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

4. The Heat in Buildings Standard

The first section of the consultation sought views on the proposal to prohibit the use of polluting heating systems in buildings after 2045. Respondents were also asked to comment on standards regarding energy efficiency as they applied to different groups and on the initial approach to monitoring. This chapter also considers the continued use of bioenergy-based heating systems under certain circumstances.

Chapter Summary

Overall, the closed-question results recorded majority support among those answering for the proposal to prohibit the use of polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045 and to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard to be met by private-sector landlords by the end of 2028 and by owner-occupied homes by the end of 2033. However, respondents highlighted a range of considerations to ensure the transition to clean heating is equitable and just. There was strong support for the continued use of bioenergy in some circumstances, particularly in rural, remote and island areas. Mixed support was evident for installing a list of measures to meet a minimum energy efficiency standard, or an equivalent standard if the list of measures was not appropriate for specific properties, with organisations more likely to be in favour than individuals. The need for flexibility was emphasised to accommodate the construction and energy efficiency demands of different building types. Both positive and negative views were expressed about the effectiveness of using a reformed EPC could be used as an alternative to a list of measures.

Two thirds (67%) of those who answered Q1 were supportive of the proposal to prohibit the use of polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045, with just under half (46%) strongly supporting and 21% somewhat supporting the proposal. However, a quarter (25%) strongly opposed and 6% somewhat opposed it. Individuals were more likely to express strong opposition than organisations, with 28% of individuals who answered this question strongly opposed compared with 5% of organisations. This pattern is evident in individual and organisational responses to many closed questions across the consultation.

Just under half of respondents provided a comment at Q1. Many respondents provided detailed and complex comments, outlining not only their opinions on prohibiting the use of polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045 but on a range of other issues covered in later consultation questions. These additional points have been included either in the overarching themes chapter, or later in this report under the most relevant question.

The need for financial support, grants and incentives was the most prevalent theme in response to Q1, while the second most common was a concern about the cost and affordability of the proposal and the impact it could have on households and business owners. Both themes are described in more detail in the overarching themes chapter.

“More generally, funding and finance opportunities are currently not clear for all tenures and there are significant funding shortfalls between grant availability and the cost of carrying-out clean heat and associated fabric energy efficiency and renewable energy generation and storage measures.” - Glasgow City Council

“Regulation alone is not sufficient to overcome the significant financial and practical barriers that exist to the uptake of these technologies. CIOB urges Government to implement greater financial incentives and grants across tenure, and address issues with governance, administration and awareness of existing programmes to better support households that cannot afford to decarbonise their heating system.” – Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)

The next most frequently mentioned theme, raised by many - mostly individuals - was the view that the proposal is unrealistic. Most did not provide further detail as to why they held this view, but those who did suggested a lack of public support could hinder progress or thought that the overall costs compared to the impact on climate metrics made the proposal impractical. A few respondents and event participants noted a lack of awareness of the proposals among the general public and urged the Scottish Government to rapidly educate the public on the scale of change being required. Related to this, some respondents specifically highlighted their belief that meeting the proposed timescales would be challenging, if not impossible. Some, specifically organisations, supported timescales that fell in line with the rest of the UK for consistency and clarity, reducing the complexity and uncertainty faced by landlords, businesses and homeowners.

In contrast, many others, again, mostly individuals, believed the target of 2045 is too far in the future and advocated faster or more immediate change. Other respondents, while not necessarily calling for faster progress, supported the proposal as a necessary step in progressing towards decarbonising heating and to reach Scotland’s net zero targets.

Concern about the feasibility of the proposals in different types of buildings was the next most mentioned theme. Challenges with traditional buildings were outlined by many, but as noted in the overarching themes chapter there were also calls from some to consider flexibility around flats and to assess buildings on a case-by-case basis. More specifically, one event participant questioned whether this proposal would apply to static caravans.

Many others thought that clean heating technology is not sufficiently developed to achieve the aims of the Standard. Several raised specific concerns about the use of heat pumps, which they believed would not function effectively in much of Scotland’s housing stock or in parts of the country. Some respondents suggested consideration of low-carbon options, like hybrid heating systems, to help transition properties that may be more difficult to heat for a variety of reasons. Improvements to the planning permissions process to allow for easy installation of heat pumps were advocated by a few. A few organisations felt that the proposals favoured heat pump installation over other forms of clean heating systems, such as heat networks. However, others mentioned the slow growth of heat networks or district heating systems, which may be needed to support multi-occupancy buildings or buildings in urban centres. Some noted the role solar panels and PV batteries could play in conjunction with clean heating systems, while a few questioned whether green hydrogen and nuclear energy would be considered as clean heating.

“We feel that the bill incentivises new heating systems over other changes, such as connecting to a heat network. Heat pumps have a limited life, require maintenance, will eventually need to be replaced. Heat networks are more resilient with more passive components. Promoting heat networks with more ambitious targets is a longer term and more affordable solution.” – Fife Communities Climate Action Network / Fife Climate Hub

Questions about the proposal were raised by many, with some stating they found it hard to comment without further information about the range of clean heating alternatives available to meet the Standard. Others requested greater detail about how the proposals will be enacted, the funding and budgets ringfenced for the transition, costs to households, and timescales. A few organisations thought that the Standard focussed primarily on domestic properties and called for greater clarity and plans for businesses to transition. Requests for further information included:

• How EPCs are being reformed;
• Risk assessments about the impacts on households and a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment for industries such as oil and gas and manufacturers;
• The support and advice available for rural, traditional and multi-occupancy buildings;
• When the electricity grid in Scotland will be supported entirely by clean energy sources; and about how waste will be minimised if functioning heating systems need to be replaced before their end-of-life.

“The Heat in Buildings Bill proposals are also marked by their novelty – at least in a UK context. Reflecting Scotland’s earlier and higher decarbonisation ambitions (compared to the rest of the UK), the proposals are innovative in some areas, and the Bill doesn’t reference a clear evidence base in support of all of its measures. Some of the consultation questions are therefore difficult to respond to in an evidence-informed way, and although the measures are broadly reasonable and necessary to catalyse a heat in buildings transition in Scotland, the evidence base will emerge over time, and some adjustment in targets, timescales and support may well be required.” – UK Energy Research Centre

Several respondents were concerned about the impact of the proposals on energy security in rural and island communities. Several called for the Standard to only apply to primary energy systems, allowing for backup bioenergy in areas susceptible to electricity grid failures. Several highlighted the importance of bioenergy to Scottish households and businesses, and respondents called for clearer definitions of what constituted polluting and clean heating systems. This is covered in more detail under Q8 .

The need for infrastructure improvements to take place alongside the Standard was noted by several respondents. As well the need for supply chain and workforce development mentioned in the overarching themes chapter, there were also calls for upgrading of the electricity grid to improve its resilience to cope with the demand generated by clean heating systems.

“To decarbonise, the UK must invest in technologies which can produce and store power in any weather conditions, be in rain or snow, sun or cloud and windy or still. By having a mix of low carbon technologies and therefore solutions, we can ensure that the net zero transition is done in an energy secure and resilient manner.” - Energy & Utilities Alliance

The overarching theme of general criticism of the Scottish Government’s approach was mentioned by several in responses to Q1. While not directly criticising the approach, a few event participants expressed concern about using the word ‘prohibit’ in the proposals.

Conversely, several others expressed support for the proposal; while some did not elaborate, some organisations emphasised its value in ensuring there is a commitment to making progress, which reassures those focusing on supply chain development and resource management. Several organisations and individuals emphasised the importance of clear communication, such as the well-developed assessment tool proposed in the consultation paper. They noted that guidance and tailored advice would be important to ensure households and businesses make the most cost-effective and efficient changes.

“Consumer trust and confidence is essential for reaching net zero and it is important for consumers to trust that businesses in the clean heating sector will provide clear, accurate information so they can make informed decisions…Building consumer trust and confidence will also need a clear narrative as to why low carbon options are important for reaching net zero.” – Trust Alliance Group/Energy Ombudsman

A few organisations and individuals were concerned that some owners, especially landlords or owners who plan to move, may replace their heating system with a clean heating system with a low upfront cost but which then incurs high ongoing running costs. For example, the Energy Saving Trust suggested that rather than exempting any business or household with a clean heating system from energy efficiency standards, all heating systems should be required to be both clean and “suitably efficient” or “can support decarbonisation through the flexibility of electricity use.”

A few organisations did not support the proposed triggers and instead supported an organic transition with a phase-out of gas boilers being sold after a certain date and owners being permitted to use their existing systems until end of life. A few event participants noted their concern about the environmental impact of removing polluting heating systems, questioning whether these would be recycled or end up in landfill.

Among those who answered Q2, 58% supported (41% strongly and 17% somewhat) introducing a minimum energy efficiency standard to be met by private sector landlords by the end of 2028, while 36% were opposed (29% strongly and 7% somewhat). While a majority of individuals and organisations who answered supported the proposal (56% and 75% respectively), one third of individuals who answered this question strongly opposed this proposal (33% compared to 7% of organisations). However, the qualitative comments do not highlight any one reason for an individual’s opposition.

Just over two fifths of respondents commented in Q2. The most prevalent theme was a concern about the potential impact that legislation targeted at private sector landlords could have on the rental market and availability of housing. These 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 or, in a few instances, result in people becoming homeless. Although most types of organisation highlighted this theme, it was more likely to be raised by local authorities. Conversely, Greener Kirkcaldy – an environmental organisation – saw the potential exit of landlords from the rental sector as an opportunity for local authorities to purchase properties, upgrade them and make them available for social renters.

“The other worry is that if landlords are being forced to do all of this (and so quickly), many will choose to sell the property or no longer rent it out. This is going to lead to an already struggling rental market to have major issues and we don’t have enough housing as it is so this may well be made worse.” – Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice Service

The next most prevalent theme was a concern that landlords could pass the cost of making the changes onto their tenants through increased rents, in turn negatively impacting tenants’ wellbeing and financial security. Some recommended that protections for tenants should be in place before the suggested legislation takes effect. This issue was particularly prevalent in comments from housing associations and environmental bodies.

“Protection is required to ensure private tenants are not faced with unreasonable rent increases or eviction to enable upgrades. Where there is a reduction in energy bills, there may be justification for rents being increased to support the cost of investment. However, tenants must be protected from landlords who may seek to increase rents unreasonably, or who plan to evict tenants so that they can re-let at a higher rental price.” – Changeworks

Many expressed support for the proposal, noting that landlords have a responsibility to their tenants and need to be accountable for a standard of care. It was noted that these changes should ensure that tenants live in warm homes with a reduced risk of fuel poverty.

“The earlier date of 2028 is justified in terms of contributing towards the Scottish Government’s commitment to eradicate poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty and its interim target for no more than 15% of fuel-poor households by 2030. Fuel Poverty rates for private tenants were 44% in 2022 and improvements cannot come soon enough for tenants.” – Energy Action Scotland

However, many questioned why the standard might be introduced for private sector landlords earlier than for owner occupiers. Many expressed a view that it is unfair to single out private landlords, whereas others argued that because more homes are owner occupied, limiting the requirements to landlords initially could slow the transition to clean heating. Others noted concerns about the practicalities of implementing the proposals due to many private sector landlords owning properties in mixed-tenure blocks.

A concern about the proposed 2028 deadline being too quick was mentioned by many. There were concerns that the supply chain and workforce may not be ready to meet the demands of ensuring changes are in place by 2028. Others were concerned that four years may not be enough time to plan for the cost of the transition. Many others suggested considering the impacts on smaller landlords with limited funds, of potentially high transition costs and the lost income if the changes need to be made without a tenant in situ. Some respondents called for measures to ensure landlords are protected, such as price caps or limiting the suggested energy efficiency changes to those that can be accomplished while tenants can still occupy a property.

“Coupled with a limited supply chain, the requirement could be largely undeliverable for many landlords, and more likely even more challenging for smaller landlords with limited purchasing/ requisitioning power than larger portfolio landlords. Policymakers should be mindful of the cumulative burden of regulatory and fiscal changes as well as the impact of rent caps in the sector which could impact landlords’ financial viability and appetite to continue in the sector.” – UK Finance

Clarifications were requested by many respondents. These included calls for more specific definitions of energy efficiency before commenting about a new standard, and detail about how the standard would be measured and enforced, specifically whether a reformed EPC will be available by 2028. There were also questions about sources of funding with many reiterating their calls for grants, incentives and support for the transition.

While not always commenting directly on the proposals for private sector landlords, several supported the minimum energy efficiency standard because they believed it was more important to make homes energy efficient than to transition to clean heating.

“Good fabric energy efficiency will benefit tenants regardless of the source of heating.” – Scottish Enterprise

Three fifths (59%) of respondents who answered this question supported proposals to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard to be met in owner occupied homes by the end of 2033. This was divided between strong support (37%) and somewhat support (22%). While there were similar levels of strong support between individuals and organisations (37% and 36% respectively), there was a marked difference in the percentage of those who somewhat supported the proposal, with 43% of organisations selecting this option compared with 19% of individuals. Over a third (36%) of respondents who answered this question opposed this proposal (28% strongly), with individuals being more likely to strongly oppose it than organisations (32% compared to 6%). However, the qualitative comments do not highlight any one reason for individual’s opposition.

Just under half of respondents provided a comment in Q3. By far the most prevalent theme was the importance of providing financial incentives and support to owner occupiers, as noted in the overarching themes chapter. 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. Many individuals noted personal concerns about their inability to pay for the proposed fabric improvements or replacement clean heating systems. A few called for plans to ensure that the cost of the transition is not passed on solely to owner occupiers.

“Whilst there is agreement in principal that a standard should be set, the fear is that the required investment will be unaffordable to most, irrespective of which financial model is used.” - Aberdeenshire Council

Agreement with the proposal was the next most common theme, with many reasons given. Many believed a minimum energy efficiency standard should apply to all households to be fair and equitable. Similarly, some disagreed with the proposal, as they did not approve of the different timescales proposed for landlords and owner occupied homes. Several felt the proposal would improve Scotland’s housing stock, and others added that it could improve public health and reduce fuel poverty. Some welcomed the exemption for homes that are already using clean heating systems, whereas some others agreed with the proposal but thought it should also apply to buildings already using clean systems as this could further their energy efficiency and reduce their heating costs.

“This is crucial for reducing environmental impact, improving public health, achieving cost savings, stimulating economic growth, and promoting regulatory compliance within the residential sector.” - ATC (Energy) Ltd.

Many requested clarification on various topics. Several questioned what would actually be required of owner occupiers to implement the standard, expressing a view that the consultation paper did not provide sufficient detail or guidance. Some questioned how the minimum efficiency standards will be applied and adjusted to reflect the diversity of Scotland’s buildings - including older and multi-occupancy buildings and those which are hard to make energy efficient - or requested further information about how the standard would be monitored or enforced. Respondents also noted questions about practicalities, such as how to find or fund temporary accommodation during renovations.

Many individuals opposed the proposal, raising the overarching theme of criticism of the Scottish Government’s approach.

Other concerns were raised by many, though these covered a range of issues and mostly related to the overarching themes. These included, from most to least prevalent:

• Timescales are too short, and the plans are unachievable between now and 2033. While many did not provide further detail as to why, others cited one or more of the concerns listed below.
• The electricity grid does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of decarbonised households.
• The workforce is not robust or skilled enough to handle the volume of work likely to be required to meet the proposed deadlines.
• The availability of suitable clean heating systems and the supply chain for energy-efficiency materials needs to improve, or costs for improvements will remain high.
• Certain buildings and groups of people will find it particularly challenging to meet the minimum efficiency standards (see Chapter 7).
• The possible impact on the housing market, including concerns about owner occupied homes that may be unable to sell or remortgage due to standards changing since their original purchase. This issue was particularly prevalent among the small number of finance providers and bodies who commented.
• A few others thought the electricity supply should be completely decarbonised before forcing individuals to switch to clean systems.

Of those who answered Q4, three fifths (60%) were supportive of 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 EPC fabric efficiency metric. One third (36%) strongly supported the proposal and 24% were somewhat supportive. Just under a third (30%) of respondents opposed the proposal, with a quarter of individuals expressing strong opposition. The remaining 10% of respondents either selected ‘don’t know’ (2%) or ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (8%).

Just under two fifths of respondents provided a comment at Q4. Of those, the most common theme was criticism of, or concerns about using, EPCs . Respondents highlighted concerns about the accuracy and reliability of EPCs, with some describing them as a tick box-exercise, not adequately considering the specifics of an individual property or not being sufficiently detailed to provide recommendations or the information required to understand what improvements might benefit a property. Given this, many advocated for waiting until the reform of EPCs is complete before considering whether it should be used to demonstrate a good level of energy efficiency. This theme was mentioned by many organisation types but was more prevalent in comments from advocacy organisations.

“ The alternative option of meeting the standard with an EPC assessment demonstrating a good level of energy efficiency based on a reformed EPC fabric efficiency metric is a good approach. This is in line with how energy demand is demonstrated in industry and good practice standards such as Passivhaus EnerPHit, AECB retrofit, and RIBA targets. ” - Stirling Council

The second most prevalent theme was a concern about using a list of measures approach. A belief that the list was oversimplified and would not be as straightforward as suggested in the consultation paper was noted by many. The vast majority of these comments, particularly from individuals, highlighted challenges of using one of more of the listed measures in a specific type of property, depending on its construction. For example, it was noted that the requirements for stone buildings would be different to brick buildings. For this reason, many called for a tailored approach, as it was felt that one standard would be inappropriate for Scotland’s varied buildings.

A call for information and clarification was the next most common theme. Many noted that their view would depend on many factors which were either unclear or still to be determined, such as what would be on the list of measures, what level of energy efficiency would need to be achieved, and how this might relate to EPCs. Some noted that the consultation paper did not elaborate enough on what the proposals would include.

“We note that there is already a process underway to review EPCs, following an earlier consultation process, and while we support this in principle, clarification is needed regarding current EPCs and timescales. Given that the EPC proposals are at consultation stage, this uncertainty makes it difficult to commit to new work.” – Church of Scotland

“We neither support nor oppose this proposal at this stage because the final list of measures and details of implementation will heavily influence how the standards will affect consumers and the property market.” – Building Societies Association

The next most frequently mentioned theme was support for the proposal, but with an emphasis on the need for the proposals to be affordable, fair and feasible. Much of this reflected the need to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all measure; instead there needs to be flexibility to consider the needs of different types of building. Others highlighted the importance of good consumer knowledge and access to clear advice and support. Some other s generally supported the proposal, suggesting the actions proposed in this standard should have happened already.

More generally, the need for financial support and incentives and the affordability of energy were the next most mentioned themes.

Quality assurance matters were raised by many, specifically highlighting the importance of upskilling and training a specialised workforce to carry out accurate assessments. Others noted that ensuring quality control would require an increase in administrative resources or suggested there should be unique EPC metrics based on different building types. For example, the ideal depth of insulation would depend on the types of insulation used and needed in specific buildings. A few suggested inclu ding new technology measurements such as Smart Meter Enabled Thermal Efficiency Ratings within EPCs to ensure accuracy.

Despite the prevalence of concerns about using EPCs, many others did express support for measuring energy efficiency based on a reformed EPC fabric efficiency metric.

“Demonstrating a good level of energy efficiency based on the reformed EPC fabric efficiency metric would provide a more complete picture of the home. This metric approach provides a greater degree of accuracy about thermal performance, taking account of the individual characteristics of the building, helping households make the right choices for their home.” – Existing Homes Alliance Scotland

Similarly, some supported using a straightforward list of measures as they felt it would minimise loopholes and provide clear guidance to owners about the options available.

More than half (55%) of those who responded to Q5 supported the proposed list of measures to meet the minimum energy efficiency standard set out in the consultation paper; 29% were strongly supportive and 26% somewhat. Over a third (35%) opposed the list of measures. Individuals were more likely to express strong support than organisations, with 32% and 13% respectively. However, this was also true for levels of strong opposition, with 26% of individuals strongly opposing the measure compared to 10% of organisations.

Around half of respondents left a comment at Q5. While there was support for the proposals at the closed question, many called for greater clarification, making this the most prevalent theme. Clearer definition of each of the suggested measures, and of the term ‘feasible’ was called for to ensure appropriate installation, avoid unintended consequences, and determine how compliance could be measured and monitored. Organisations also suggested the provision of more data and information could be beneficial to homeowners. For instance, a few suggested a plan or logbook for each property based on professional advice or detailing measures installed.

Using a list of measures approach was criticized or considered unrealistic by many. This was the second most prevalent theme and was more likely to be mentioned by architecture and construction organisations. Calls were made to avoid a ‘tick box’ approach and for greater flexibility that recognised variations in building type and condition. It was noted that some or all the measures would not be practical or affordable, particularly in traditional buildings or tenements.

Many, particularly organisations, expressed support for the measures, though supporters often caveated their support. The measures were felt to be achievable for most of the housing stock, clear and understandable, and a strong starting point for achieving energy efficiency improvements. Others, however, felt the list of measures could go further and that the government could incentivise improvements beyond the minimum level required.

“While we note that this approach will not bring the worst performing and harder-to-treat buildings up to a good standard, we think that, on balance, this is an appropriate approach to take in setting a minimum energy efficiency standard. In this context we think that communications to building owners should emphasise that this is a minimum standard and that they should be supported to go beyond this standard if they are able to.” - Energy Saving Trust

Comments on the specific measures in the proposed list in order of prevalence included:

• Suspended floor insulation – This measure was considered costly, disruptive, difficult to install effectively and unsuitable for all properties. Of all the measures, it was the least popular, with calls for its removal from the list or exemptions in cases where there is no access to below-floor areas.
• Cavity wall insulation (CWI) – Problems identified with CWI included that it is not relevant for all properties, it could cause dampness in certain situations, and it was difficult to verify or uninstall.
• Draught-proofing – Concerns were raised about the lack of definition of this measure. Suggestions included having seals on doors and windows to exclude draughts. A need for ventilation to avoid condensation and mould was also raised.
• Loft insulation – It was noted this was only feasible if the loft had not been converted. Some felt 270mm was insufficient and suggested between 300-400mm as an alternative. Others suggested a move away from a mm measurement to specify the measure as a U-value or to ensure that thinner but higher performance materials such as aerogels or vacuum panels were not excluded.
• Water cylinders/heating controls - These were considered useful measures; however, problems identified included that not all systems used them, it was difficult to determine insulation thickness, or cylinders did not typically use 80mm insulation. ‘Heating controls’ was felt to require further definition.

Other measures were suggested for inclusion on the list. Double glazed windows were the most prevalent of these , suggested by many respondents . Also mentioned were installing solar panels and clean heating systems, external or internal wall insulation, flat roof insulation, shutters and thick curtains, closing or removing chimneys and open fireplaces, solid floor insulation and infrared heaters.

The need to ensure appropriate installation by qualified professionals was raised, as were questions over how installation would be verified, and compliance enforced. The need to address ongoing maintenance was also highlighted. A few individuals felt the measures should only apply to future new buildings while a few, mostly organisations, felt that the list should be flexible enough to allow for technological developments.

(1) and they should be required to install all of these where feasible

(2) but they should only be required to install some of these where feasible and cost effective

(3) but they should only be required to install some of these where feasible, and they should be allowed additional time to do so

Half (50%) of those who answered Q6 responded ‘no’. Individuals were more likely to respond with ‘no’ than organisations (53% and 34% respectively). In terms of the other options, a fifth (21%) selected ‘Yes – but they should only be required to install some of these where feasible and cost-effective’ and 18% selected ‘Yes – but they should only be required to install some of these where feasible, and they should be allowed additional time to do so’. The least popular option was ‘Yes – and they should be required to install all of these where feasible’, which was selected by 11% of respondents.

Just under a third left a comment at Q6, with the most prevalent themes being the overarching themes of affordability and the cost of achieving the measures, covered in the Chapter 2. Several of the issues raised were similar to those covered in Q5, such as the need for more support or advice, addressed in the previous chapter. Several expressed concerns about the question wording, for instance, reporting it as misleading or confusing.

Aside from cost considerations and the need for more support or advice, the most prevalent themes were agreement with installing measures ‘where feasible’ and ‘cost-effective’, as per the closed question answer options. It was felt measures needed to be practical, therefore the emphasis must be to ensure feasibility. Factors considered to make measures feasible included costs not being prohibitive, not being overly disruptive to residents, being enforceable, accounting for the diversity of housing stock and ensuring effective installations. It was also felt ‘cost-effectiveness’ was a crucial aspect. A few suggested homeowners should determine whether installing measures was affordable or cost-effective. There were calls for the terms ‘where feasible’, ‘cost-effective’ and ‘appropriate for their building type’ in Q6 to be defined further. A few cautioned these caveats should not be used by owners to avoid making improvements.

Difficulties applying a standard list of measures to certain buildings, particularly traditional buildings, were noted by many, the next most prevalent theme . While this was raised by most sectors, it was more likely to be mentioned by housing associations than other organisation types. Disruption to foundations or the structure of such buildings, or where measures impacted adversely on aesthetics, were given as examples of why measures might not be helpful. Most raising this issue argued against using an equivalent minimum energy standard where measures were not relevant.

Several argued for an alternative approach whereby additional measures were included, enabling the list to be broad enough to cater for the diversity of housing stock, including traditional building types. The benefits of this approach were that it would allow for more energy efficiency improvements across the board and not leave certain house types behind and that it would avoid confusion caused by creating an equivalent standard. Other suggestions included using an improved EPC system as an alternative to determine if a property has a ‘good enough’ level of energy efficiency, with one suggesting using measured rather than predicted data for these.

Other ideas included aligning the approach with the proposed new Social Housing Net Zero Standard, assessing each property on its own merit and awarding points to each property. Sureserve Asset Services Limited suggested devising a property type directory consisting of location, exposure severity, council tax band, construction type and recurring property defects.

“Continual monitoring, coupled with detailed survey information allows consideration of whether, in relation to a property archetype, deterioration of a specific building element e.g., roughcast, is a predicator to the occurrence of damp and mould when considered in addition to location and severity ratings. SAS will be developing a "Supervised" machine learning paradigm… By utilising machine learning we will be able to, on mass, perform informed, rapid, evaluation and comparison of property health. The learning is based on survey data from identified archetype properties which have benefited from extensive monitoring and analysis." - Sureserve Asset Services Limited

While several expressed support in their open comments, there was no consistency in views with a mix of organisations and individuals favouring the different options outlined in the closed question. Reasons for support centred on the need for improvements across all property types, wherever possible, so every building is as energy efficient as possible.

“There are obvious challenges with setting an appropriate standard for all housing given the enormous variety in the housing stock. Yet it is reasonable, where specific measures cannot be adopted, to continue to require energy efficiency to be raised to a minimum level.” - Loco Home Retrofit CIC

A similar number of respondents , mainly organisations, explained why they felt more time should be provided to meet some of the measures. Reasons included giving time to raise funds, waiting until rental properties were void, allowing for planning and conservation measures and enabling more complex works to be tackled. This issue was particularly prevalent among local authorities.

“This will allow those “hard to treat” buildings sufficient time to consider the most suitable technologies, grid reinforcement work to have been carried out and other practical issues, such as applying for consents.” - Central Association of Agricultural Valuers / Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association

Over half (54%) of those answering Q7 stated that an alternative approach to setting the minimum energy efficiency standard is required. One fifth (20%) did not think this was necessary, and a quarter (26%) were unsure. Levels of agreement were similar among individuals and organisations (54% and 58% respectively). However, individuals were more likely to select ‘don’t know’ (28% compared with 17% of organisations).

Over a third of respondents left a comment at Q7, mostly explaining why they believed an alternative approach to setting the minimum energy efficiency standard is required. Some, however, commented that there was no need for an alternative approach and expressed support for the list of measures approach.

The most prevalent theme was that the variety of buildings in Scotland meant a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate and therefore an alternate approach is required, especially for traditional buildings. This view was particularly prevalent among the small number of housing association and bodies and community council/organisations who commented. There were calls for flexibility and a more nuanced approach that recognised the variations in properties, with suggestions including a separate approach for specific buildings or to exempt them from the minimum standard. More detail about respondents’ views on exemptions is given in Chapter 7.

“The age and construction-type of some buildings – for example, buildings with solid stone walls – may make flexibility, or even exemptions from the minimum energy efficiency standard, a necessity.” – The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

Comments about EPCs comprised the next most prevalent theme, raised by many respondents, two thirds of which were organisations. Individuals were more likely to comment that EPCs were unsuitable for assessing energy efficiency, though others recommended using a reformed EPC instead of a minimum standard. Benefits of using the reformed EPC were given, such as providing more accurate information and EPCs already being widely familiar to the public. Additional comments included that hot water demand should be incorporated into EPCs along with other types of metrics such as wall thickness, that actual as well as modelled data should be acceptable as evidence, and that there should be a way to update the EPC register on an ad-hoc basis.

Many respondents, the majority of which were organisations, agreed more generally with the proposal that an alternative approach to a minimum standard was required. Respondents often gave constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved, though no consensus was apparent. Respondents’ ideas included meeting the standard through a heat demand metric, basing it on a reformed EPC, using a housing ‘types’ handbook with in-situ U-value data, or allowing flexibility in how the standard is met.

Many respondents, especially individuals, expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposals. Respondents frequently argued against having a minimum standard or an alternative to it, though comments were generally brief. Reasons included that an approach should be suitable for the diversity of Scotland’s buildings, that a standard should not apply to residential property and that having an alternative created too complex a policy.

Similarly, several respondents – mostly individuals – argued for an alternative approach that incentivised rather than enforced energy efficiency home improvements. This was perceived as being less punitive and more likely to generate positive incremental change. Suggestions included raising awareness of cost savings that could be made following energy efficient improvements, offering a council tax reduction, having zero VAT on insulation or clean heating systems and introducing CO₂ emissions allowances.

Drawing on expert knowledge or the latest technology was suggested by several respondents, mostly individuals. Views included that technology was still developing and now was not the best time to decide an approach, that more research is required or that trained professionals should be involved in devising innovative solutions or providing advice.

“There are pilot projects and research currently being undertaken by experts such as architects, building surveyors and designers to find suitable solutions for traditional properties. These solutions include internal wall insulation and other specialist solutions to improve thermal insulation of hard-to-treat properties. These solutions are still in discovery, learning and monitoring stages and not ready for mass market commercialisation, therefore the costs to install is still very expensive.” – Aberdeen City Council

The needs for professional verification and for further detail on enforcement were also raised by some, mainly organisations. A few organisations noted potential negative consequences of the proposals. These included: the use of a list potentially discouraging the development of a market for retrofit coordinators; bandings being too wide and incremental improvements not being recognised; and the list of measures not addressing embodied carbon or emissions.

Many also raised concerns about affordability and called for more financial support from the Scottish Government. Several felt the proposals were an example of government overreach and some highlighted workforce issues, all discussed in Chapter 2.

(1) should be prohibited in all cases

(2) for buildings already using it

(3) for buildings who have no other clean heating system available

(4) buildings already using it and for buildings who have no other clean heating system available

(5) should be used in wider circumstances (please describe these)

At Q8, respondents were able to select multiple answer options, therefore the row percentages in the table above add to more than 100%. Overall, there was widespread support for the continued use of bioenergy – 14% 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.

Two fifths (41%) of those answering expressed a preference for buildings already using bioenergy and with no clean heating alternatives to be permitted to continue using bioenergy. This option was supported by just under half (48%) of organisations and two fifths (40%) of individuals. One quarter (27%) supported the continued use of bioenergy for all buildings that have no other clean alternative, while one fifth (19%) supported continued use in all buildings already using bioenergy. One in ten expressed the view that bioenergy should be used in wider circumstances, with organisations more like than individuals to favour this stance (19%). Conversely, individuals were more likely to support complete prohibition than organisations (15% to 5% respectively).

Just under a quarter of respondents provided a comment at Q8 and, in line with the closed question results, many supported the continued use of bioenergy in certain circumstances. The most prevalent theme in comments, and also highlighted in the large campaign response, was support for the continued use of bioenergy in remote and rural areas or where there are questions over the reliability of electricity supply. While this issue was raised by most types of organisation, it was particularly prevalent among other organisations managing building stock/estates. Respondents noted that many living in these areas had limited or no alternatives to bioenergy as their heat source and therefore continued use of bioenergy would be the only practical and affordable option. Some respondents commented on their support for the specific circumstances of continued use of bioenergy in rural buildings already using it, or for it to be permitted in rural buildings where no other heating systems are available.

“In many rural settlements, there is a significant question mark in respect of whether the distribution network will be upgraded in sufficient time to enable the transition of all homes to low carbon heat, let alone the shift to electric vehicles. Therefore, a prohibition on bioenergy may have unintended consequences as it does provide a viable, and in many cases the only, opportunity for householders to significantly decarbonise their heating system.” – Highlands & Islands Enterprise

The second most prevalent theme was support for the continued use of bioenergy in wider circumstances. This was supported equally by organisations and individuals, as many felt bioenergy is renewable and better for the environment than burning fossil fuels. Several mentioned the sustainability of locally sourced bioenergy and the benefits of short supply chains and a few commented on the important role the bioenergy industry plays in local economies. It was imperative to those organisations supporting the continued use of bioenergy more widely that the bioenergy was sustainable. Several others supported the use of certain types of bioenergy because they believe it to be a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. Respondents often mentioned biomethane as a specific alternative, while the large campaign response to the consultation called for the use of bioenergy such as HVO (Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil) in rural or off gas-grid homes which currently use oil or kerosene central heating. A few organisations highlighted how the continued use of bioenergy was in line with the European Union’s energy policy.

“Most important is the fuel source rather than the heating system, and provided it is local and harvested sustainably it should be acceptable.” - Energy Efficiency Supply Chain

Respondents were often unsure about this question or highlighted other points for the Scottish Government to consider. Many noted they would support the continued use of bioenergy if it were shown to be cleaner than the alternatives, although they lacked information about whether this is the case. Many others wanted further details and clarification on the current situation in Scotland, including how many households currently rely on electricity or bioenergy to fuel their heating. Others questioned if there is a distinction between polluting and non-polluting bioenergy.

“For clarity and consistency, further detail should be provided on what constitutes a bioenergy system. For example, SFHA believes that the continued use of a renewable biomass district heat network should be allowed, but would question the continued use of individual bioenergy systems using unsustainable sources where viable alternatives are available.” - Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

Many emphasised that their knowledge of bioenergy showed it to be bad for individuals’ health and the environment but commented that they were unsure whether it would be advisable to limit its use entirely. Some suggested alternatives, such as taxation for bioenergy users or limiting the use of bioenergy to district or network heating systems.

While there was widespread support for the continued use of bioenergy in various circumstances, several respondents expressed opposition in their open comments. Wood pellets were specifically highlighted as producing more pollution and particulates than gas boilers. Others noted that often, the products used for bioenergy, such as peat and wood, not only produce emissions when burnt but are also sinks in which large volumes of carbon can be stored. As such, they argued that using them for fuel is particularly detrimental to reducing emissions.

Some thought that if bioenergy is currently being used in a building, those properties should be permitted to continue using it until the existing heating system reaches the end of its useful life. These respondents noted that current bioenergy systems, especially wood pellet systems, have recently been introduced by owners who switched to bioenergy in good faith, assuming they were making a climate-positive change, and argued that it would be unfair to make pay to them replace a relatively new and functioning system. A small number advocated that all buildings that are currently using bioenergy continue to do so, and that limits should only be placed on new buildings instead.

“As an RSL, we have a Biomass district heating network which heats 139 homes via woodchip and we were encouraged by the Scottish Government to install this method of heating. To upgrade this before the end of the hardware lifecycle would be very costly and would require financial assistance.” - Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association