Private rented sector - minimum energy efficiency standard: consultation analysis

Background

In 2019, the Scottish Government committed to a statutory target to reach net zero by 2045. Heating in buildings accounts for around 19% of Scotland’s total emissions. The Heat in Buildings (HiBs) programme aims to make Scotland’s homes and buildings cleaner, greener and easier to heat so that they no longer contribute to climate change, as part of the wider transition to net zero. The Scottish Government is also committed to reducing fuel poverty. Energy efficiency improvements will play an important element in reaching net zero and in reducing fuel poverty. The lowest rates of fuel poverty are associated with higher energy efficiency standards.

In 2023, 56% of Scottish homes were rated Energy Performance Certificate (EPC^[1]) band C or better (using the existing ratings), compared with 52% in 2022. However, in the private rented sector (PRS), 48% of properties are rating EPC band D or lower, with this sector also having the highest percentage (14%) of EPC band E, F or G rated properties. This is higher than the social rented sector (5%) or the owner occupied sector (11%). The Scottish Government believes that this is contributing to the high numbers of people living in fuel poverty in the PRS.

The Scottish Government is proposing to progress regulations under existing powers in the Energy Act 2011 to introduce a minumum energy efficiency standard (MEES) in the PRS. These regulations would mean all PRS properties, as far as possible, reaching reformed EPC Heat Retention Rating (HRR) band C from 2028 for new tenancies and 2033 for all privately rented homes. This will improve these homes, reduce energy costs for tenants and support the transition to clean heating.

Regulations setting these new EPC ratings will be laid in 2025 and come into force in autumn 2026, in advance of the PRS MEES regulations which, based on proposals consulted on, would be in force from 2028. This will give PRS landlords time in advance of the MEES coming into force to understand how their property performs under the new EPC regulations’ HRR, and give them time to make any necessary changes to comply with the new MEES regulations. The new set of EPC ratings will offer clearer information on the fabric energy efficiency of a property; the emissions, efficiency and running costs of its heating system; and the cost of energy to run the home. Improvements in the energy efficiency of PRS homes will support Scottish Government fuel poverty aims which should also help to contribute to better health and wellbeing for renters in the PRS.

The Scottish Government is prioritising a MEES in the PRS because of the positive impact this could have in supporting fuel poverty aims, while also contributing to climate change targets. This could result in a 5% reduction in emissions across the sector as a whole if certain measures are installed and heating use stays the same. Energy efficiency improvements would benefit tenants by enabling them to use less energy to reach the same thermal comfort in their homes, possibly resulting in lower bills and a reduction in overall fuel poverty rates. Upgrades will be the responsibility of the landlord, rather than the tenant.

The Scottish Government is proposing to introduce a MEES so that as far as possible all PRS homes would have certain energy efficiency measures installed to reach EPC HRR band C. These proposed new regulations would prohibit the letting of properties that fall below the minimum standard of energy efficiency until relevant energy efficiency improvements were made by the landlord.

With the need to tackle fuel poverty and create more energy efficient households, alongside other benefits this would bring, the Scottish Government recently launched a consultation: Draft Energy Efficiency (Domestic Private Rented Property) (Scotland) Regulations. This consultation asked for stakeholder views on proposals for the introduction of minimum energy efficiency standard (MEES) regulations for domestic private rented sector (PRS) properties in Scotland.

The consultation

The Scottish Government launched its consultation on PRS MEES on 6 June 2025 and this closed on 29 August 2025. Alongside this consulation, five workshops were held among key stakeholder groups including one among local authority staff.

Respondent profile

Once duplicate responses were removed, there were a total of 316 responses to this consultation; 107 were from organisations and 209 from individuals. A list of all those organisations that submitted a response to the consultation is included in Appendix 1. Respondents were assigned to respondent groupings to allow analysis of any differences or commonalities across or within the various different types of organisations and individuals that responded. The following table provides the profile of those who responded to this consultation.

Methodology

Responses to the consultation were submitted using the Scottish Government consultation platform Citizen Space or by email. All responses were downloaded into an excel database which formed the basis for analysis of responses.

Notes from each of the Scottish Government workshops were provided to the analysts for incorporation into this report. By and large, the same issues were raised in both consultation responses and workshops. Where different issues were raised during the workshops, these have been referred to in the reporting.

It should be borne in mind that the number responding at each question is not always the same as the number presented in the respondent group table. This is because not all respondents addressed all questions. This report indicates the number of respondents who commented at each question. When referring to respondents who made particular comments, the terms ‘a small number’, ‘a few’ and so on have been used. While the analysis was qualitative in nature, with the consultation containing only a limited number of quantifiable questions, as a very general rule of thumb it can be assumed that:

• ‘a small number’ indicates up to 5 respondents;
• ‘a few’ indicates around 6-9;
• ‘a small minority’ indicates around more than 9 but less than 10%;
• ‘a significant minority’ indicates between around 10-24% of respondents;
• ‘a large minority’ indicates more than a quarter of respondents but less than half;
• ‘a majority’ indicates more than 50% of those who commented at any question.

Some of the consultation questions were composed of closed tick-boxes with specific options to choose from. Where respondents did not follow the questions but mentioned clearly within their text that they supported one of the options, these have been included in the relevant counts.

Each question in the consultation focuses on a specific theme or proposal and many responses to each question refer to this specific theme. However, some respondents also preempt some later questions by also referring to later themes when responding to a question, for example, by raising suggestions for exemptions at question 1 (Q7 is the question on exemptions). Where this has happened, it is mentioned briefly at the earlier question and then covered more fully at the relevant question).

The researchers examined all comments made by respondents and noted the range of issues mentioned in responses, including reasons for opinions, specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions or other comments. Grouping these issues together into similar themes allowed the researchers to identify whether any particular theme was specific to any particular respondent group or groups. Where any specific sub-group(s) held a particular viewpoint, this is commented on at each relevant question.

When considering group differences however, it must also be recognised that where a specific opinion has been identified in relation to a particular group or groups, this does not indicate that other groups did not share this opinion, but rather that they simply did not comment on that particular point.

While the consultation gave all who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, given the self-selecting nature of this type of exercise, any figures quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the respondent sample.