Heat and Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment: consultation analysis
Analysis report for the Heat and Energy Efficiency Technical Suitability Assessment (HEETSA) consultation. The HEETSA consultation sought views from self-identifying organisations, industry and individuals on developing a framework for the retrofit of buildings, both domestic and non-domestic.
Q3 Delivery Model for a HEETSA
Of the 74 respondents who answered the question, the majority thought that HEETSA assessors should be accredited by third-party organisations (n=46, 62%). These organisations should themselves be accredited by the Scottish Government. In contrast, 12 respondents felt it more appropriate that accreditation was direct by government. Five of those who stated ‘other’ felt accreditation was required but were agnostic as to by government directly or via third-party organisations.
Responses from organisations outweigh those from individuals, by just over three to one. Two-thirds of organisations (n=37) and half the individuals (n=9) were in favour of third-party accreditation.
| Response | Number | Percent | Valid Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Government accreditation of assessors | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| Government accreditation of assessor organisations who in turn accredit assessors | 46 | 52 | 62 |
| HEETSA as guidance only without Government accreditation of assessors | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Other | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| Not Answered | 14 | 16 | - |
| Total | n=88 | n=88 | n=74 |
The main themes that emerged from the free text comments to this question are presented below.
Accreditation
Some respondents felt that direct government accreditation would be an inefficient use of resources and better for them to accredit assessor organisations. This outweighed those in support of direct government accreditation.
Several of those that supported direct government accreditation cited consistency for their reasoning. There was also a concern that third-party accreditation would be inefficient or create a conflict of interest.
Some respondents highlighted that existing industry bodies were best placed to become third-party accrediting bodies for HEETSA. This included recommendations of a range of suitable bodies. These existing organisations could become accreditation scheme providers either individually or through joining together. By extension their members were considered to be well placed to deliver HEETSA assessments.
Quality Assurance and Independence
There were a few respondents who identified the need for a quality assurance regime on the part of accrediting bodies and that HEETSA assessors must be independent from suppliers or contractors. There was concern that guidance only would be ineffectual in delivering HEETSA assessments that were consistent or of good quality. A few respondents thought that the delivery of HEETSA might be compromised by accrediting organisations putting profit before adequate oversight of HEETSA assessors.
Other Considerations and Suggestions
The points below were each made by a few respondents.
- Build on experience: HEETSA should look to existing construction industry accreditation Schemes. These can deliver capacity and consumer confidence.
- Methodology: There should not be a single rigid methodology as buildings differ. Also, existing methodologies should be adopted.
- Capacity: There is a lack of potential HEETSA assessment capacity in the industry.
- Proportionate: The process of accreditation and assessment must not act as a disincentive to take up.
- Information: HEETSA will strengthen consumer information.
- Business: Businesses rather than individuals should be accredited.
- National database: There is an opportunity for information from the HEETSA assessments to form a national database.
Contact
Email: EPCenquiries@gov.scot