The ‘new’ Green Deal – simpler, but less sustainable?

BSRIA’s Alan Gilbert analyses the pros and cons of the revamped Green Deal package.

Revamped and now relaunched, the “New” Green Deal is with us. Will it be more successful than the previous incarnation? Do we now have an opportunity to make a real reduction in energy usage?

The previous scheme has been roundly criticised for its complexity, so the new scheme has set out to address some of these failings. In particular, it focuses on the “Golden Rule”, which was at the heart of the Green Deal and intended to deliver a net saving to participants.

The rule essentially required that levy payments on Green Deal loans should be less than savings participants made through lower energy bills as a result of the efficiency improvements. While it’s important for participants to see value for money, it does mean that participants couldn’t shop around elsewhere for cheaper financing, or undertake more costly improvements. The upfront charge of £120 for an environmental assessment was also an immediate barrier to participation.

The new scheme certainly appears to offer a simpler process for qualifying for funding. For example, the first £100 of the assessment can be reclaimed. The funding structure is also easier to understand, with simple incentives such as a £500 payment to anyone who installs energy-efficiency measures within 12 months of moving into their property. There will also be a further £1,000 cashback which will be available to all, irrespective of when they moved in, if they fit any combination of two improvements from a list of 12. Participants can now also claim cashback without taking out a Green Deal loan for installing energy-efficient measures, as long as the work is done by a certified Green Deal installer.

So it must be acknowledged that the government took on board the criticisms of the scheme, and reviewed and amended access to the funding. But will the scheme really deliver the change that is required? Well, maybe not.

If the scheme is to be considered a success it needs to have good engagement but it also needs to ensure that the greatest level of energy savings are recommended and achieved for each participant, as far as is practical.

While the Green Deal advisers will be trained to provide the service, audit processes need to be set in place to ensure that their services are appropriate to the specific conditions of the dwelling being evaluated. Advice should also be holistic and take into consideration any unintended consequences that may prove detrimental in the long-term use of the home.

For instance, while recommending insulation of walls and window upgrades, the ventilation strategy must be reviewed and appropriate measures recommended accounting for any anticipated changes in the fabric air permeability levels. If factors such as this are not carefully considered, there may be long-term effects on the building fabric and health of occupants due to high moisture levels and potential condensation and mould growth.

Some of the listed improvements for which funding is available may not necessarily provide the benefit expected and the allocation of a flat £1,000 cashback for picking any two of 12 listed measures may not be proportionate to the actual benefit to the energy performance of the home. The replacement of single glazed windows with double glazed units will be beneficial if the installation ensures adequate sealing around the opening edges. A new door will have limited impact in terms of preventing heat loss if there is considerable air leakage through the walls, floor and roof anyway.

For the Green Deal to be considered a real success there needs to be some monitoring of the return on investment, which should be maximised through installations which offer the highest energy savings practicable for each scheme participant. This will add further confidence to the scheme, especially as all private landlords are expected to adopt the recommended measures to ensure their properties meet minimum standards of energy efficiency by 2018.

While the revised scheme addresses the problem of the previous version being too complicated, there may be a risk that the anticipated benefits from recommended measures may not be realised in practice. 

Alan Gilbert is business manager of BSRIA Instrument Solutions