Heat and Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment: consultation analysis

Q2 What a HEETSA should Cover

Most respondents recommended that HEETSA should cover retrofit assessment (n=69, 78%). Many respondents also thought that HEETSA should cover retrofit design (n=58, 66%), and occupancy related factors (n=53, 60%). Half of respondents thought that HEETSA should cover retrofit specification (n=44, 50%). Evaluation was selected by 40 respondents (45%). Installation was selected by 38 respondents (43%). Twenty respondents selected ‘other’ (23%). Organisations were more likely than individuals to think retrofit assessment, evaluation and occupancy should be covered by HEETSA. However, almost half of individuals selected ‘other’.

National representatives/trade bodies, local authorities/public bodies, and professional bodies/institutions were generally more supportive of HEETSA covering more of the items. Consultancies, manufacturer/utility/supply chain organisations and academic/research/third sector organisations selected fewer items to be covered by HEETSA.

Note: Respondents could select more than one option

Comments provided a variety of views on what should be included in the scope of HEETSA. Some respondents proposed that HEETSA should cover all retrofit lifecycle stages. Others thought HEETSA should not cover every stage of the retrofit lifecycle. Some respondents felt HEETSA should focus on the assessment phase only. A few respondents commented that the scope of HEETSA should be flexible so that building owners can commission parts relevant to their circumstances.

Some respondents proposed that HEETSA should draw on existing accreditations and industry standards for design and installation. Some respondents were explicit that HEETSA should not cover installation. Many of the latter cited overlaps with existing industry standards as a reason. A few respondents thought the consultation was unclear how HEETSA would interact with existing standards such as PAS 2035.

Occupancy was highlighted by many respondents. Some respondents commented that current or future occupancy patterns and behaviour should inform the assessment. A few respondents said occupancy should factor in vulnerability and fuel poverty risk. A few other respondents commented that HEETSA should not consider the occupancy of a building because it is subject to change.

The inclusion of evaluation in HEETSA was welcomed by some respondents. They proposed that measuring success is needed to ensure that intended benefits are realised. There was some discussion of how to do this. For example, using smart meter enabled thermal efficiency technologies (SMETER) to measure the thermal performance of the building.

In addition, there were more general comments about the HEETSA, each by a few respondents. Many of these points are covered in more detail in response to later questions.

• Independent advice: The need for advice to be independent. Several linked this to a need for clear separation between stages.
• Skills and qualifications: Different skills, qualifications and technical expertise are required at different stages of the process.
• Customer experience: Customer experience was highlighted in the responses. Respondents felt that HEETSA could make the retrofit process more transparent. Suggestions included that HEETSA must communicate the risks of implementing retrofit measures to building owners. Recommendations should consider phasing the retrofit works to support affordability and deliverability. It was suggested that HEETSA should reduce the risk of lack of continuity between retrofit stages. For example, duplicated work due to changes in personnel at each stage.

Additional comments from Workshops

The workshops identified the following additional points.

• Limitations of occupancy: Attendees raised concerns around unusual occupancy patterns including:
  • Short term let properties which may be empty most of the year, making it difficult to justify certain interventions.
  • Dwellings with unusually high occupancy, such as student accommodations, may require bespoke measures (e.g. additional mechanical ventilation) that could become obsolete if occupancy was to change.
• HEETSA focus and potential conflicting outcomes: Whether the HEETSA is focused on occupant or building owner needs, could lead to conflicting recommendations. What benefits the current occupants may not align with the priorities or long-term interests of the building owner.