasible. Installers also need to be confident that investing scarce time and resources in acquiring new skills will be a sound investment. Most of the UK participating installers and trades expressed scepticism about investing in accreditations for the Government’s Green Deal programme and this sentiment was strongest among solar installers, who felt that changes to national incentives for micro solar had been handled badly, damaging the industry and fuelling public scepticism about micro renewables and Government initiatives and incentives.

In the UK, participating installers and some households also stressed that while guidance, incentives and policy needs to come from central government to encourage wider take up of domestic retrofit, this needs to be done in a long term, pro-active way that is consistent, clear and provides stability for the industry.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 195

5. CONCLUSIONS Household resistance to disruption. Expectations of the household of the level of upheaval â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the extent to which the retrofit process will reduce comfort levels and have an impact on daily life â&#x20AC;&#x201C; also plays a deciding role in whether they make improvements, what they undertake and when. This also affects householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of what measures are feasible. Retrofit activities chosen by over 2,000 Greek households revealed a preference for upgrading windows and doors over thermal insulation and heating systems, with the variety of reasons indicated including the fact that such improvements are not as invasive and disruptive as insulation and heating works.

Floor insulation was a common recommendation in the energy assessments for UK households, yet few considered it. Conversations about why floor insulation was difficult raised other important issues about retrofit measures that were echoed by the Greek participants. Space is also a major factor when considering retrofit; households need to be able to conduct their daily lives while improvements are underway and many households do not have the option of moving out during works and may not be able or willing to move their belongings out either.

In the same vein, participants also noted that ballpark costs for floor insulation do not take into account the cost of moving people or belongings and highlighted that these elements should be reflected in estimated overall costs.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

5.3 The role of impartial advice

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

1C retr onside ofit ring

For older people, upheaval is a significant factor and can be a significant barrier to any kind of retrofit work. Stakeholders highlighted how other factors need to be considered when considering retrofit for older people, including temporary accommodation (especially if there are no family nearby), and help to move belongings.

Homeowners in Cyprus and the UK reported struggling to find relevant, reliable energy information and advice. Some participants reported doing their own research online, by talking to friends or by visiting trade shows, but admitted they often found the wealth of information overwhelming, sometimes conflicting and often confusing. Installers agreed with this view, highlighting how lots of fragmented information on home energy improvements and technologies do not always result in a holistic overview for the homeowner. These findings suggest not only a need for households to be signposted to impartial and reliable online sources of information but also guided through it and helped to join it up in a way that builds their holistic understanding of the home and how different technologies may fit together. Some UK households suggested that as a starting point, simple flow charts are developed to illustrate the contingencies between technologies and how other systems or technologies may be impacted if one is changed or replaced.

The provenance of energy advice and information is crucial; participating households across all three countries stated a preference for energy advice from an impartial adviser as opposed to an installer, tradesperson or supplier. The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was welcomed by participating Cypriot homeowners and the Saving at Home programme in Greece has elevated the status and role of the EPC from a mere formality to an integral part of the retrofit process. This is a positive development, as it places the role of structured energy advice and the

196 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS energy advisor firmly at the heart of the retrofit process. The EPC had a mixed reception from UK households; those that considered it most useful were those approaching energy saving for the first time. There was some confusion among the UK participating households about the purpose and scope of the EPC, highlighting the fact that as a stand-alone tool it is somewhat limited. The experiences of all three countries highlighted the crucial role the energy adviser has to play in unpacking and explaining the EPC to the homeowner.

When providing advice, issues such as eyesight and hearing may need to be taken into account, and familiarity with some modern technology such as digital controls should not be assumed in all cases.

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Work with participants also highlighted the potentially useful role the installer has to play throughout and after the retrofit process in terms of influencing decisions, explaining options and advising on usage. However, there are issues of trust and expectations around this.

For example, one installer reported offering his clients free assessments of properties before they moved in, so they had an idea about what improvements could be made in terms of heating and renewables. The aim was to enable households to plan their new homeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy needs holistically, so they could be seamlessly incorporated into renovations. The installer reported that although his clients were seemingly receptive to the idea, few clients actually took up this offer. He believed this was because they assumed the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;freeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assessment would oblige them to then use his services and enter into some kind of contract. This was not his intention, but he struggled to convince many households otherwise.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

5.4 Planning works Bureaucracy around permissions and funding. This emerged as an issue in all three countries. In order to make retrofit an easier and more viable process, it needs to be transparent and easily navigable for households and installers when it comes to obtaining permissions and securing funding. Participants across all three countries considered bureaucracy to be a barrier to retrofit, suggesting that processes and systems around home energy improvements could be improved and simplified. In practical terms, this requires making information easily available and accessible about what permissions may be needed, who from, the cost of obtaining these and the timescales involved. It also involves linking such information and processes up wherever possible.

One UK pre retrofit household found they had to employ a specialist to navigate the planning system on their behalf; other households were either helped by their installers to do this or their installers dealt entirely with this aspect. Others said that confusion about the planning process was preventing them from making improvements. Municipalities and Local Authorities have a key role to play in engaging further with the public and industry (installers, contractors and estate agents) to raise awareness of permissions required for home energy improvements, what they entail for the homeowner and installer, the practical steps needed to obtain them and the timescales and costs involved.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 197

5. CONCLUSIONS Not all homeowners experienced issues of this kind; households in Cyprus and the UK reported obtaining permissions for photovoltaic systems and payments such as the Renewable Heat Incentive with minimal fuss and delay. One UK installer accustomed to working with different local planning departments highlighted how a more consistent approach is needed among neighbouring authorities in terms of what kind of development require permissions.

Aesthetics are also important when it comes to home improvements. This factor featured for most households as a vital component in their decision making process. Even if a measure has the potential to save lots of energy, it is less likely to be a viable option if it is unattractive or looks out of place. In Greece, the most popular home improvements were replacement windows and doors. There are a number of reasons for this, but the aesthetic impact is an important one.

In the UK some participating households decided against energy saving measures such as double glazing and photovoltaics because of the potential visual impact on their homes.

Awareness of the visual impact was most prevalent amongst those in older, period properties.

This awareness became manifest in two ways; first the household’s desire to preserve certain visual elements of their home, and second, an assumption that certain energy improvements would not be permitted (because of their potential visual impact). Some households in older (but not necessarily designated) properties either assumed their local planning authority would not permit certain energy related improvements or that their neighbours would be hostile towards them – or both.

Another interesting aspect of improving the energy efficiency of a period property is cost versus visual impact. Properties designated for conservation can be among the most inefficient and compromises are often needed in terms of energy improvements. It appears that planning authorities accept this as a price worth paying in order to preserve the historic and aesthetic character of local buildings. However, this focus on the ‘macro’ level is not always shared by individual households, especially those on tight budgets. After researching various glazing options, one household found that replacement single glazing cost as much as double glazing.

The household highlighted how – like all other homeowners – they wished to achieve the highest energy savings for their financial investment, but felt penalised by the fact that doing this in their property would cost more than were they living in a non-designated property.

Local authorities have a role to work with homeowners in such situations, to help find workable solutions.

The planning process itself has the potential to be a greater enabler for retrofit, but feedback from participants highlighted the numerous obstacles to this. The upfront cost of finding out what improvements are permitted can present barriers and additional expense to homeowners and installers. One participating household reported their local authority charged £80 for a report listing what improvements were and were not possible. While the household found this helpful, this could prove too large an upfront cost for some households. Another household expressed frustration at her local authority simply stating what was not possible, instead of providing details of what options were feasible. If constructive ‘advice’ were more available and encouraged at the planning stage – or households signposted to where they might find such advice – more energy improvement options could be opened up to homeowners at this critical point in the retrofit process.

198 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

Bureaucracy around funding. Complicated financial eligibility criteria, or application processes can deter or delay households and installers from starting or progressing with energy efficiency improvements. Pre retrofit households in the UK and Cyprus reported delays and confusion around funding for insulation work. UK participants from local authorities and nongovernmental organisations stressed how incompatible or competing funding streams can block retrofit or – by focusing on a singular improvement – can prevent a more holistic approach from being taken to improving a home. There is also scope for regulatory and planning aspects to be more closely integrated with funding and finance mechanisms at a local level. By working in partnership with local authorities, the local loan schemes being piloted by Severn Wye in the UK aim to achieve this.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan nin wo g rks

5.5 Undertaking improvements Installers reported various difficulties that can arise during retrofit. Difficulties with finance (which may include delays in funding as mentioned) can delay completion of works as can insufficient information and advice.

Effective communication (between the household and tradespeople/installers) was cited by many participants as crucial to the success of any retrofit. Participating households stressed the need for installers to understand what they were trying to achieve through the work. However this requires households to fully understand what exactly they are trying to achieve and be able to convey this to the tradesperson or installer. This involves doing research but as mentioned, may also require the household to seek impartial advice to gain a more holistic understanding and overview; bringing together disparate ‘bits’ of information and knowledge they may have.

Some households said they wished they had done more research prior to the improvement process, and not assumed the installer or tradesperson would inform and advise them about every aspect of the improvements.

However, effective communication also requires input from the installer or tradesperson.

One installer made the point that as most homeowners are not experts in retrofit it is only natural to expect the installer or tradesperson to provide insights and guidance. Participating UK installers said that their initial discussion with the homeowner is to ‘diagnose’ whether they can provide the right solution for the client in the first place. This process of diagnosis involves an in-depth, two-way discussion between installer and the homeowner about the latter’s expectations of the technology, their lifestyles, budget and also the impact that having the improvement work will have on everyday life. In short, it involves getting to know the household and their home. Participating installers reported that once they have been commissioned they prefer to have contact with other trades that are involved (if there are any) and be able to have contact with them to plan the work if possible.

Keeping the homeowner informed and updated before and during improvement works is indicated as a vital ingredient in achieving a positive overall result for both parties, as is managing their expectations. This applies for example to timing, level of disruption,

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 199

5. CONCLUSIONS mess and disposal of rubbish, and use of electricity. Homeowners are prepared for some level of discomfort and upheaval during improvement works, but may not be aware of the full extent of it, and being forewarned about the exact nature of any temporary upheaval or discomfort minimises surprises and enables homeowners to anticipate and plan around them.

Where a homeownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s request or suggestion is not possible, misunderstandings may be avoided if the installer or tradesperson is able to explain why and offer viable alternatives.

While homeowners in general reported that they did expect problems to come up during any home improvement work, they also expected installers and tradespeople to deal with issues promptly and professionally.

In Greece, most installers reported that their products were not manufactured locally. In the UK, supply chain issues prompted several UK installers to start importing, or designing and manufacturing their own products. Having greater control over their products in this way enhanced their ability to plan workloads and troubleshoot more easily.

As part of efforts to provide some kind of assurance and quality on domestic retrofit work in the UK, installers are encouraged to become accredited in the technologies they offer. Discussions with participating UK installers revealed accreditations to be a salient and emotive topic.

Most participating installers stated that while they understood the rationale underpinning accreditations, in practice they found them to be highly resource intensive and did not provide guarantees that work would always be conducted to high standards in all cases; aspects they considered frustrating. Some reported having to take on additional staff to deal with the extra administration created by accreditations and having to absorb the costs incurred. In such cases the installers said they had to grow the business in order to make such additional overhead financially viable. Most of the participating UK installers also recognised that accreditations were necessary in order to establish their credentials, their credibility and to differentiate them in the market.

Discussions with UK households, on the other hand, revealed that accreditations are little understood or valued. Most households reported choosing installers based on recommendations from friends, family and acquaintances (which did not always turn out positively) and cost. Besides cost, trust is a significant factor in how households choose installers and tradespeople. Most participating UK households expressed a preference for using local companies, which makes sense from an accountability point of view. Participating households across all three countries expressed fears about being sold unsuitable technologies and services, and reported difficulties in finding competent, reliable companies and trades.

Yet in the UK many participating households did not recognise the accreditation as a symbol of competency or trustworthiness in terms of the installer, or assurance should things go wrong.

Most installers remarked that the issue of competency did not normally come up in initial conversations with households â&#x20AC;&#x201C; rather they reported that they tended to focus on cost.

Those households that did background checks on the companies they employed were the exception rather than the rule. These findings suggest that work needs to be done to raise awareness among the public of the purpose of accreditations, and the difference between those that are essential (such as for gas safety) and those that may be desirable extras (such as a requirement to gain a grant or Feed in Tariff) and why. In the UK, Severn Wyeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Link to Energy is working to do this. By focusing on local companies it strives to enable homeowners to find businesses near them. Companies registered on the Link to Energy database have to provide details of their accreditations and insurance.

200 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS

4U imp nderta rov kin em g ent s

1C retr onside ofit ring

One last issue relating to trust is that of trust and accessibility through working with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;trusted messengersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; or partners. One UK installer acknowledged that being linked to Severn Wye and local authorities enhanced their legitimacy among customers and the public generally. This was echoed by a UK homeowner who said going through Severn Wye gave them confidence to go with a particular installer. Although Severn Wye does not officially endorse or vet any installers in Link to Energy, it does act as conduit between households and installers, thereby helping to overcome issues of trust and providing assistance and advice when needed. The installers are mainly locally based, and keen to build and maintain their local reputation. In Greece, the Saving at Home programme requires installers and trades to register on its database, which has also proved successful. Cyprus Energy Agency has its own installer database, through which some households found local businesses to undertake their home improvement works.

5M ax the imisin sav g ing s

2 Im

par adv tial ice 3P lan ni wo ng rks

5.6 Maximising the savings Post installation support. Encouragingly, all the households that had implemented energy improvements said they were glad they had made the decision to do so. Most reported energy savings as a result of improving the thermal efficiency of their homes, investing in a renewable technology or upgrading appliances.

However, some households experienced post installation issues. This highlights the importance of post installation support, especially when improvements involve new technologies that require changing patterns of energy use around the home. Some households reported that the installer had fitted the technology and provided no guidance or ongoing support. Conversely, some installers said they considered educating the homeowner in the technology as part of the installation process, so that by handover stage the client fully understands the system, and that the last steps are about fine tuning the settings.

One other post installation issue that emerged was ensuring the homeowners not only understand the new system or technology, but also how it will interact with the rest of the home.

Some post retrofit households reported not understanding how their new technology could best work with existing systems. Again, this is part of post installation support and requires installers to have a good understanding not only of the technologies they offer but of how these technologies will impact the rest of the home. Installers also need to be able to convey this to the homeowner and be available to provide follow on support.

Energy awareness. The challenge remains to make energy use relevant, tangible, understandable and comparable. However, as this study shows, successfully engaging households on energy saving is resource intensive and challenging. Many households still focus on cost as opposed to energy consumption.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 201

5. CONCLUSIONS Feedback from households in all three research areas suggests that there is a gap in knowledge and understanding about the energy demands of different appliances around the home.

Devices such as energy monitors can identify energy intensive, inefficient appliances and where energy is being wasted. One key limitation with energy monitors is that they only track electricity consumption. Getting to grips with an energy monitor can be another obstacle; as the findings from Cyprus show, not all households find devices like this easy to use. Such households may require additional help from an energy advisor, but this requires time and resources. From a community advice hub perspective, resourcing this kind of assistance may be more viable if based on a community volunteer scheme where a household confident in setting up and using energy monitors could help another that is starting out and requires help. This could be coordinated and supported through the community hub.

Despite these limitations, there are clear benefits to using energy monitors; being portable, visible and delivering real time information they help to make energy use real, tangible and provide instant feedback in real time. These attributes make the energy monitor a potentially useful tool for engaging other members of the household about energy use.

Taking thermal images of properties proved popular in the UK and Cyprus by helping to identify areas of heat loss or confirm areas the household suspected were losing heat.

Again, the value in thermal imaging was similar to that of the energy monitor in that it made energy use much more visible. Some households wanted images both before and after thermal improvements.

Energy monitoring over time plays a crucial role in establishing the effectiveness of energy saving behaviours, the impacts of improvements and changes in the way energy is used around the home. It also enables households to understand their energy use patterns generally.

However, practical issues can prevent households from being able to monitor their energy use effectively. First, being able to access accurate readings is crucial. The experiences of some of the UK households showed that monitoring heating oil consumption is problematic because it is not metered, and is difficult and inconvenient to measure accurately – a system for enabling this would be useful. Gas and electricity energy meters need to be in places that are accessible; some households stopped monitoring their metered energy use because accessing their meters was too difficult.

For households engaged in self-monitoring, for it to be helpful it requires effort over time; essentially it needs to become a habit. Establishing new habits can be challenging though, especially given the demands of working and family life. Reminders are important as is instant feedback so that households can see and understand their energy use in terms of the ‘bigger picture’. Putting a household’s energy use into context (that is, comparing it with other households’ use and the national average) is important. On its own, energy use data has little meaning for those considering it for the first time. Understanding energy costs is very important to households, but decoupling energy use from energy cost is also vital if households are to have full control over their energy use. Not all households have access to a computer or the internet – or are IT literate – so online or computer-based systems cannot not be relied upon to work for everyone.

Advice on energy related behaviours needs to be tailored to the household. Generic technical advice is of limited use as is generic advice on energy saving behaviours around the home.

202 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

5. CONCLUSIONS The UK research team found that even the households with the lowest energy consumption per square metre (achieved through material and behavioural means) still considered there was scope for further savings. These households were considering additional energy saving measures and looking at ways to change how they used energy around the home. Keeping such a group engaged is important; some UK post retrofit households volunteered their time to help others in their communities to save energy and improve their homes. However, engaging this group presents its own challenges; while highlighting further measures can be done comparatively easily through an energy survey and EPC, identifying additional, potentially effective behavioural steps for a household that has already taken significant steps to reduce their energy consumption is more challenging. They need to be included however, such ‘pioneers’ have a potentially important role to play in any community retrofit model.

An approach is needed that tailors advice to audiences and combines different forms of information that is delivered in a number of different ways. Historic energy consumption data and input from the homeowner enables them to try out changes and log the results, providing useful feedback. Energy monitors and thermal imaging help to make energy more tangible, visible and (crucially) interesting. Encouraging households to be part of a group monitoring activity adds interest and motivation. Providing back up and support is important especially for households new to energy saving and who may not feel confident using devices such as online energy monitoring tools and monitors.

Advanced level knowledge on optimising settings and ensuring new technologies are interacting most effectively with the rest of the home may require input from specialists in the technologies involved and may be beyond the scope of the energy advisor. There may be scope for collaboration between energy advisors and installers to develop materials to tackle these types of borderline areas.

Energy monitoring is still the ‘Cinderella’ of energy saving. If the households in this research project can be taken as some kind of proxy for the wider population, there is greater appetite for improving the fabric of the home than in monitoring and reducing energy used at home.

The reasons for this are many and some have been explored in this report, but it is clear that much work still needs to be done to educate homeowners about the potential savings to be made by changing patterns of energy use around the home, to highlight links between energy related behaviour and consumption and the benefits of reducing energy demand this way.

5.7 The community scale delivery model Overall the project provided evidence of the need for a local, impartial, practical delivery model for the retrofit of buildings, validating Severn Wye’s community hub approach. Drawing on these findings and prior experience of retrofit Severn Wye Energy Agency developed and trialled a model that could be rolled out at a community scale, linking in with local businesses.

The numerous obstacles around and within the retrofit process that emerged through the research, all served to highlight demand for a community retrofit ‘hub’. By identifying the reasons for and opportunities to retrofit, the research and pilot also found that local approaches, in partnership with trusted – local – organisations, can exploit practical entry points or opportunities for domestic retrofit and in ways that help local businesses and trades.

www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu | 203

5. CONCLUSIONS The learning from this research for the development of the delivery model has been captured in the form of a guidance toolkit, published alongside this report. Key points for delivery are: • A key role is to ensure that homeowners are encouraged and supported through the whole retrofit journey, from awareness raising and outreach to develop interest, through initial contact and advice, home energy assessment, identification of priority measures and installers and finance options, to installation and user advice.

• A key challenge is to establish effective procedures, meeting all regulatory requirements, and to integrate these elements effectively and in a way that ensures that delivery costs are covered, so ensuring the sustainability of the model over the longer term.

• Trust is a big issue: a local delivery model can help by offering increased accessibility and accountability.

• There are numerous opportunities and entry points for energy related improvements in homes. The community hub model is well placed to exploit these opportunities – both to reach a wide range of homeowners, and to provide work for local businesses and trades.

To achieve this means working over the long term with a wide range of local organisations and intermediaries.

• Realisation of ‘trigger point‘ opportunities for energy improvements may be enhanced by supporting and linking trades with relevant information and networking opportunities to enable them to offer a broader, more holistic proposition to households.

• Advice needs are multi-stage, and impartial bespoke advice and support are instrumental to overcoming many of the barriers to domestic retrofit.

• A local contact hub might work with local authorities to clarify and communicate what planning and building permissions are needed and what solutions are generally acceptable, especially as regards older and historic homes in the locality.

• Homeowners often need help in navigating the bureaucracy of funding schemes, and local schemes are most helpful if flexible and complementing what is nationally available.

• Communications between installer and homeowner are a key factor, awareness on both sides of typical issues and potential pitfalls can help to avoid problems from the outset.

• User behaviour support (including monitoring of own energy use) is long term and resource intensive, and may be best supported through experienced volunteers in the community, supported by the advice hub.

• Establishing partnerships with the full range of relevant and trusted partners is essential in order to engage, advise and provide practical help to homeowners and businesses.

• Developing a local delivery model that complements national programmes and schemes provides flexibility, choice and accountability for households and installers, and local retrofitting schemes offer installers alternative markets to those created by national funding cycles, which can create ‘boom and bust’ conditions for the industry.

204 | www.countdowntolowcarbonhomes.eu

SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS AND FUNDING BODIES Countdown to Low Carbon Homes was funded by the ERA-Net Eracobuild programme. ERA-Net Eracobuild is a network of national R&D programmes focusing on construction and the sustainable built environment, with the aim of developing synergies between national programmes by sharing strategies and establishing joint programmes and projects.

Countdown to Low Carbon Homes was funded under the Sustainable Renovation theme, addressing the challenge of sustainable renovation of the existing built environment, and providing opportunities for industries, research, academic and other organisations to take part in multilateral cooperation in this field.

Six EU countries participated in the theme, and the project was found to have specific synergies with national funding priorities in three: Cyprus, Greece and the UK.

Cyprus: DESMH 2009-2010 by the Research Promotion Foundation of Cyprus.

Greece: The General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), the official body for the planning and implementing of science and technology research policy in the country. The GSRT designs, manages and implements national and European research projects.

UK: The Technology Strategy Board, a business-led executive non-departmental public body established by the Government. Its role is to promote and support research into, and development and exploitation of, technology and innovation for the benefit of UK business, in order to increase economic growth and improve quality of life.

The UK part of the project was also supported by the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts Climate Change Collaboration.

The local delivery pilot in the UK was supported by Forest of Dean District Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Stroud District Council, and Wiltshire Council.

The project partners would like to thank the households, installers, local authority personnel and advisory group members who participated in the project for their valuable contribution, without which the project could not have gone ahead.

This research report was produced by Severn Wye Energy Agency, an independent charity and not-for-profit company, working in partnership with Cyprus Energy Agency and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Severn Wye Energy Agency Unit 15 Highnam Business Centre, Highnam, Gloucester GL2 8DN Tel: +44 (0)1452 835060 Email: info@severnwye.org.uk Web: www.severnwye.org.uk Twitter: @Severn_Wye Charity no. 1083812 Working for a future powered by local energy and free from fuel poverty Severn Wye are an ISO 14001 registered company â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EN1679

Printed in Gloucestershire on FSC certified paper using electricity generated from 100% renewable sources.