Delivering net zero for Scotland's buildings - Heat in Buildings Bill: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

A public consultation on the Heat in Buildings Bill ran from 28 November 2023 to 8 March 2024. It included 28 questions, which sought stakeholders’ views on various proposals that may be included in a Heat in Buildings Bill. In total, 1,637 consultation responses were received. Individuals provided 1,385 responses (85% of the total), with the remaining 252 (15%) from a range of organisations. The analysis included notes from 20 consultation events attended by 238 people. Two campaigns were identified within responses, representing almost one in ten consultation respondents.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

Overview

Responses to the closed questions typically indicated support for the proposals. A wide range of perspectives were expressed in responses to the open questions which, on average, were answered by one in three respondents. In open comments, both supporters and opponents of the proposals raised concerns or highlighted other issues to consider if the proposals are progressed. Supporters often reiterated their support in principle but qualified it by emphasising the importance of other considerations described in the consultation paper. Conversely, in a few instances, individuals disagreed with a proposal in the closed question, but their open comment explained they did so because of their overall opposition to the Heat in Buildings Bill.

Several qualitative themes were evident across multiple questions. The potential cost of the proposals was the most prevalent and recurring issue across the consultation questions. Respondents reiterated the importance of financial support through grants, subsidies, zero or low-interest loans, or funding to cover all or most of the costs of changing heating systems or making energy efficiency improvements. It was often argued that the proposed changes would be expensive and that replacing a heating system could come with additional costs if other changes had to be made to the fabric of a building to ensure the new system runs efficiently. A more specific theme about costs was a concern that heating costs and fuel poverty could increase, given the greater use of electricity by clean heating systems and the that the per-unit price of electricity is currently higher than gas.

Respondents repeatedly raised concerns that the proposals were impractical or unfeasible for a large proportion of Scotland’s buildings. In particular, traditional buildings, flats, and rural properties were frequently noted as less suitable for energy efficiency improvements and clean heating systems. Respondents frequently stated that the proposals need to consider the variety of Scotland’s housing stock, be relevant to different types of buildings and have the flexibility to consider applying the measures or allowing exemptions on a case-by-case basis depending on the suitability of each building.

Other considerations mentioned repeatedly across responses, in order or prevalence included:

• Criticism of the Scottish Government’s approach, with comments highlighting a dislike of government interference in individual decisions and limiting free choice.
• Calls for further information or more details about the proposals.
• Concerns that clean heating technology is still developing and is either ineffective for Scotland’s climate or housing stock or too expensive.
• Support for using incentives over enforcement to encourage households and businesses to transition to clean heating systems.
• Concerns about supply chain capacity, skills, and timescales.
• An acknowledgement that the proposals are necessary to move Scotland toward climate targets.

The largest of the two campaign responses, submitted by 181 individuals, highlighted opposition to the proposals due to the potential negative impact of the Standard on traditional buildings, and called for the continued use of bioenergy such as HVO (Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil) in rural or off gas-grid homes which currently use oil or kerosene central heating.

The Heat in Buildings Standard

Overall, the closed questions showed majority support for the key proposals for a Heat in Buildings Standard. Among those answering each question:

• 46% strongly supported and 21% somewhat supported prohibiting the use of polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045.
• 41% strongly and 17% somewhat supported introducing a minimum energy efficiency standard to be met by private sector landlords by the end of 2028.
• 37% strongly and 22% somewhat supported introducing minimum energy efficiency standards in owner-occupied homes by 2033.

Respondents often qualified their quantitative responses by noting specific conditions or concerns in their open comments. These frequently covered the overarching themes mentioned above or reiterated the considerations described in the consultation paper.

Regarding the proposal to prohibit polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045, many, primarily individuals, considered the proposal unrealistic. A few noted a lack of awareness of the proposals among the general public and urged the Scottish Government to raise public awareness and understanding of the scale of change required. In contrast, many others, mostly individuals, believed the target of 2045 is too far in the future and advocated faster or more immediate change.

The most prevalent theme in comments about the proposal for private landlords was a concern about its potential impact on the rental market and housing availability. Respondents expressed a view that many landlords may decide to sell their properties rather than incur the expense or disruption of making the required changes. It was argued that this could reduce the number of properties available for rent, with some noting this could exacerbate existing demands on housing supply. Other common concerns were that landlords could pass the cost of making the changes on to tenants through higher rents, negatively impacting tenants’ wellbeing and financial security, and that the 2028 deadline is too soon. Conversely, many expressed support for the proposal, noting that landlords have a responsibility to their tenants and must be accountable for a standard of care.

By far the most common theme about the proposal for owner-occupied homes was the importance of providing financial incentives and support to owner-occupiers. This was followed by concerns about the overall cost and affordability of the proposals. Many reiterated the need to ensure the transition is affordable and fair for owners, expressing the view that the costs would be too great, questioning how the changes would be funded, or emphasising that the proposal should not increase fuel poverty.

One third (36%) of those answering strongly supported and 24% somewhat supported the proposal to set a minimum energy efficiency standard that can be met by either installing a straightforward list of measures or showing a good level of energy efficiency based on a reformed Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) fabric efficiency metric. However, open comments most frequently raised concerns about using EPCs in their current form to measure and monitor fabric efficiency. Agreement with the use of EPCs was often qualified with recommendations for how they could be reformed to be more effective.

Several challenges were noted with using a list of measures approach. One prevalent theme that the proposed list was oversimplified and would not be as straightforward to implement as suggested in the consultation paper. Many called for clarification and clearer definitions of the proposed measures, and calls were made to avoid a ‘tick box’ approach and for greater flexibility that recognised variations in building type and condition.

Overall, there was widespread support for the continued use of bioenergy; only 14% of those who answered felt it should be prohibited in all cases, with the remainder of those answering supporting continued use in at least one of the suggested circumstances. The most prevalent qualitative theme was for the continued use of bioenergy in remote and rural areas or where there are questions over the reliability of electricity supply. It was noted that many living in these areas had limited or no alternatives to bioenergy as their heat source, and therefore this remains the only practical and affordable heating option.

Property purchases

Views on the proposals for legislating about changing heating systems when a property is purchased were mixed. Over half (54%) of those who answered the closed question supported the proposal, with 30% expressing strong support. However, 40% opposed the proposal, with 31% strongly opposing it. Open comments reflected these mixed views. The most common theme, raised repeatedly in response to the questions in this section, was the view that the legislation could negatively affect the property market. Respondents noted that buyers may not want to take on the additional cost or work of changing heating systems and, therefore, choose not to move. Similarly, it was argued that adding the extra costs associated with transitioning to non-polluting heating systems could push many buyers to the limits of affordability and stop them from purchasing homes. In addition, several repeatedly questioned the efficacy of changing functioning heating systems for clean heating alternatives solely because of a property purchase. Conversely, others believed that the best time to transition to clean heating systems would be after a new purchase, as costs could be factored into purchase prices, and the heating system transition could be planned alongside other renovations and redecorations that may take place.

Similarly, split views were evident concerning giving Scottish Ministers powers to extend the circumstances in which people could be required to end their use of polluting heating in the future; 35% of those answering strongly supported the proposal compared to 33% who were strongly opposed. Many supported a future requirement to replace polluting heating systems that had stopped working, while many individuals raised concerns about abuse of power and the negative impact on individuals’ free choice.

Seven in ten (69%) of those answering supported some form of grace period, with one third (31%) opposed. A grace period of five years was the most popular option, with 28% of those who answered selecting this option. Respondents expressed the view that a grace period provided time to gather advice, quotes, grants and funding but still provided a clear timeframe for purchasers to initiate the transition to clean heating systems. Others suggested extending the grace period, allowing time for a fabric-first approach to improve energy efficiency before changing heating systems, and allowing flexibility to amend the grace period on a case-by-case basis.

A cost cap was also supported in the closed question, with 37% of those answering strongly supportive and 17% somewhat supportive. However, there was no consensus on the best approach to applying a cost-cap: a size-based cost-cap was the preferred option of 26% of those answering, while a purchase-price-based cost-cap was supported by 24%. Respondents frequently requested more detail and clarity on the cost-cap, including who would be affected, how it would work, the likely benefits and disadvantages to households, and information about funding sources, both public and private.

Connecting to heat networks

There was strong support for the proposal to give powers to local authorities and Scottish Ministers to connect new buildings to a Heat Network Zone, with 41% of those answering the closed question strongly supporting and 21% somewhat supporting it. Reasons for support included that the proposal could reduce heating costs for consumers and provide certainty to heat network developers. However, concerns were expressed around the level of development and the long-term viability of heat networks and consumer protection, leading to calls for more information about these proposals and heat networks in general. Over half (51%) strongly supported and 20% somewhat supported the proposal to provide powers to local authorities or Scottish Ministers that require developers to connect new buildings within Heat Network Zones to a heat network. Doing so was felt to give certainty to developers, increase attractiveness for investors, and make the development and installation of heat networks easier.

Almost half (47%) strongly supported and 19% somewhat supported the proposal to require occupiers of non-domestic properties to provide information about their unused heat. The most prevalent theme in comments was a concern about the expense and administrative burden of collecting and providing data about unused heat. However, several highlighted the benefits of having this data and how it could help design and expand heat networks. While there was support for the proposal to potentially require buildings with unused heat to provide this to a local heat network (43% strongly and 25% somewhat supported), many commented that this would be a good idea in theory but highlighted the need to make sure it is feasible in reality. A range of practical issues were noted, such as what happens if a building producing surplus heat either reduces its waste or closes. Many argued that support would depend on the cost-effectiveness of businesses providing unused heat to local heat networks.

Monitoring and enforcement

There was a preference for a nuanced approach to monitoring and enforcement, with respondents more often supporting a combination of monitoring methods and a mix of ways to enforce the Standard. While many supported the use of EPCs for monitoring in principle, in their comments they called for reform of EPCs or for EPCs to be used in combination with other approaches that would provide flexibility in monitoring.

One third (34%) of those answering did not support any enforcement. A similar proportion (32%) supported a mix of the three approaches to enforcement outlined in the consultation paper. However, there was little support for civil penalties (3%). The most prevalent theme in comments advocated for incentivising rather than enforcing compliance, followed by a concern about how the proposed enforcement strategies would affect those struggling to afford the transition. Many suggested alternatives to the proposed enforcement strategies; several preferred to let the market drive change, including suggestions about making switching to clean heating alternatives more economically advantageous.

There were high levels of support for giving certain people exemptions from the Standard (35% strongly and 29% somewhat support among those answering) or more time to meet it (46% strongly and 28% somewhat support). In comments, respondents emphasised the importance of providing financial support for the transition, regardless of exemptions or extensions, and for exemptions and extensions to be fair, flexible and pragmatic. A range of groups and building types were suggested as being eligible for modifications, though some believed the Standard should apply to everyone equally. Most prevalent was the need to consider flexibility for traditional buildings, followed by groups that might find it more challenging to fund the transition to clean heating, such as low-income households, rural or off-grid properties, elderly people, and households with disabled members.

Public sector buildings

There was widespread support for public authorities to lead by example by transitioning to clean heating by 2038; 58% of those answering strongly supported and 16% somewhat supported the proposal. There was also support for further duties on public authorities to support planning for the transition by 2038. In addition to demonstrating leadership and commitment, it was argued that the scale of work required across public sector buildings could help develop the supply chain and workforce and that public buildings could be used to develop clean heating infrastructure. However, concerns were noted about the cost and resource implications to public authorities of transitioning their buildings to clean heating and complying with new duties, with several raising a concern that being required to transition could lead to money being diverted from essential services or higher taxes.

Amendments to existing legislation

Just under half (47%) of respondents who answered agreed with proposals to include powers in the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill to change the current requirement in legislation for a narrowly defined renewable heat target. There was agreement with the proposal if it led to more effective monitoring metrics, with respondents stressing the importance of regular, rigorous, transparent monitoring to ensure accountability.

Conclusion

Overall, the key message is that while there is support for the proposals, respondents identified multiple challenges and potential consequences of implementing the measures. The responses provide valuable and informative evidence for the Scottish Government to draw on when developing a Heat in Buildings Bill and providing information to explain the nature, design and timings of any regulations that the proposed Bill may enable.