https://www.edie.net/news/11/Heat-and-Buildings-Strategy---450m-grant-scheme-launched-to-help-homes-switch-gas-boilers-for-heat-pumps/

Just another big budget scheme done to make it look like the government is doing something but in the end very few will take it up and many of those who do will face poor advice and shoddy installation work. In the end it will be quietly dropped. Better the drive was towards better insulation.

The EU has just announced a similar grant for heat pumps except that it is up to 25k and with the heat pump you have to install 5 kWp PV and battery storage as well and have windows and roof insulation to current standards (but windows and roof can be included in the grant).
There is also a smaller grant for PV only.

Is Brexit trying to keep up the EU or the EU trying to keep pace with Brexit. I don't believe each came up with the same idea independently and at the same time.

And of course the usual amount of small print gotchas on the back page of the grant.

The pot announced today is apparently going to be £3.9bn of which 'only' £0.45bn is for heat pumps, much of the remaining £3.4bn will be for insulation (which hasn't grabbed the headlines). Target is EPC band C by 2035 for "as many homes as possible". (In England I think).

The govt recently tried dishing out £10k grants for insulation under the Green Home Grant scheme, was a bit of a disaster. But those £10k grants are still available through local councils, means tested.

It's not either/or AIUI - a super insulated home running on LPG won't meet net zero, and an uninsulated home would be expensive to heat with a heatpump. So they need to push both insulation and heatpumps. Sounds like replacement gas/LPG boilers will be stopped from 2035 but bit vague.

Notably they are not pushing hydrogen in this strategy, putting any decisions off til 2026.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plan-to-drive-down-the-cost-of-clean-heat

I am hoping that common sense will prevail at some point. It seems perverse that I produce less CO2 in a year than one return flight to Europe by those in poorly insulated homes who prefer to spend their money on foreign holidays than insulate their houses. We should all have a carbon allowance target to meet and choose what is best for the individual.

Snippet from the Scottish version:

The number of homes at EPC 'C' or above has increased from 18% in 2010 to 45% in 2019. That's better progress than I expected, and encouraging if it continues.

However only 15% of non-domestic buildings were EPC C in 2019, much worse.

Posted By: philedgeA climate levy on every building proportionate to a combination of current council tax bands and EPC rating.

I've stated my attitude to EPCs often enough before, so you can guess what I think of that idea! And I'm not quite sure what council tax has to do with it? Who pays the levy if the occupant is exempt, or benefitting from one of the discounts? Is the owner or the occupant of the building liable?

Posted By: WillInAberdeen£0.45bn is for heat pumps

...and that's over 3 years. So 30,000 homes / year if they were all to get the full grant...

£10K grants are no good if most people either cannot meet the criteria or the only type of work offered is not suitable. The fact is that the recent UK deal was canned after a short time having been roundly ignored by most. Holyrood has a habit of producing reports and plans but are far worse at implementation. The proof will be in the pudding on this one as well.

https://www.homeenergyscotland.org/find-funding-grants-and-loans/interest-free-loans/overview/

Hi Jonti, have you tried this? Scottish gov scheme, you can borrow interest-free for insulation, eg £10k for EWI or £17.5k for renewables/heatpump. They convert 40% to 75% of the loan into a grant, or more if you are on pension or benefits. Seems pretty complicated.

Posted By: djhbut it doesn't fix the basic issue that they are garbage!

From my limited experience of having one and trying to get one totally agree.

Posted By: RobLI think I’ve posted this rather sad graph before, which shows almost no correlation between an EPC and reality

Yup, but it's not just that. My PH scores a 'C' on the EPC and their only suggested improvement is to install solar thermal, as well as the PV it already recognizes I have, which it says will improve my EPC by a whole ONE point to 'C'! Nothing at all about improving my 'very poor' heating system with something snazzy like a heat pump, which might just possibly do something further.

I just noticed another recent contribution to the debate: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/guidance_detail.php?gId=44

Perhaps not surprisingly, it's not a fan of EPCs.

Posted By: djh

Posted By: RobLI think I’ve posted this rather sad graph before, which shows almost no correlation between an EPC and reality

Yup, but it's not just that. My PH scores a 'C' on the EPC and their only suggested improvement is to install solar thermal, as well as the PV it already recognizes I have, which it says will improve my EPC by a whole ONE point to 'C'! Nothing at all about improving my 'very poor' heating system with something snazzy like a heat pump, which might just possibly do something further.

My PH had an EPC of A95 without any PV. The inaccurate EPCs could be the result of poor assessors although I always preferred to believe the PHPP results.

Posted By: PeterStarckMy PH had an EPC of A95 without any PV.

Ooh, jealous

The inaccurate EPCs could be the result of poor assessors although I always preferred to believe the PHPP results.

I certainly believe that PHPP accuracy has been confirmed many times. Anecdotally, it seems to work well for ours. I definitely tust it more than SAP and would always use it as a design tool in preference.

But I've been seeing publications recently that suggest SAP isn't awful in many cases, and that its errors are due to things like it assuming an average climate whilst PHPP takes account of regional variations and other underlying assumptions. RdSAP is just awful, of course - it makes far too many assumptions.

There are some efforts to reduce the duplication:
https://aecb.net/sap-and-phpp-two-approaches-one-goal/
https://www.ribaj.com/products/phpp-and-sap-energy-performance-calculations-passivhaus-aecb-elmhurst-energy

(what's with the weird font in the RIBA article, BTW?)

Then the not-too-bad-but-not-brilliant SAP calculations are put through the EPC shredder and the results can be meaningless. I skimmed through the SAP results for my house last night and could see a few odd things: PV generating about half of reality, one door with a U-value of 3 whilst everything else has 0.7 (also unrealistic), and doors and windows apparently not matching reality, total heating requirement way more than reality etc. But I don't know whether those problems are a result of the assessor putting data in wrong, or SAP calculating wrong.