Who Has The Energy To Reform EPCs?...

There is much debate about energy efficiency right now and about expected changes to minimum EPCs for private rental properties and ultimately the wider housing stock.

But isn’t this the ideal opportunity not to talk about tinkering with EPC targets - but look at whether EPCs are fit for purpose at all?

And asking whether they need reform? Or if they are even capable of being reformed? Or should they really be replaced?

The pro-EPC lobby is a conservative one that in my experience does not take kindly to proposals for change.

But the case for reform, at the very least, seems strong.

It’s over six months now since the Sunday Times revealed genuinely shocking research showing that Energy Performance Certificates were inaccurate at best, useless at worst, and easily rigged.

Sophisticated and highly detailed research by a firm called CarbonLaces found that EPCs overestimated energy use by up to 344 per cent.

CarbonLaces compared the EPCs of more than 17,000 homes with their actual use, as logged by smart meters every half hour for at least 300 days, to calculate energy bills.

The Sunday Times reported: “The average metered gas and electricity use for all the properties studied was 125kWh per square metre a year — 91 per cent lower than what their EPCs claim (239kWh/m2/yr).

“The lower the EPC rating, the bigger the overestimation. For properties with the worst rating of G, EPCs estimate they use 656kWh/m2/yr. Yet their smart meters show they use only 151kWh/m2/yr — a 344 per cent gap.”

CarbonLaces also found that EPCs overestimated not only energy use but also carbon emissions, by between 20 per cent (for EPCs rated C) and 308 per cent (for EPCs rated G).

And having gone on to reveal the tricks that developers and contractors use to get a good EPC rating, the Sunday Times quoted one expert who analysed new build EPCs .

He said: “All they do is make the plaster wall box airtight, while the building itself is very leaky. Give me a garden shed and enough mastic, foam and plaster board and I can make it airtight . . . It’s nothing to do with making sure that they’re energy efficient. It’s to do with ticking a box.”

One newspaper investigation is not conclusive proof that the whole EPC system is of limited use but there was almost no industry refutation of the article: the silence was deafening, and pointed to an acceptance of the problem.

And many peoples’ experiences of EPCs being conducted in their own homes (certainly in my case) may add weight to the growing scepticism that surrounds the certificates.

Finding a suitable replacement is easier said than done, of course.

I am certainly not qualified to suggest an alternative but I was struck some years ago when experts suggested measuring the thermal losses of a building in operation, both at the time of construction (if possible) and the time of sale.

More recently RICS called for major refinements to the way EPCs were calculated and used to inform consumers.

This included emphasising a property’s final energy use; carbon emissions; and energy cost. These three metrics were selected to dovetail with the objectives of the government - at least until recent U turns.

Other players (some, perhaps, with vested commercial interests) say any reform of an EPC must involve more frequent assessments, too. Once every 10 years seems too long given today’s accelerating technology.

There will, no doubt, be a debate in our industry and in the wider world on this issue given the growing passions surrounding energy efficiency.

Let’s hope the debate is not hijacked by short term expediency.

We’ve surely had enough of politicians and outspoken pressure groups wanting to be seen to be ‘doing something’ and so demanding stricter EPC targets without stopping to see if these certificates were actually fit for purpose.

Instead, let’s take the time to work out what EPCs are for and how they can best achieve those objectives.

This will take time, which won’t fit in with the schedules for the political party autumn conferences nor for the next Generation Rent press release.

Does anyone have the energy to take on such a comprehensive and thoughtful review? Let’s hope so.