The government has claimed that its commitment to investment in decarbonising the UK’s buildings is “unwavering” despite the recent cancellation of its £1.5 billion Green Homes Grant (GHG) voucher flagship energy efficiency scheme.
In its response to a recently issued House of Commons Environment Audit Select Committee (EAC) report on energy efficiency, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) points to the £300 million of additional funding for the local authority run element of the GHG scheme as proof that it remains committed to tackling domestic energy efficiency.
This position was called into question when the government announced on 27 March that the GHG was closing to new applications at the end of the month, leaving those seeking vouchers just four days to submit a bid.
The response by BEIS says: “Our commitment to invest in decarbonising our buildings remains unwavering, and we recognise the importance of long-term funding to sustainably grow the installer base and supply chain.”
For further proof of its commitment, the response points to the 2,300 social homes being retrofitted through a demonstrator project and the 8,000 new training opportunities being delivered via the ongoing GHG skills competition.
The response defends the scheme against the committee’s criticism that the GHG was overly complex in order to guard against the risk of fraud.
And while accepting that some vouchers took longer to process than the government would have liked, it says these delays were often for “legitimate reasons”, such as applications being submitted without quotes attached, incorrect addresses being supplied, or questions around quotes being “significantly higher” than expected.
The response rebuts the committee’s concern that the government has underestimated the cost of the government’s target that as ‘many homes as possible homes’ should reach the EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) C rating by 2035 where ‘practical, affordable and cost effective’.
The committee had been provided with estimates that such upgrades could cost £18,000 per property, but BEIS responds that this level would exceed expectations that works should be “practical, affordable and cost effective”.
The response also rejects the committee’s recommendation that it should rethink the EPC C target, which was set out in the government’s 2017 Clean Growth Strategy, adding that it still represents good value for money.
The response says that the government intends to publish an evaluation report for ECO (Energy Companies Obligation) scheme later this year.
The response reaffirms the government’s intention, flagged up by BEIS director of clean heat David Capper at a Utility Week event this week, that it is developing proposals on how the policy costs can be apportioned between gas and electricity bills to better incentivise cost-effective decarbonisation.
It says: “Current price signals present a barrier to uptake of key technologies, such as heat pumps.”
The EAC said the government’s response to its report did little to alleviate concerns that sufficient action is being done to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions of the UK’s housing stock.
The committee’s chair Philip Dunne said: “Our committee has warned the government that failure to address with urgency the energy efficiency of the country’s homes could jeopardise its ambitions to be net zero by 2050. Eye-catching top line targets for heat pump installations and raising minimum standards for homes are all very well. What is desperately needed is a coherent plan to achieve those targets.
“In many ways, the government response repeats what the committee already knows. At best, it is a holding response for the hotly awaited heat and buildings strategy. At worst, it is a lack of acknowledgement of the urgency needed to tackle sky high emissions from our existing housing stock.
“The government’s response to the EAC report raises the stakes for the heat and buildings strategy. I hope we will not be disappointed by that strategy, and that tangible action to implement the strategy – backed up by Treasury funding – is taken very soon after its publication.”