Closed consultation

Reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings regime

Published 4 December 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this consultation

This consultation seeks views on the reform of the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPB) framework. It covers the following areas:

• clarifying and consolidating regulations, and focusing on improving the applicability, quality, and data usage of energy certificates in domestic and non-domestic buildings
• updating EPC metrics
• refining requirements for Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Display Energy Certificates (DECs)
• improving data management protocols and strengthening quality control
• revising air conditioning inspection reports (ACIRs)

Geographical scope

This consultation covers England and Wales. Responsibility for energy certificates in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and responsibility in Northern Ireland is transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The UK government works closely with the other devolved administrations to oversee the operation of the energy performance of buildings legislation across the UK, given that there is shared common technical infrastructure (calculation methodology software and systems for registering certificates), and given that energy assessors (and their accreditation schemes) operate across the UK internal market. 

Northern Ireland

The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 applies in Northern Ireland and the systems there rely on and operate mutually with the regime in England and Wales. Therefore, it is likely that outcomes from this consultation will apply equally in Northern Ireland, subject to any relevant ministerial approvals and additional local policy development.

Scotland

The Scottish Government has similar objectives to those set out by the UK government in chapters 1 to 3 of this consultation, and has already consulted during 2021 and 2023 on its own proposals for reform of the EPC rating system and validity periods. It will respond shortly to its 2023 consultation to give its final decisions on these reforms in Scotland. 

The Scottish Government also has a common interest with the UK government on the issues raised in chapters 4 and 5 of this consultation – on how EPC data is lodged and reported on the EPC Register; and on how quality assurance of EPC assessors can be improved across the UK internal market. The UK and Scottish Governments will work jointly to consider our approach to policy making in this area across the UK, following the responses received to this part of the consultation.

Assessors issuing ACIRs also operate across the UK internal market, and the Scottish Government will be working jointly with the UK government to consider its approach to policy making in this area, following the responses received to chapter 6 of this consultation.

Wales

Whilst the UK government holds the responsibility for EPC, DEC and ACIRs in both England and Wales, there are devolved matters in Wales, including the Building Regulations and standards for social housing, that use the EPC regime in support of their own objectives. The UK government will work with the Welsh Government where transitional arrangements arise from these proposals.

Impact assessment

A consultation stage impact assessment is published alongside this document.

Basic information

Bodies responsible for the consultation

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Duration

This consultation is scheduled to last for 12 weeks from 4 December 2024 to 26 February 2025.

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact: energyperformanceofbuildingsregulations@communities.gov.uk

How to respond

You may respond by completing an online survey on Citizen Space.

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised.

If it is not possible for you to use the online survey, you can respond through email. If you are responding in this way, please make it clear which questions you are responding to.

Email responses should be sent to: energyperformanceofbuildingsregulations@communities.gov.uk

Responses can be sent by post to:

Energy Performance of Buildings Reforms consultation
Building Systems and Insights Directorate
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

About you

This consultation seeks views from a diverse range of stakeholders. When responding to this consultation please specify:

Question 1. Are you responding as/on behalf of (select all that apply):

• Member of the public
• Builder/Developer
• An accredited energy assessor
• Estate agent
• Insurance company
• Environmental organisation
• Financial institutions
• Energy efficiency service providers
• Building Control Approved Inspector/Registered Building Control Approver
• Competent Persons Scheme Operator
• Designer/Engineer/Surveyor
• Architect
• Energy sector
• Local authority
• Housing Association
• Manufacturer/Supply chain
• National representative or trade body
• Professional body or institution
• Property Management
• Research/Academic organisation
• Other

Question 2. If you are responding as a member of the public/a building professional, what region are you responding from? [drop down list of England regions and other]

Question 3. If you are responding as a member of the public, are you a [checklist: private tenant, housing association/local authority housing tenant, private landlord, homeowner and other]

Question 4. If you are responding on behalf of a business/organisation, what is the name of your business/organisation? [free text]

Question 5. If you are responding on behalf of a business/organisation, where is your business/organisation based/registered? [drop down list of England regions and other]

Question 6. When you respond it would be useful if you can confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• your name
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)
• an address (including post-code)
• an email address
• a contact telephone number

Your personal data is being collected so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes, an essential part of the consultation process. We may also use it to contact you about related matters. Please see the privacy notice in Annex A for further information on how we use this data.

Foreword

Our government is committed to a sustainable future for our built environment and recognises the need to reform the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPB) Regime to help achieve this. These reforms are integral to creating a regime that supports people in better understanding and managing the energy performance of their buildings whilst achieving key national goals, including reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, alleviating fuel poverty, and enhancing building standards across the country. Established under the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, the EPB Framework serves as a foundational tool for promoting carbon reduction across the UK’s building stock, encouraging energy efficiency improvements in existing homes and commercial properties alike.

This joint consultation, led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and supported by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), marks a pivotal step toward these goals. The consultation outlines proposed reforms to enhance the building energy performance regime in five critical areas: updating EPC metrics, refining requirements for Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Display Energy Certificates (DECs), improving data management protocols, strengthening quality control, and revising Air Conditioning Inspection Reports (ACIRs).

In addition, MHCLG will lead a comprehensive programme of research to better understand user needs and preferences in order to present EPCs in a way that aligns with climate objectives and consumer expectations. This research will help create a robust, well-rounded perspective on building performance that aligns with both our environmental targets and the interests of our citizens.

Our departments have been closely collaborating to advance these essential government objectives, fully aligned with our Mission to accelerate action to Net Zero. Through this partnership, we are committed to achieving real, measurable improvements that will strengthen our efforts to create a sustainable future through reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings Regime.

The EPC reform consultation offers an exciting opportunity to engage meaningfully with our stakeholders, whose insights will help shape the path forward for the EPB Regime. We look forward to working with partners across various sectors to ensure these reforms deliver maximum impact.

This joint effort represents our unwavering dedication to achieving a sustainable, low-carbon future, and we are confident these proposed reforms will bring lasting benefits for generations to come.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Lords Minister for Housing and Local Government

Miatta Fahnbulleh MP
Minister for Energy Consumers

1. Overview of proposed reforms

Context

The Energy Performance of Buildings (EPB) regime was introduced in phases from 2007, with the goal of improving the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing their carbon emissions and lessening the impact of climate change. Relevant legislation is the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (“EPB Regulations”).

The regulations require that:

• energy performance certificates (EPCs) are produced for certain domestic dwellings and non-domestic premises
• display energy certificates (DECs) are produced for public buildings
• air conditioning inspection reports (ACIRs) are carried out for systems above a certain size

Certification and reporting provide numerous benefits, including:

• enabling prospective buyers and tenants to compare a modelled assessment of energy costs and carbon emissions of different properties
• providing information on the current performance of different building elements and services with recommendations for cost-effective improvements and signposting to other sources of advice
• supporting policy makers with information on the energy performance of the existing building stock and how this changes over time

The EPC has become a key measurement tool for assessing the performance of our buildings and is now widely used beyond its original scope. For example, EPC ratings are used as the basis for energy efficiency targets, for regulatory requirements such as minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) for the private rented sector (PRS) and as an eligibility requirement for funding, such as in the Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund (WH:SHF). The EPC will remain an important tool for delivering the Warm Homes Plan, which aims to save families money and contribute to the UK meeting its climate targets, including by setting new PRS standards for homes by 2030.

According to the government’s most recent statistics, buildings account for around 20% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. In order to meet the government’s net zero commitments, a significant shift in the way domestic and non-domestic buildings use energy needs to occur. Additionally, according to the Commons Library it is estimated that 13% of households in England (25% in Scotland, 14% in Wales, 24% in Northern Ireland) are classed as fuel poor.

Improving the energy performance of buildings can contribute significantly to lowering energy bills for households, whilst decreasing the carbon output of the UK’s buildings and reducing overall energy demand. The Warm Homes Plan will contribute to this target by upgrading five million homes by the end of this parliament.

The EPC acts as an enabling tool supporting actions across a range of areas working to improve the energy performance of buildings. This includes supporting lenders with information to assist with finance for energy efficiency improvement; allowing businesses to provide innovative products and services based on accurate building data and allowing government grants to be targeted to where it is most needed.

The Energy Act 2023, which came into force in October 2023, provides the primary powers required to enable amendments to the EPB Regulations, and therefore represents a new opportunity for government to make these regulations smarter, more efficient and better suited to the UK.

Vision for a reformed EPB framework

While we have already made progress in improving the overall EPB Framework, there is more work to do and wider reform is needed to improve EPCs, DECs and ACIRs. This includes updating the Framework to reflect modern policy objectives, updating regulations to make them work better for businesses, and making sure the system works for UK markets.

An EPC system that provides a wider range of higher quality building performance data, in a clear and accessible form, will mean that people using EPCs are better able to meet their own goals. The benefits will be seen, not only in improved EPCs themselves, but also in areas such as improved value for money of government grants; improved targeting of private and consumer finance; and improved quality of effectiveness of regulations.

Since their introduction, the policy landscape around energy has changed greatly with new priorities including:

• Clean Power by 2030 and accelerating net zero: boosting energy independence, saving families money, creating jobs, driving delivery across Whitehall and delivering on our mission.
• Warm Homes Plan: Making a step change in progress in home decarbonisation this parliament to cut people’s bills, decarbonise the buildings sector, and slash fuel poverty.
• A lower cost, fairer deal for consumers: Lowering bills, spreading costs more progressively, and protecting consumers.

As a result, we need to make changes to the EPB Framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose in this new policy landscape. This means using powers in the Energy Act to reform the regulations, including undertaking a review to clarify and consolidate existing regulations in order to make them easier for businesses and individuals to comply with.

Our vision is for a reformed EPB Framework which:

• provides homeowners and tenants with accurate information about the energy performance of their homes to allow them to make informed investment and purchase decisions
• provides accurate information to determine eligibility for schemes and measure progress against government targets
• provides an information tool to support a range of actions including reducing carbon emissions, tackling fuel poverty, improving decency and the Warm Homes Plan
• reflects the needs of wider users of EPCs beyond homeowners and tenants, such as suppliers of energy efficiency products and services, as well as lenders

Taken together, these actions will mean the EPB Framework can deliver a more efficient and effective energy certificate system that works for all stakeholders, including landlords and tenants.

We also envision the reformed Framework having several benefits specifically for businesses. For example, better quality data will be particularly beneficial for businesses or landlords who own a large number of homes or buildings, allowing them to better compare the impact of actions across their estates. Improving consumer trust in, and the overall reliability of energy certificates will hopefully increase the number of energy efficiency recommendations undertaken, helping to build demand and supply chains in this industry. We also know that EPCs are increasingly being used in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting and investing, with a growing number of companies wanting to ensure their investments are environmentally responsible. Improving EPCs will allow companies to have more confidence in their potential investments.

The following chapters set out the changes we think are needed to achieve this vision.

2. What EPCs measure

This chapter sets out the government’s thinking, and seeks views, on a set of proposed metrics for assessing the energy performance of buildings, to be displayed on future EPCs. It is anticipated that any changes to the EPC metrics will be introduced in the second half of 2026. Further details concerning these proposed metrics are set out in the Technical Annex to this document.

Context

While EPCs display various metrics about a building’s energy performance, the headline metric serves as the primary indicator of its overall energy efficiency. For domestic buildings, the Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) is the headline metric, calculated using modelled energy costs per square metre based on standardised heating patterns, temperatures, and fixed fuel price assumptions. For non-domestic certificates, modelled carbon dioxide emissions per square metre form the basis of the Environmental Impact Rating (EIR) headline metric. These metrics are calculated using information gathered during a physical inspection of an existing building or from drawings and specifications for a new build. These headline metrics are expressed as an A-G scale ratings (A+-G for non-domestic), alongside recommended retrofit measures to improve the rating. They serve as the basis for regulatory targets and inform retrofit investment decisions by public and private entities.

Both the current EER and EIR metrics have flaws. The EER is based on assumptions about fuel costs, which can rapidly become outdated as relative fuel prices fluctuate and lead to unintended outcomes. For instance, installing a heat pump could reduce the EER due to the higher relative cost of electricity compared to gas, despite heat pumps being an efficient low-carbon heating solution. The EIR can give an incomplete picture of energy performance in the context of grid decarbonisation. A building may see an improvement in its EIR rating as the carbon-intensity of electricity generation falls towards zero in line with the government’s clean power mission, even if no action has been taken to improve its performance. Ultimately, both metrics are influenced by factors beyond the building owner’s control: energy costs and the carbon intensity of the grid.

The government recognises the current metrics may not provide a sufficiently rounded picture of performance and could better support government priorities such as delivering net zero by 2050, tackling fuel poverty, and improving decency. The government acknowledges concerns raised about the current metrics including by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and has taken careful account of their views and recommendations in the proposals set out in this chapter. The government has also taken into account the recent consultation by the Scottish Government on reforms of the EPC system in Scotland and recommendations in recent reports from a range of stakeholders.

Any changes to EPC metrics will need to be reflected in the relevant approved assessment methodologies for EPCs. Currently these are Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) 10.2 for new dwellings, Reduced Data SAP (RdSAP) 2012 for existing dwellings, and the National Calculation Methodology (NCM) for non-domestic buildings. SAP and RdSAP are planned to be replaced by the Home Energy Model (HEM) in future and an EPC methodology for the HEM is currently under development. Any revised EPC metrics for dwellings will be introduced with the transition to HEM in the second half of 2026. We intend to consult on a Home Energy Model methodology for producing EPCs in 2025.

Objectives

The government wants EPC metrics to be helpful for everyone, including homeowners, tenants, landlords, and building owners. EPCs should provide information that is easy to understand about the energy performance of a building and how it compares with other buildings, and how to improve it to lower fuel bills and reduce carbon emissions. Additionally, EPCs should support the government’s wider goals, such as achieving net zero emissions, encouraging the use of low carbon heating systems, and reducing fuel poverty. By presenting this information in a clearer, more accessible way, the government aims to make EPCs more useful, complete and understandable for everyone.

Clear performance benchmarks

EPC metrics should provide clear benchmarks of performance that can be used to aid decision making, set policy targets and establish regulatory requirements, such as minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties. Furthermore, EPCs can provide valuable information about the energy performance of the entire building stock in the country.

Proposal for multiple metrics

The government is proposing using multiple metrics on EPCs to provide a more complete representation of building energy performance. A single headline metric, like the current EER, is proving to be insufficient to meet the diverse needs of users and policy objectives. In this consultation, the government wants to understand the potential of a range of metrics that could be used in EPCs. The government has considered the following potential metrics:

• Energy cost: helping individuals understand the financial implications of a building’s energy efficiency and make informed decisions about potential improvements
• Carbon: an estimate of the carbon emissions arising from the energy used in the building
• Energy use: offering insights into overall energy consumption and identifying areas for energy efficiency improvements
• Fabric performance: assessing the thermal performance of a building’s envelope and promoting the importance of well-insulated, comfortable, and energy-efficient spaces
• Heating system: providing information on the efficiency and environmental impact of a building’s heating source and encouraging the adoption of cleaner heating technologies
• Smart readiness: assessing a building’s potential to integrate smart technologies that can optimise energy consumption and the ability of consumers to benefit from cheaper smart tariffs

The government is interested in how such an approach will help support the goal of improving the energy performance of buildings across the country, ultimately benefiting individuals by reducing their energy costs and contributing to wide ranging policy initiatives. The utility of different metrics may differ between domestic and non-domestic buildings, given differences in the way that energy is used in these buildings. When considering the potential of proposed metrics, the government would be interested in views about their suitability and usefulness for both domestic and non-domestic buildings.

The government is proposing that domestic EPCs use four headline metrics; ‘fabric performance’, ‘heating system’, ‘smart readiness’ and ‘energy cost’ as headline metrics, with other metrics provided as secondary information. These metrics together convey the key, complementary aspects of building energy performance, allowing the user to distinguish where the home performs more or less well. Supporting people to keep their energy bills low has always been a key purpose of EPCs and the energy cost metric will provide this information. A well performing home, should have a good level of insulation to ensure a high level of thermal comfort and a low overall energy demand intensity, which a fabric performance metric can demonstrate. It should also be efficiently heated using low-carbon energy sources, which can be demonstrated via a heating system metric. Where possible, if a home can generate its own electricity and be able to be flexible with its energy use it can minimise its impact on the electricity grid, and a smart readiness metric can demonstrate how able a property is to achieve this.

The government is proposing the carbon metric is maintained as the single headline metric on non-domestic EPCs at this time. Non-domestic EPCs are already carbon focused and are in line with our net zero objectives. As a consequence, we aim to maintain some consistency in the short term, particularly in light of any regulations which they underpin, such as minimum energy efficiency standards. We may consider adding new primary or secondary metrics over time where appropriate. As such, we welcome views on whether the proposed new metrics may also be suitable for non-domestic buildings at a future stage.

Presentation of metrics

Using multiple complementary metrics as the government proposes marks a significant change from the current system of a single metric rating and considering the impact on EPC users will be important in the final design of the EPC. It will be important for the new metrics to be presented clearly on EPCs to provide clarity, enable comparisons, offer improvement guidance, support compliance, and incentivise energy efficiency. To ensure our homes and buildings support our journey towards net zero, EPCs need clear and actionable energy performance information.

EPCs are provided through the government run ‘Find an energy certificate’ service and is responsible for designing the layout of the existing EPC and maintaining the service in line with the principles for a clear and accessible government digital service. In order to develop the most effective presentation of new EPC metrics, government will undertake a programme of research into user needs and preferences which will guide our decisions on how to make the EPC information clear and impactful. Government will consider how best to present information about the metrics to enable users to benchmark the performance of their building against others, how to understand their compliance with regulations that use EPCs, and support decision making when considering energy efficiency retrofit options. This will ensure that the end users needs are placed at the heart of the reformed EPC presentation.

In line with our standard practice all changes to the EPC layout and presentation will involve user testing with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure a broad range of views are taken into account.

Other metrics

As government priorities change over time, it is likely that EPC metrics may need to change again in future to support and reflect this. Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) could potentially expand beyond measuring energy efficiency to include other aspects of building performance. For instance, EPCs might incorporate metrics related to a building’s resilience to climate change impacts and its adaptation measures. Additionally, metrics concerning occupant health, wellbeing, biodiversity, and water efficiency could be evaluated. The data shown on EPCs could be incorporated with actual energy use data which could provide feedback to occupants on how their behaviour is influencing their energy consumption, as well as highlighting any discrepancies between the predicted performance of a building during design versus in operation.

However, at this time we wish to focus on the reforms proposed above, rather than expanding the scope of this consultation. Further information on each metric being considered is given below in this chapter, and in the accompanying Technical Annex to this document.

Energy cost

Reducing energy bills is a key driver for energy efficiency improvements in buildings. The Energy Efficiency Rating (EER) for domestic EPCs is a measure of the calculated costs of energy used per floor area, providing a comprehensive metric that reflects the impact of all aspects of regulated energy performance on costs per floor area. As a result, the EER has been used as the basis for several government policies, including the domestic minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) for the private rented sector (PRS) and the fuel poverty target in England.

However, using a cost-based metric like EER presents several challenges:

• Assumptions of fuel prices used to calculate the EER can quickly become outdated, as they are usually only updated alongside new versions of the SAP methodology. The prices currently used for existing dwellings were fixed in 2014, which does not accurately reflect the current energy price landscape or available tariffs.
• Updating price assumptions could cause dwellings to move between EPC bands despite no actual changes in the energy performance of the building.
• A cost-based metric may not incentivise switching from fossil fuel heating to low-carbon alternatives because of the effects of the relationship between fuel prices incorporated within the methodology.

Despite these challenges, the government recognises the importance of users understanding their building’s predicted energy costs and the measures they can take to reduce them. This would also enable better-targeted support to tackle fuel poverty. Additionally, the EER is currently the basis for existing and proposed regulatory targets, and a clear transition will be needed if the EER is no longer used as the headline metric to ensure that duty holders are clear about compliance requirements.

The government considers that there should continue to be a calculation of predicted costs of the energy used in the building and that a metric based on this should continue to be shown prominently on the certificate. However, the government does not believe that a cost-based metric should be the sole, headline metric to determine EPC ratings for domestic buildings and welcomes views on this. In designing any new cost-based metric, the government will be mindful of the balance between using a stable price basis for consistency over time and accuracy.

For non-domestic EPCs, the EER is not currently displayed, and the government is interested in views on whether a cost-based metric should be included in the future.

Question 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information using an energy cost metric should be displayed on EPCs? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning, and provide any evidence to support your view.

Fabric performance

Fabric performance is a crucial aspect of a building’s energy efficiency, as it refers to the thermal properties of the building and its ability to maintain a different temperature from its surroundings. The level of insulation, window quality, and the quality of construction or retrofit all contribute to a building’s fabric performance, which in turn determines the typical demand for space heating and cooling. Improving fabric performance can also help enhance the efficiency of heating systems, particularly heat pumps.

Including a fabric metric as a headline metric on EPCs would offer several key benefits:

• A fabric metric could provide a clear basis for identifying and prioritising improvements to the building’s thermal properties. This would enable building owners and occupants to make informed decisions about upgrading insulation, windows, or other elements of the building fabric to enhance energy efficiency.
• By prominently featuring a fabric metric on EPCs, building owners and occupants would be encouraged to take action to improve the building’s thermal performance.
• A fabric metric could serve as a proxy for thermal comfort. Better thermal comfort means homes will feel warmer in winter and more comfortable for residents, enhancing their overall well-being and satisfaction with their living environment.

There are several methodologies available to measure the fabric performance of buildings. The Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES) is a compliance target in Building Regulations for new homes, estimating the home’s heating and cooling energy demand, independently of the actual heating system employed. The FEES considers energy which would be used for cooling during warm periods as well as energy used for heat in cold periods.

An alternative fabric metric is the Heat Loss Parameter (HLP) or Heat Transfer Coefficient (HTC). This widely recognised figure can be estimated through co-heating tests and other on-site measurement techniques. However, unlike FEES, the HLP/HTC does not factor in the impact of solar gains or potential cooling demand, thus providing a more partial view of overall thermal performance.

The government considers that FEES may be better suited for assessing a building’s resilience to future climate impacts and ensuring energy efficiency across varying seasonal conditions.

Question 2

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information derived from a fabric performance metric should be displayed on EPCs? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 3

When evaluating the fabric performance of buildings, which methodology do you think should inform the basis of calculating a fabric metric? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• No preference
• Don’t know
• FEES
• HLP/HTC
• Other

Non-domestic buildings

• No preference
• Don’t know
• FEES
• HLP/HTC
• Other

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Heating system

A heating type metric ranks different heating systems based on their technology or type, aiming to incentivise the transition to efficient low-carbon options like heat pumps over more energy intensive direct electric heating or carbon intensive fossil fuels. By clearly distinguishing systems and highlighting both their environmental impact and efficiency, a heating metric could provide straightforward guidance for achieving net zero emissions in buildings.

The key aims are twofold: encouraging low carbon heating adoption and offering a simple, understandable tool for informed decision-making. Beyond carbon intensity, the metric could consider factors such as overall system efficiency, fuel availability, and sustainability.

The metric’s usefulness lies in its ability to shift users towards environmentally friendly heating solutions through clear rankings and guidance. It offers a simple reference for homeowners, builders, and policymakers, while supplementary information can indicate a building’s readiness for low carbon heating upgrades, facilitating cost-effective transitions.

Design of a heating system metric

The way the heating system metric is designed is crucial for effectively encouraging the switch to more efficient and low-carbon heating systems. The metric needs to clearly rank different heating system types based on their environmental impact, efficiency, and how well they align with achieving net zero emissions goals. A well-designed metric will provide a straightforward ranking (explicit or implicit), placing efficient low-carbon options like heat pumps at the top, energy intensive but potentially low carbon electric systems like direct electric heating in the middle, and fossil fuel systems at the bottom.

Additionally, the metric’s design should look at more than just carbon emissions alone. By considering factors such as the overall efficiency of the system, fuel availability, and sustainability, the metric can give a more comprehensive evaluation of heating systems. The government thinks it is important that the metric can distinguish between the efficiency levels of systems within the same category. For example, a more efficient heat pump should be ranked higher than a less efficient heat pump unit. This allows the metric to provide a more nuanced ranking beyond just broad categories of heating system types. Factoring in system efficiency in this way would incentivise installation of high-performing low-carbon options.

Question 4

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information based on a heating system metric should be displayed on EPCs ? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 5

What are your views on the design principles and the scope for a Heating System metric? Please provide evidence where possible.

Smart readiness

The Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan sets out a vision for a smarter and more flexible energy system, which is better able to manage the expected increase in demand for low-carbon electricity. Smart meters, intelligent appliances like EV charging points, Solar PV battery storage, and heat pumps, along with smart tariffs and services, will enable and encourage users to adapt their consumption patterns to match periods of cheap, abundant low-carbon electricity supply. These services may often operate automatically, programmed to meet user needs by storing cheaper renewable energy in batteries for use during pricier peak periods, optimising consumption to leverage low-carbon sources when most available and cost-effective.

• a smart readiness metric could help users understand their building’s potential to optimise energy usage and reduce demand during peak periods through smart technologies like meters, appliances, storage systems, and time-of-use pricing
• it could support building users to increase self-consumption of any on-site renewable generation so reducing grid reliance and maximizing value of distributed energy resources
• incorporating a smart readiness metric that includes microgeneration self-use and the buildings potential to participate in demand response activities would complement the proposed fabric and heating system metrics

The design of any potential smart readiness metric is critical to ensure it effectively captures the key aspects of a building’s ability to integrate with a flexible energy system. The metric should provide a comprehensive assessment that is both informative and actionable for stakeholders, including building owners, operators, and policymakers. The government would welcome views on the potential definition, scope, and design principles of a smart readiness metric:

• how should a smart readiness metric be defined, and what relevant characteristics of the building and appliances should be considered?
• should the metric focus solely on smart building systems, or should it also include smart domestic appliances?
• how can we distinguish between different tiers of smart readiness, associating them with specific functionalities and technologies to create a practical framework for evaluation?

Question 6

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information based on a smart readiness metric should be displayed on EPCs? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 7

What are your views on the definition, design principles and the scope for a smart readiness metric? Please provide evidence where possible.

Energy use

Energy use metrics can provide an informative view of a building’s performance. Depending on the type of energy use metric chosen, they can be less influenced by external factors compared to cost-based metrics such as the EER. They focus on the predicted energy consumed within the building, making them a more reliable indicator of a building’s efficiency. EPCs currently provide information based on a dwelling’s predicted energy needs for space heating, hot water, lighting and pumps and fans, as well as an estimate of the dwelling’s primary energy use.

Displaying an energy use metric on EPCs would offer several benefits:

• It would help users understand the building’s predicted energy consumption and identify areas for improvement.
• Energy use metrics can allow for easy comparison of energy performance between different buildings. This benchmarking can help owners and occupants understand how their building’s energy consumption compares to similar properties.
• It would provide a consistent measure of building performance, as energy use is less affected by external factors such as fluctuations in energy prices or changes in the electricity grid mix.

Energy use metrics can provide a direct, reliable, and easily understandable way to assess and compare the energy efficiency of buildings and help users make informed decisions about improving energy performance. When considering energy use metrics for EPCs, it is important to understand the different types of metrics available and their implications for assessing building performance. Some examples of energy use metrics include:

Primary energy use:

• measures the total energy contained in the raw natural resources used to generate electricity or heat
• accounts for losses and inefficiencies in the conversion and distribution processes for example in the power station generating the electricity
• currently displayed on EPCs as kWh/m2 but not as a headline metric
• used in Building Regulations for compliance targets

Delivered energy (final consumption):

• represents the energy delivered to the building to meet its energy demand
• typically expressed as the kWh consumption figure reported on energy bills
• reflects the actual fuel used in the building, excluding on-site generation
• more easily understandable for users and potentially better suited as a headline metric for existing buildings

While primary energy use accounts for the overall energy consumption from source to end-use, it can be affected by factors outside the control of building owners, such as changes in the electricity grid mix. Conversely, delivered energy focuses on the energy directly consumed within the building, making it a more straightforward and relevant metric for assessing building performance.

While the government recognises the utility of energy use metrics and believes they should continue to be shown on the EPC, we believe that the combination of energy demand, heating efficiency and electricity generation information provided by the proposed headline metrics can convey the same information in a more relevant and informative way.

Question 8

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information from an energy use metric should be displayed on EPCs? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 9

If an energy use metric is to be displayed on Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which type of energy use measurement should be used to calculate this metric? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• No preference
• Don’t know
• Delivered energy
• Primary energy
• Other (please specify)

Non-domestic buildings

• No preference
• Don’t know
• Delivered energy
• Primary energy
• Other (please specify)

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Carbon

The current EIR metric on EPCs is based on modelled carbon emissions of the building. As well as providing information about the individual building, a carbon metric provides a way of measuring progress to meeting net zero across the building stock. There are challenges with this metric and the CCC did not include it as one of their recommended headline metric for homes, particularly in the context of a rapidly decarbonising electricity system, although information about the building‘s carbon emissions should still be provided on the EPC. 

The government acknowledges the importance of providing information about carbon emissions on EPCs. However, it believes that for domestic buildings, a carbon metric like the EIR should not be the primary indicator of building performance. This is because the EIR, in its current form, may not effectively incentivise the actions necessary to achieve net zero emissions in an energy efficient manner. Additionally, as this emissions factors change over time, the rating for a property may change even when no changes have been made to the building itself. The government suggests that other proposed metrics (in particular a heating system metric) could be more effective for driving this action.

Currently, the EIR is the headline metric displayed on non-domestic EPCs. The government not currently proposing to change this but is interested in gathering views on whether a carbon-based metric should be retained as a headline rating for non-domestic buildings.

Question 10

To what extent do you agree or disagree that information from a carbon based metric should be displayed on EPCs? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

SMETER methods

The government has been considering ways to introduce methods for measuring the thermal performance of homes using smart meter data, weather data and (usually) other data such as internal temperature data. The resulting products have been collectively termed Smart Meter Enabled Thermal Efficiency Ratings (SMETERs).

Some examples of SMETERs would be the calculated building heat transfer coefficient or standardised heating demand derived from measured data in combination with simple statistical models. SMETER products could support comparisons of the calculated asset heating demand with actual outcomes (based either on user behaviour or standard assumptions). This would help to identify different types of performance issues.

Following the development, testing and demonstration of SMETER methods, and growing industry deployment of SMETER products and services, government is currently moving to piloting applications for net zero priority areas while developing approaches to quality assurance, prior to potential widescale introduction of these methods at a national level.

Whilst work to date has focussed on the residential sector, the government would also welcome views on the use of SMETER technologies in commercial buildings.

Question 11

To what extent do you agree or disagree with incorporating smart metering technologies, like SMETERS, into the energy performance assessment framework for buildings? Please select one option for each building type.

Domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Non-domestic buildings

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Transition

It is anticipated that any changes to the EPC metrics will be introduced in the second half of 2026. Users will need time to adjust to the new metrics and changes to the metrics may impact on regulatory targets, grant eligibility criteria and the way investments in retrofit are assessed and planned which are currently expressed in terms of meeting specified EER ratings.

The government expects that new and/or amended metrics will be introduced for domestic buildings with the Home Energy Model (rather than updates to SAP/RdSAP). An EPC methodology for the Home Energy Model is currently under development and will be consulted on in 2025. Any changes to the metrics for non-domestic buildings will be implemented through updates to the National Calculation Methodology for non-domestic buildings. 

The government recognises the importance of a carefully planned transition over an appropriate time frame. This will aim to ensure that:

• The continuity of current heat and buildings policy is maintained, to avoid any hiatus in delivering against decarbonisation targets.
• Actions to improve the performance of buildings can continue uninterrupted and that duty holders are clear about how to comply with requirements.
• There is continuity for those policies and schemes which use EPCs.
• Duty holders can continue to comply and evidence that those who have already met requirements are not penalised under the new metrics.

At this stage the government cannot say which metrics may be used for individual future policies, regulations or schemes. That will be a matter for the design of those policies which will be subject to their own consultations. However, the government does not want changes to metrics to penalise duty holders who may have taken action to bring themselves into compliance with future targets or to affect existing compliance.

When the new version of the calculation methodology is introduced, all new EPCs will be produced using that new version, including the new metrics. Existing EPCs will continue to display the old metrics. Changes to the metrics will not invalidate existing EPCs, so existing EPCs could still be used to demonstrate compliance with existing regulatory requirements for the period of their validity. This will mean that there will be a progression over time to the new metrics as EPCs using old metrics reach the end of their validity period.

Users will need to understand how any new metrics relate to the existing metrics and how ratings between them may compare, for example through some form of equivalence arrangement. It will not be possible to have direct equivalence between all old and new metrics because they will be measuring different things. Nor could it guarantee that an EPC calculation with new metrics would generate the same band as an EER-based calculation. However, it could give users an indication of how a property’s energy performance might be measured in future.

Future regulatory targets or scheme benchmarks will need to reflect new metrics once they are introduced. The government anticipates there will be appropriate policy or scheme specific transition periods to enable duty holders to implement any new measures needed to meet any new targets. The government recognises however that some duty holders may have already acted to achieve compliance with future targets based on existing metrics and may have commissioned an EPC on that basis. The government is keen to encourage early action and individual policies will explore options for ‘deemed to satisfy’ arrangements, or ‘carry over’ rights.

Question 12

Do you have any views on key transition issues?

3. When EPCs and DECs are required

This chapter sets out proposed changes to when EPCs and DECs are required. These changes aim to improve access to up-to-date energy performance information across a broader range of property types. These include reducing the validity periods for EPCs and DECs, as well as removing flexibilities and exemptions for certain types of buildings.

Reducing the validity periods for EPCs

At present, an EPC is valid for 10 years. However, a valid EPC is currently only required at the point of build, sale, or grant of lease in the rented sectors. Therefore, many EPCs do not actually need to be renewed when their validity period ends. Reducing the validity period of EPCs could allow building upgrades, such as fabric changes, to be captured more frequently. This would provide prospective buyers and tenants with more accurate and up-to-date information to inform decision making which may directly impact their cost of living.

An increasing number of energy performance and decarbonisation policies are underpinned by an EPC rating. As net zero policies and low carbon technologies evolve, the details of recommendations provided by EPCs are likely to be developed. Reducing the validity period of EPCs would therefore more accurately inform building owners on how to improve their buildings and ensure that EPCs more accurately reflect the current state of a property. The process of undertaking an EPC can also be a useful prompt for building owners to consider the recommendations for their buildings, contributing to more cost- and carbon-efficient building stock.

The average length of occupation for owner occupiers is 16.8 years, compared to 4.3 years in the private rented sector and 12.2 years for social rented tenants (EHS 2022-23). For non-domestic buildings, we estimate the typical lease length to be 9.4 years (source: Savills based on MSCI data for 2021 covering 54,209 leases). Given the more frequent turnover in the PRS, a reduced validity period would more greatly impact PRS landlords. There may be an information benefit for prospective PRS tenants and policymakers for more current EPCs, and landlords may be able to capture upgrades to their properties more easily, in turn potentially improving desirability in the market and aiding compliance with regulations such as MEES. However, landlords may also incur a very small increase in costs from more regular EPCs.

If we are to reduce the validity period of EPCs, we could take several different approaches to this transition. For example, we could allow all existing EPCs to remain valid until the end of their original validity period; when the validity period is reduced, we could make all EPCs with a 10 year validity period invalid; or we could implement a two year transition period where existing validity periods are retained, but at the end of which the new validity period comes into force.

The government’s preference is to allow all existing EPCs to remain valid until the end of their existing validity period and apply any new validity period to new EPCs.

Question 13

What should be the validity period for Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings?

• Don’t know
• Less than 2 years
• 2 years
• 5 years
• 7 years
• 10 years

Question 14

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the approach for any changes to validity periods to only apply to new EPCs?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Requiring a valid EPC throughout the tenancy period

Currently in both the private and social rental sectors when an EPC expires, a new EPC is only required when a property is re-let and not when the same tenant renews or extends their lease. The government is committed to upgrading five million homes by the end of this parliament. Additionally, it has committed to reducing fuel poverty by ensuring as many fuel poor homes in England as reasonably practical achieve a minimum EER of band C by the end of 2030. While the average tenancy length in the Private Rented Sector (PRS) is currently below the validity period of an EPC (4.3 years), the average tenancy length in the Social Rented Sector (SRS) is longer (12.2 years), and in both tenures there will be many longer-term tenants living in properties without a valid EPC. In addition, even if a tenant is in a property for less than the average period, the EPC for that property could still expire while they were living there. The presence of a valid EPC throughout a tenancy, rather than solely at point of marketing, would ensure landlords and tenants are equipped with accurate and up-to-date information. This could also help improve compliance with government policies and commitments such as MEES and ensure that properties remain attractive to existing and potential tenants.

As the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations (2015) only applies to private sector properties which are required, or are part of a building which is required, to have a valid EPC, these types of properties (where the EPC has expired, and the same tenant remains in situ) are not covered by the PRS Regulations. Requiring a new EPC for rented buildings when the existing one expires would therefore ensure most new lease renewals are captured within the scope of the PRS Regulations.

We are proposing to introduce for private rental properties a new trigger point where an EPC is required for when the current one expires.

This measure would also support energy performance improvements in PRS buildings that are subject to MEES. It would be similar to other requirements on landlords throughout tenancies, such as valid building insurance or gas safety certificates, and can be managed through letting agents where appropriate. Close working between MEES enforcement bodies and EPC enforcement bodies can assist with managing overall compliance rates.

Question 15

To what extent do you agree or disagree that a new EPC should be required when an existing one expires for private rented buildings?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Marketing a building for sale or rent

Current regulations require an EPC to be commissioned prior to a building being marketed for sale or rent but allow a maximum of 28 days following the marketing for the certificate to be produced. These regulations were established around a concern that the inability to obtain an EPC should not hinder the property market. However, the EPC market has matured and has proven able to consistently provide EPCs when required by the property market.

We propose an amendment to the regulations to state that a building should not be marketed for sale or let without an EPC. This will ensure that buyers and renters have information available to them at the point of making a purchasing decision whilst making the requirements clearer and easier to enforce.

Question 16

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the regulations should be amended so that a property must have a valid EPC before it is marketed for sale or rent?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Houses in multiple occupation

We are proposing to extend the scope of EPCs so that a valid one is required for an entire house in multiple occupation (HMO) when a single room within it is rented out, as currently the guidance states that an EPC is not required in this instance, only when the whole house is rented out.

The PRS MEES Regulations apply to most domestic rental properties which are required to have an EPC. Mandating EPCs for HMOs when a single room is rented out will ensure that HMOs will need to comply with the requirements set out in the MEES Regulations if they did not have a valid EPC before this point. This would provide consistency across the private rented sector. As a result, we are proposing a 24-month transitional period for any HMO landlords newly brought into the scope of the regulations to obtain a valid EPC. This would also ensure reasonable time to comply with MEES requirements if these were applicable

If a requirement to have an EPC throughout the tenancy period is introduced, for HMOs where there are often multiple separate tenancies running concurrently for a single property, this change will require an EPC to be in place at the point of marketing for the first letting, up to and including the date the final letting comes to an end.

A valid EPC for an HMO when a room is rented out would ensure that a prospective HMO tenant could make informed decisions based on the energy performance of the building and an indication of potential energy costs. Introducing MEES compliance would also result in lower fuel bills and increased comfort for the tenants within the HMO. As HMOs are disproportionately occupied by vulnerable people, we anticipate that these measures will help ensure that tenants are living in thermally comfortable properties, with reduced costs during a time of high fuel poverty. Current exemptions for MEES, such as the cost cap, would be maintained in order to ensure costs for landlords were viable.

Question 17

To what extent do you agree or disagree that houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) which don’t already fall under the (Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards) MEES should do so when a room is rented out?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 18

To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should be a transitional period of 24 months to allow HMO landlords to obtain a valid EPC and comply with MEES regulations?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Short-term rental properties

At present the rules for when short-term rental properties require an EPC are set out in the guidance under the rules for holiday lets and there are no specific requirements set out in the EPB regulations themselves. The current guidance states that an EPC is only required for properties rented out as a furnished holiday let, as defined by HMRC, where the building is occupied for the purposes of a holiday as a result of a short term letting arrangement of less than 31 days to each tenant, and is rented out for a combined total of four months or more in any 12 month period, and if the occupier is responsible for meeting the energy costs for the property.

We are proposing updating the regulations to provide a specific requirement for short-term rental properties to have a valid EPC at the point of being let. MHCLG is working with DCMS to ensure that the definition of short-term rental property within the regulations aligns with DCMS’s definition of a short-term rental property. This is set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, (and will be further defined in the context of the registration scheme to be implemented by DCMS for specified short-term rental properties).

We are proposing that this requirement for short-term rental properties to have a valid EPC will be irrespective of whether the occupier is responsible for meeting the energy costs.

Question 19

To what extent do you agree or disagree with requiring short-term rental properties to have a valid EPC at the point of being let?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 20

To what extent do you agree or disagree with requiring short-term rental properties to have a valid EPC irrespective of who is responsible for meeting the energy costs?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Heritage buildings

Under Regulation 5(1)(a) of the EPB Regulations, buildings officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their special architectural or historical merit are not required to have an EPC in so far as compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance. In practical terms, as minimum energy performance requirements are only in place for the rental sector, this has only applied to heritage rental properties, and only those where a recommendation on an EPC would unacceptably alter the character of the building if installed. In order for landlords of heritage buildings to know if they are within the scope of the regulations they still require some level of energy assessment of their property to know what recommendations would be included on an EPC.

We are proposing that all heritage buildings are required to have an EPC. The act of obtaining an EPC does not have any effect on the building materially, and even if obtaining an EPC were to bring a heritage building into scope of MEES, there are relevant exemptions if consent by the relevant authorities cannot be obtained, or if any of the recommendations on the EPC that need to be made, devalue the property by more than 5%. We would plan for this to be further balanced by ensuring EPC recommendations are tailored appropriately to consider the nature of the buildings.

EPC requirements would help ensure that owners of heritage buildings are provided with appropriate energy performance recommendations for consideration, as well as providing beneficial information to prospective buyers and tenants. Heritage buildings often have poor energy performance and can be subject to carefully considered and appropriate energy performance improvements without causing detriment to their appearance or fabric. Improved energy performance in this area would contribute significantly to achieving net zero targets, as would installing low carbon heating measures where appropriate. The government recently undertook a review of the barriers to energy efficiency and low carbon measures in historic homes and has committed to consult on changes to planning policy to support energy efficiency measures in historic buildings, and also to consult on whether use of Listed Building Consent Orders could be used to support improvements. 

The government recognises that some of the generic EPC recommendations are not appropriate for heritage buildings. Historic England considered that filtering out unsuitable recommendations for heritage buildings would be essential to make this work. Where there are MEES, we will work to find measures to ensure owners of heritage buildings are not mandated to install unsuitable measures, and that there is clear guidance for owners, including how to claim a suitable exemption from complying with MEES where appropriate.

For recommendations to be tailored for heritage buildings, they may need to be omitted, re-ordered, alternatively worded to highlight caveats or risks, or substituted with alternatives. We will consider making changes to the EPC calculation methodologies to enable tailoring of recommendations for traditional buildings, those in conservation areas and other heritage buildings.

We are proposing to use an industry group to understand the issue and define the changes that are required so that we can improve the recommendations to heritage buildings. We would seek to make sure that EPC recommendations are tailored appropriately to take account of the historic nature and architectural features of the buildings, and existing exemptions under Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards would remain.

Question 21

To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should remove the exemption for landlords from obtaining an EPC for buildings officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their architectural or historical merit?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Display Energy Certificates (DECs)

Public authority buildings which are frequently visited by the public and have a total floor area of over 250m² are required to have a DEC and DEC recommendation report. If the useful floor area is 1,000m² or less, the DEC and recommendation report are valid for 10 years, and if it is greater than 1,000m², the DEC is valid for one year, with the recommendation report valid for 7 years.

We are interested in understanding how the introduction of DECs has raised public awareness of energy usage in public buildings and how effective and useful the certificate and recommendations are in driving energy performance improvements.

We are interested to hear if other approaches may be more effective in driving energy performance improvements in buildings that currently require a DEC.

Question 22

How useful do you find Display Energy Certificates (DECs) for understanding and improving a building’s energy performance?

• Not at all useful
• Somewhat not useful
• Neither not useful or useful
• Somewhat useful
• Very useful

Question 23

Are there any limitations or challenges with the current DEC approach that reduce its effectiveness?

Please provide evidence where possible.

Question 24

What alternative approaches, if any, could drive energy performance improvements more effectively than DECs for public sector buildings?

Please provide evidence where possible.

Reducing the validity periods for DECs

We are proposing to reduce the validity periods of DECs and DEC recommendation reports for buildings between 250-1,000m², and DEC recommendation reports for buildings over 1,000m². We are seeking views on what may be considered an appropriate validity period for DECs and DEC recommendation reports. We are considering reducing the validity period of DECs and DEC recommendation reports from 10 years to 7 years for buildings between 250-1,000m², and the validity period of DEC recommendation reports from 7 years to 5 years for buildings over 1,000m².

Question 25

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the validity periods for DECs and DEC recommendation reports?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 26

What would be an appropriate validity period in years for these DEC and DEC recommendation reports? Please select a validity period for each option.

DEC 1000m² and under

• 1 year
• 2 years
• 3 years
• 4 years
• 5 years
• 6 years
• 7 years
• More than 7 years
• Don’t know

DEC recommendation report 1000m² and under

• 1 year
• 2 years
• 3 years
• 4 years
• 5 years
• 6 years
• 7 years
• More than 7 years
• Don’t know

DEC recommendation report over 1000m²

• 1 year
• 2 years
• 3 years
• 4 years
• 5 years
• 6 years
• 7 years
• More than 7 years
• Don’t know

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

4. EPC and DEC data

The data underlying EPC, DEC and ACIR certificates is collected by energy assessors during the assessment process and lodged on to the EPB Register, where it is kept for a minimum of 20 years.

This data is a growing resource which could be valuable in informing net zero targets for buildings. However, the nature of current data collection rules and processes results in out-of-date information on the Register and hinders its potential to inform and encourage carbon reduction activity in buildings.

Cancelled or not for issue certificates

The Regulations state that ‘any data entered on the EPB Register must be kept on the Register for a period of at least 20 years beginning on which it is entered on to the Register’ (Reg 27(5)). This includes over 350,000 certificates currently stored in the Register with the status cancelled or not for issue.

Retaining these certificates for a 20-year minimum contradicts current Technology Code of Practice (TCoP) guidance that programmes should only keep data for as long as necessary. The guidance states that processes should be put in place to decide when it is right to retire, archive or securely delete data which is no longer needed.

We are proposing removing certificates marked as cancelled or not for issue from the EPB Register after two years. This would bring the Register into compliance with the TCoP and would also reduce the monetary and carbon cost of running the service. Schemes hold separate XML records which allow them to run audits without accessing this data, so they would be unaffected.

Question 27

There is a proposal to provide an exception in the regulations for certificates that have been marked as cancelled or not for issue to be removed from the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPB) Register after 2 years.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Removing opt-out from the EPB regulations

Currently the EPB regulations allow a building owner to opt-out their EPC from public access through the public address search on the EPB Register website. The opt-out means their EPC data would not be available as address level open data through the Open Data Communities website. However, it would still be included in anonymised statistical releases. The current regulations mean that an owner or occupier can opt-out a certificate from public display on the Register and opt-in again. Thus, they are also opting out/in from the open data releases.

Opted-out addresses are excluded from the address search function on the Register, but the EPCs can be located via Report Reference Numbers (a unique number provided on each certificate lodged on the EPB Register). This functionality was included in the Register despite there being no evidence that Report Reference Numbers are used to access opted-out EPCs. However, offering any means to access the certificate via the Register search is at odds with the concept of opting out.

The opt-out hinders prospective buyers and tenants without access to the Report Reference Number seeking information about the energy performance of a property. This can prevent new homeowners accessing government schemes that require an EPC. It is also reasonable for tenants to expect to have access to relevant certification about the building they rent via a public register.

We consider that energy certificates should be available to all prospective buyers, tenants and enforcement bodies through the public address search function on the EPB Register. We therefore propose that the option to opt-out certificates from the Register should be removed to ensure access.

EPC address-level data is also made available to download in bulk via the Open Data Communities service. Building owners and occupiers should remain able to opt-out the EPC data for their building from the Open Data Communities address-level bulk data releases. The data on opted-out buildings would only be available on the Open Data Communities website in an anonymised aggregated form as part of EPC statistical releases for completeness of the EPC data set.

Exclusion from the open data release does not exclude a certificate or the data therein from being used for government statistical releases, data sharing with other government departments (for example, to run energy efficiency schemes) or enforcement purposes.

Question 28

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the approach to remove the option to opt-out EPCs from the EPB Register public address search?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 29

To what extent do you agree or disagree with retaining the option to opt-out EPC address level content from the Open Data?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Data sharing

The EPB Register holds data on over 27 million energy assessments. This dataset is unique in government in providing data on the energy performance of the building stock in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It is an invaluable resource to guide and inform energy performance policy.

There is a broad appetite for Register data. The data is currently used in support of a number of government policies, as well as for enforcement of the EPC regime and of PRS MEES. However, the current regulations could be clearer about the permitted use of this data to support these endeavours.

The data is publicly available via the Open Data Communities service, although this data is limited in scope and only updated monthly. The format is not suitable for running services or for in-depth research, where direct access to Register data is preferable. A greater extent and availability of open data would encourage further research into energy performance and could be used to drive uptake of energy performance measures.

The EPB Regulations have a general prohibition on the sharing of Register data. There are various specific exceptions to that general rule. Removing these prohibitions would allow the Register dataset to have wider utilisation, in support of a broader range of policies and initiatives.

We are proposing that the regulations should not include ‘permitted uses for data sharing’ but should instead state that the data can be shared for use at the discretion of the keeper of the Register, currently the Secretary of State, in compliance with data protection requirements.

Question 30

There is a proposal to remove the general prohibition on sharing data gathered under the EPB Regulations and replace it with a Secretary of State discretion about when, how and with whom to share the data.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Using existing data in EPC assessments

Newer buildings (constructed after April 6, 2008, in England and Wales) typically have detailed information, obtained from designs and specifications, used to assess compliance with current building regulations and produce their EPCs. However, for older buildings lacking this in-depth information, their EPCs are produced using information collected through non-invasive surveys, limited documentary evidence and assumptions based on the property’s age.

Regardless of a building’s age, upgrades significantly impacting energy efficiency and resulting in an improved EPC rating currently requires a complete reassessment of the property. This reassessment includes gathering data on elements that may have undergone no material change since a previous assessment. However, in reality, EPCs could use existing data collected during previous assessments.

Leveraging validated pre-existing data can be practical for minor upgrades. For instance, when focusing on single fabric improvements (like loft insulation or smart thermostats), using accurate data from previous assessments may decrease costs and administrative burdens and improve efficiency.

However, for such a system to be viable the reliability of previous data is crucial. Over time, minor changes accumulate in buildings, and building fabric can deteriorate. If an assessor cannot validate this, it may lead to erroneous calculations. However, these incremental changes can also enhance energy efficiency; occupiers might not realise that several small improvements could significantly raise their EPC ratings, potentially resulting in a lower rating than an assessor would expect.

In practice, balancing practicality with accuracy is essential. A blended approach to this could involve allowing older information for minor upgrades while emphasizing regular re-assessments for significant changes.

Question 31

To what extent do you agree or disagree that data gathered in previous EPC assessments should be available for use in future EPC calculations for a dwelling?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 32

What are your views on the approach to using existing data, while balancing accuracy and practicality?

5. Managing EPC quality

Context

The government acknowledges that there is scope to increase stakeholders’ trust in the accuracy and reliability of EPCs and thereby increase trust and implementation of the associated recommendations.

Improving trust in the accuracy of assessments and subsequent recommendations would increase the effectiveness of the EPC as a tool to reduce carbon emissions. Inconsistencies with assessments could result in inaccurate ratings and inappropriate recommendations. As such, there is ongoing work to manage EPC quality which includes the introduction of the replacement of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) methodology used to calculate EPC ratings, with the Home Energy Model (HEM). We also work with Accreditation Schemes (Schemes) to tackle poor performance of energy assessors, including strengthening training, CPD, testing energy assessor skills requirements and reviewing the sanctions for poor assessment practice.

We are cognisant that there are further measures which could be implemented to improve the regime. This section of the consultation seeks views on proposals to manage the quality of EPCs to increase trustworthiness, reliability and accuracy.

Energy assessor training, standards and accreditation

60% of the Call for Evidence respondents thought that variation in EPC ratings was due to assessors incorrectly inputting data. Of these, 37% attributed this to insufficient levels of assessor expertise. If this is the case, any limitations present in assessor skills or competence may be because of insufficient or inadequate training.

The Schemes consider that some non-Scheme training centres may not always offer the standard of training needed to provide energy assessors with the required skills, and that the quality of training provided may vary. The quality of energy assessments undertaken becomes the responsibility of Schemes once assessors are registered as members, which becomes a burden on Schemes if the assessors are not adequately trained.

We propose giving Schemes more control to oversee training, or possibly sole responsibility to provide training, to address concerns about the quality of some non-Scheme training. The quality of the qualifications is currently the responsibility of the Awarding Body of the Built Environment (ABBE) and City & Guilds, though they are not responsible of the quality of actual training provided to energy assessors.

We will work with Schemes to identify the most common assessment errors to target in training, guidance and the development of future Conventions. This will include introducing specific requirements for CPD for assessors as it is recognised that training courses do not provide all skills necessary for a competent energy assessor. CPD needs more rigour both in content and evidence, and it should also test understanding and competence.

We propose to identify areas where additional training would be of use, and to assess the value of providing energy assessors optional training for specialisms such as the energy assessment of heritage buildings. More highly trained energy assessors might, for example, be better able to spot where EPC outputs and recommendations are inappropriate for certain buildings. We will consider what additional training should be provided to energy assessors in addition to the options already available to them to remove inappropriate recommendations.

By improving initial training and CPD, we can ensure that the data collected and entered onto the EPB Register is accurate. We will continue to work with Schemes to help ensure that EPC assessment errors are reduced to improve the accuracy of this data.

Assessor fraud

Other possible reasons for inaccurate EPC assessments include potential fraud and gaming. EPC ratings are increasingly utilised as regulatory benchmarks for government policies, for example to meet MEES requirements or to access incentives and funding. There is therefore a financial value attached to EPC ratings and an incentive for fraud.

As more government policies use EPCs to set incentives and penalties, there are greater motivations to have specific EPC ratings. Accordingly, the risk of fraud associated with the EPC regime increases and correct safeguarding measures are essential. MHCLG is responsible for the overall policy and framework for preventing fraud, and Schemes are responsible for having specific policies and systems in place to identify and deal with cases of fraud.

Schemes are responsible for managing the lodgements of their members and are required to have quality assurance procedures in place to check EPC quality, including having corrective actions in place where required standards are not met. Schemes are required to take appropriate action consistent with their Fraud Identification Plan in the event of suspected fraud. This includes informing the appropriate authorities, for example local trading standards bodies or the police, if criminal activity is suspected.

Schemes are required to audit a minimum of 2% of lodgements every 12 months to check quality. MHCLG worked with the Schemes to introduce smart auditing, a ‘risk based’ audit approach that targets particular assessments using specific pre-defined data criteria that, when present in an assessment, may indicate an error.

Question 33

To what extent do you agree or disagree that Accreditation Schemes should be given more responsibility for overseeing the training of energy assessors?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 34

Do you have suggestions for other actions which could be taken to improve the accuracy and quality of energy assessments, or to help identify fraud in EPC assessments?

Improved EPC compliance and enforcement

Context: compliance

Responses to the Call for Evidence raised concerns about the levels of compliance with EPB Regulation requirements.

Low compliance may be driven by the requirements being viewed as a ‘tick box’ exercise, rather than as something designed to aid building owners. This may be driven by limited awareness of the requirements, particularly EPCs for non-domestic properties and ACIRs. Conversely, non-compliance may be deliberate, with insufficient penalties resulting from enforcement not deterring non-compliance.

There is limited evidence on levels of compliance with energy certificates. The government response to the Call for Evidence used 2013 data which suggested a 95% compliance rate for owner occupiers. Estimates from the EPB Regulations implementation report show a compliance rate of 53% for non-domestic lettings and a compliance rate for DECs of 83%. A 2019 report into the enforcement of the requirements in the PRS estimated that 47% of PRS properties had an EPC.

Levels of compliance in the PRS may be driven up by the introduction of MEES requirements. Current compliance estimates for MEES based on EHS data are that 94% of the PRS are now Band E or higher. However, this compliance estimate is based on data from EPCs lodged and is therefore dependent on the existing presence of an EPC.

Proposals to improve compliance

Given the likely differing levels of compliance between sectors, a differentiated and targeted approach by sector will be necessary to improving compliance. The actions we propose to achieve this follow below.

We will work with Local Weights and Measures Authorities (LWMAs) and other stakeholders to review and improve the current guidance to help relevant persons, persons acting on their behalf and enforcement authorities to fulfil their responsibilities. The guidance will be updated to reflect any changes made to the scope and application of the Regulations following this consultation and links to other requirements, such as MEES.

We will improve LWMAs’ access to EPB data to aid their enforcement activities. Chapter Four sets out plans to improve access to EPC data, including by enforcement authorities.

We will work with estate and letting agents to promote the need for EPCs and highlight their benefit in identifying opportunities to improve energy performance, thereby reducing cost, saving carbon and enhancing comfort. Despite not having formal enforcement responsibilities, estate and letting agents can contribute to improving compliance: Regulation 7(3) requires that a person acting as an agent for a responsible person must be satisfied that an EPC has been commissioned for the building. Many estate agents offer the obtaining of an EPC as a matter of course. We anticipate the proposal to require an EPC before marketing a property (chapter 2) will similarly improve compliance.

Question 35

To what extent do you agree or disagree with these proposals to improve compliance?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning or other ways to improve compliance and provide any evidence to support your view.

Context: enforcement

80% of the Call for Evidence respondents believed that enforcement of the requirement to have an EPC was ‘minimal or non-existent’, with a lack of resource or commitment in LWMAs identified as a problem. Lack of enforcement was also raised by the CCC in their 2018 and 2019 reports.

The EPB Regulations place responsibility for enforcing EPC, DEC and ACIR requirements in LWMAs which are unitary authorities, or upper tier authorities in two tier areas. LWMAs are part of Trading Standards. The term LWMA is used here but should be read as meaning Trading Standards Bodies.

Arrangements for enforcement of the EPB Regulations sit alongside those in place for the MEES Regulations. These regulations are enforced by local authorities (LAs) (unitary authorities or district councils in two tier areas) for domestic properties and LWMAs for non-domestic properties. Enforcement responsibility for domestic properties is discharged through the LA housing and/or environmental function.

The specific enforceable duties relate to the provision by the relevant responsible person of an EPC, DEC or ACIR. Questions about the accuracy and reliability of these documents are not usually matters for formal enforcement but are addressed through the Schemes’ quality assurance processes, required as part of the SORs.

LWMAs are required to record all enforcement action taken. Details of these records should be submitted to MHCLG annually. However, the responses we receive are limited. For 2019-2020 annual enforcement returns, the majority of respondents had made no, or very limited, inspections or carried out any other enforcement activities.

Enforcement activity may be low because it is not prioritised. Resources originally allocated to LWMAs for EPC enforcement were not ringfenced and, as LWMAs determine their own local priorities, EPC enforcement is likely to be lower priority than consumer safety issues. Low enforcement activity may also be due to difficulties in effectively monitoring compliance. EPC lodgements may not be directly comparable to other publicly available transaction data, and disparities in average occupancy periods for different tenancies increases the complexity of collecting data on compliance.

DESNZ (as BEIS) previously funded a group of LAs to develop an enforcement toolkit which sets out best practice, templates and training materials. BEIS also funded a study of pilot MEES enforcement projects which identified issues about enforcement authorities’ ability to access EPC data. It reported the view that MEES and EPC enforcement should be conducted by the same team in LAs to enable an integrated enforcement process and a more straightforward customer experience for landlords.

Penalties

LWMAs can issue a penalty charge notice where they consider there has been a breach of the regulations. The government has been considering the penalties for breaches of the Regulations’ requirements. Current penalties are a fine of £200 for a breach of requirements relating to domestic EPCs; 12.5% of the rateable value of a non-domestic building (with a minimum penalty charge of £500 and a maximum of £5,000) for non-domestic EPCs; £1,000 for DECs and £300 for ACIRs. There are processes for penalty notices to be reviewed and, if the notice is upheld, appealed to the county court.

The penalties have not changed since the Regulations were introduced in 2007 and the government is concerned that they are insufficient to provide an effective deterrent to non-compliance. At the least, the government considers that they need to be increased to take account of inflation.

We do not propose to change the percentage of rateable value as the basis for penalty changes for non-domestic EPCs, but the minimum and maximum levels could be adjusted as suggested in the following table:

Requirement	Penalties:  Current	Inflation adjusted (based on Bank of England Inflation Calculator, April 2024)	Double
Domestic EPC	£200	£325	£400
Non-Domestic EPC (minimum)	£500	£815	£1,000
Non-Domestic EPC (maximum)	£5,000	£8,150	£10,000
DEC	£1,000	£1,630	£2,000

Question 36

To what extent do you agree or disagree that penalties should be increased?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Question 37

If penalties were to increase, how much should current penalties increase by?

• Don’t know
• No increase
• Inflation adjusted increase
• Doubling
• Other

If you wish, please explain your reasoning or other ways to improve compliance and provide any evidence to support your view.

The government is considering clarifying the timescale for fines to be imposed – Regulation 36(2) states ‘A penalty charge notice may not be given after the end of the period of six months beginning with the day (or in the case of a continuing breach the last day) on which the breach of duty was committed’.

We are considering increasing this six-month timescale according to precedence set by other government policies. For example, the timescale within which compliance notices can be issued for breaches of building regulations has been set by the Building Safety Act 2022 as 12 months. Penalty notices under MEES regulations can be issued up to 18 months after the breach.

Question 38

When should penalties be imposed for non-compliance with Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (EPBR) requirements?

• Don’t know
• At 6 months (no increase)
• At 12 months
• At 18 months
• Following more than 18 months

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Enforcement authority responsibilities

The government is considering whether the current allocation of enforcement responsibility to LWMAs is appropriate or fit for purpose. While LWMAs are an obvious choice given the role of Trading Standards Bodies in regulating estate and letting agents, the wide range of Trading Standards Bodies’ consumer protection responsibilities has perhaps impacted on the priority afforded to enforcement of the EPB Regulations.

Given the close dependency between EPC and MEES requirements, the fact that enforcement falls to different authorities in two tier areas (the top tier authority for EPC requirements and the lower tier for MEES, linked to their wider housing responsibilities) can make it difficult to coordinate activity. The same split of responsibility between related requirements occurs for new build where responsibility for the construction EPC rests with the LWMA but responsibility for building regulations sign off rests elsewhere with the lower tier authority or can be carried out by a private sector Registered Building Control Approver.

The government is not inclined at this point to suggest changing formal enforcement responsibilities. However, the government will work with LAs on how to ensure more effective enforcement where different responsibilities may cut across each other. This could include:

• the use of powers in Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for LAs to delegate performance of their functions to other LAs
• working with National Trading Standards to provide support to other LWMAs on enforcement issues
• encouraging the sector to see if there are opportunities for more joint working or sharing of services which might help make enforcement activity more efficient and effective

Notwithstanding the government’s view that there is currently no case for change, we would be interested in views on the allocation of enforcement responsibilities under the Regulations, and any evidence which might support a case for change.

Question 39

What are your views on changing the current allocation of responsibilities for enforcing Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (EPBR)?

6. Air conditioning inspection reports

Context

Air conditioning inspection reports (ACIRs) are mandatory inspections, carried out by accredited air conditioning energy assessors at regular intervals not exceeding five years, for all air conditioning systems with an effective rated output of more than 12kW, including those which control ventilation, humidity and air cleanliness. ACIRs provide building owners or managers with information regarding the operational efficiency of the air conditioning systems that they control. They provide recommendations to improve performance, thereby saving energy and reducing operating costs.

Respondents to the May 2020 Consultation indicated that, where a mandatory inspection was undertaken, typically energy savings of 30-40% could be achieved if the whole package of recommendations were implemented. Implementing just the lowest cost recommendations, such as changing the setting schedule of the system, on their own could achieve energy savings of 10-20%.

This chapter sets out proposals to improve compliance with the ACIR regime and improve the format of ACIRs.

Issues with low compliance

Compliance with the ACIR requirements is believed to be very low. The benefits of the ACIR regime, including carbon reduction, are therefore not being fully realised.

The government’s Response to the May 2020 Consultation committed to amending the existing regulations to ensure that, where appropriate, the performance of air conditioning systems would be optimised under typical operating conditions. This included potentially undertaking further policy development to maximise the energy performance gains from the inspection regime to contribute to net zero by 2050.

Compliance needs to improve significantly to encourage improvements to the energy performance of air conditioning systems. We are proposing to increase the penalty charges to encourage compliance with the regime. Increasing these charges may also encourage enforcement officers to focus more resources on enforcing air conditioning inspections as the current penalty charges may not cover enforcement cost.

The May 2020 Consultation respondents believed the current enforcement regime for ACIRs is insufficient. As with other energy certificates, ACIR civil penalty charges for non-compliance are operated by LWMAs through Trading Standards Officers (TSOs).

Currently the penalties are £300 for failure to ensure a system has been inspected at regular intervals not exceeding five years and £200 for failure to produce a valid ACIR within seven days of it being requested by a TSO. As the average cost of an ACIR is higher than these charges at present, these penalties may not sufficiently encourage compliance by system operators. The May 2020 Consultation responses provided a mid-range estimate of £300 to inspect an air conditioning system between 12kW and 70kW and £600 to inspect a system above 70kW.

We propose increasing the penalty charge for non-compliance with the requirement to have an ACIR for systems over 12kW to £800. This is based on a weighted average where 70% of inspections were below 70kW, costing £300, and 30% were above 70kW, costing £600. This gave an approximate average assessment cost of £400 which doubled gives a proposed penalty charge of £800, which we believe to be a level that would encourage compliance.

We intend to maintain the £200 penalty charge for failure to produce a valid ACIR within seven days of it being requested by a TSO.

Question 40

There is a proposal for a new penalty charge fine amount of £800 for non-compliance with the requirement to have an ACIR for systems with an effective rated output over 12kW.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

If you wish, please explain your reasoning and provide any evidence to support your view.

Redesigning ACIRs

ACIRs can be overly long, complex and occasionally repetitive, meaning system operators may not fully engage with the findings or recommendations within the report. Simplifying the ACIR may encourage system operators to take more action to improve the energy performance of their system, thereby saving cost and carbon.

In an ACIR, the assessor will highlight how the operation of existing systems can be improved, and will identify opportunities to replace older, worse performing systems with new energy efficient systems. The scope of an ACIR includes refrigeration, air moving systems, controls, documentation, maintenance and advice on improvement options.

We propose that a redesigned ACIR would include the following information:

• the likely efficiency of the system and any suggestions for improvement of any faults identified during the inspection and suggested actions
• the adequacy of equipment maintenance and any suggestions for improvement
• the adequacy of the installed controls and control settings and any suggestions for improvement
• the current size of the installed system in relation to the cooling load and any suggestions for improvement
• consideration of the capabilities of the system to optimise its performance under typical operating conditions
• a summary of the findings and key recommendations

We propose improving ACIRs by agreeing a more relevant and fit for purpose structure. We would like to work with industry to improve the format and identify the most useful information to be included with the view of encouraging system operators to take more action to improve the energy performance of their systems.

We would like to emphasise the benefits of improving the performance of these systems. Using existing data, we could create and add a cost metric to the ACIR. This could provide assessment of the likely overall cost of improvements to the system by demonstrating the potential savings of specific recommendations. This may increase the relevance of the ACIR to system operators and encourage increased engagement with recommendations. However, we appreciate it would be complex to implement a cost calculation metric that is accurate for disparate systems whilst not creating additional requirements on air conditioning energy assessors.

We anticipate producing estimates of cost savings by combining the recommendations with data on the total rated output of the air conditioning system and electricity prices. Data on the system output could be provided from the current building owner or manager, estimates made for the production of commercial EPCs or using benchmarks for similar buildings. Data on fuel prices could either form an input into the ACIR (allowing current prices to be input directly) or using standardised prices as in domestic RdSAP assessments.

Question 41

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to redesign the structure of ACIRs?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 42

What should be included in a redesigned report?

Question 43

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add a cost metric in the assessment methodology for ACIRs?

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Agree
• Strongly agree

Question 44

If you agree to including a cost metric, what would be the most suitable data on air conditioning system output to use in the calculation and how could it be obtained? Please comment both on data quality, suitability and likely availability.

Question 45

If you agree to including a cost metric, what would be the most suitable data on electricity prices to use in the calculation? Please comment both on data quality, suitability and likely availability.

7. Additional questions

In addition to the topics discussed above, we are also interested in views on the following questions.

Question 46

Please let us know if you have any evidence on the rate of voluntary implementation of recommendations made in EPCs.

Question 47

Please let us know if you have any comments on the regulatory or equalities impact assessments presented alongside this consultation, in particular, are there any impacts on groups with protected characteristics that we have not identified in the equalities impact assessment?

Question 48

Please let us know if you have any comments on the impact assessment in general, including any evidence you have on the impact of these proposed reforms.

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your name, email address, occupation, business address and telephone number. We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics 
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life; or
• sexual orientation.

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller. Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG will share your personal data with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) as this is a joint consultation between MHCLG and DESNZ and therefore DESNZ as well as MHCLG will require access to the consultation responses. 

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or

Knowledge and Information Access Team
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.