EPC

thevilla

I attended an EPC assessment today. Happened to mention I was planning a heat pump this year. The assessor said they would reduce the assessment score for electric heating because "most electricity comes from gas".  I mentioned that last quarter more electricity came from wind than gas:  " that's because some gas turbines were down".  Dispatchable wind!?

How does govt policy get so corrupted?  Very sad considering the influence someone like this would exert on everyone they meet.

Oh also hydrogen is the future apparently.

Netexporter

They were trotting out the Toyota wishful thinking about solid-state batteries and hybrids on You and Yours, this morning.

Screwdriva

The EPC methodology hasn't caught up to this decade's progress in heating sadly. Most assessors are rather....simple.

After months of searching, I consider myself fortunate to have found an assessor who spent hours finding ways to use the assessor code/ guidelines to reward renewable households, including those who invest in renewable heating.

paul991

don't  think many have any idea about  building construction 

Netexporter

I was previously in a rental property and when EPCs became mandatory it was the letting agent's handyman who did the survey.

I've long maintained that most EPCs aren't worth the paper/pixels they are written on. The only upside to that is you can find a bargain house if you know your building physics/construction better than the assessor.

JKenH

The biggest flaw, in my eyes, is that the EPC grading is based on heating costs rather than efficiency. A small house will do better than a large one. The EPC assessors only trust what they can see with their own eyes. I had underfloor insulation before it was required by building regs but as the assessor couldn’t see it he wouldn’t include it. I also had extra wide wall cavities to accommodate thicker insulation but despite measuring the wall thickness in front of him he ignored that. I also had 300 mm of loft insulation and 28mm double glazing but only scraped a D (score 60) to qualify for solar panel FiT. The problem is the house is 282sq.m so it is always going to cost more heat than a smaller property of similar construction. 

Spies

EPC is a rubbish metric anyway, my house has gone from a D to a B by having solar PV, yet most of my energy usage is in winter when the sun isn't shining and I use Gas CH. 

Pointless. 

Reed_Richards

EPCs are made by feeding figures into a software package which generates the report.  Few of the EPB "assessors" who feed the figures actually understand how the software works.  This one was talking through their hat. 

Martyn1981

Similar moan here. I had a whinge on the G&E board back in 2012 when I had my PV extension (2011 install didn't require EPC). Might seem like a strange whinge, but our EPC was high B, with A if we insulated under the floors downstairs (some had been done, but couldn't be confirmed, and if we had EWI or IWI installed. We did already have CWI but that too couldn't be confirmed, and I appreciate isn't as 'good' for our circumstances as EWI.

How can a 'classic' 1930's 3-bed semi be B/A ... just because it has PV. We've done all the normal good things (LED's, CWI, DG etc etc) but nothing exceptional or 'special'.Also that high EPC rating is based on us using about 15,500kWh of GCH + DHW. That doesn't sound really good to me? In reality we actually used about 8,000kWh of gas - but now it's closer to 6,000kWh (gas), but that's because we are using an A2A unit more and more, to shift some of that kWh(t) from gas to leccy.


Also, watched a nice vid recently (but I forget who/what it was) on a group of homes being built to high standards in the UK. They stressed that they were to Passivhaus standards with very low energy/heating demand. This point was made again, as they pointed out that whilst they have a letterbox (normally Passivhaus don't), it's fine, as that frontal area is separate to the main building.

They then went on to explain that they don't score really high on EPC, as they didn't target the EPC specifically ..... or to put it another way, 'they didn't play the game'.


Edit - Just to say I really like and support the idea of EPC's, but not sure they are really doing what we think they are doing ATM.

mickyduck55

I needed an EPC assessment last year so I could apply for ASHP under the BUS.  Local chap popped round.  As he was leaving he said I would probably get a C.  I said doesn't solar PV and batteries have any bearing on the result, he says of course they would if you had them.. my entire roof is covered with solar which he failed to notice.  I even enquired about solar diverters being classed as solar water heating, no mate sorry has to be a proper solar water heater, he still didn't twig. 

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

Similar moan here. I had a whinge on the G&E board back in 2012 when I had my PV extension (2011 install didn't require EPC). Might seem like a strange whinge, but our EPC was high B, with A if we insulated under the floors downstairs (some had been done, but couldn't be confirmed, and if we had EWI or IWI installed. We did already have CWI but that too couldn't be confirmed, and I appreciate isn't as 'good' for our circumstances as EWI.

How can a 'classic' 1930's 3-bed semi be B/A ... just because it has PV. We've done all the normal good things (LED's, CWI, DG etc etc) but nothing exceptional or 'special'.Also that high EPC rating is based on us using about 15,500kWh of GCH + DHW. That doesn't sound really good to me? In reality we actually used about 8,000kWh of gas - but now it's closer to 6,000kWh (gas), but that's because we are using an A2A unit more and more, to shift some of that kWh(t) from gas to leccy.


Also, watched a nice vid recently (but I forget who/what it was) on a group of homes being built to high standards in the UK. They stressed that they were to Passivhaus standards with very low energy/heating demand. This point was made again, as they pointed out that whilst they have a letterbox (normally Passivhaus don't), it's fine, as that frontal area is separate to the main building.

They then went on to explain that they don't score really high on EPC, as they didn't target the EPC specifically ..... or to put it another way, 'they didn't play the game'.


Edit - Just to say I really like and support the idea of EPC's, but not sure they are really doing what we think they are doing ATM.

As a comparison my EPC states

Estimated energy needed in this property is:

• 26,863 kWh per year for heating
• 3,045 kWh per year for hot water

And just for reference it states

The primary energy use for this property per year is 166 kilowatt hours per square metre (kWh/m2).

Primary energy use is defined as follows:

Primary energy use is a measure of the energy required for lighting, heating and hot water in a property. The calculation includes:

• the efficiency of the property’s heating system
• power station efficiency for electricity
• the energy used to produce the fuel and deliver it to the property

I wonder if one lives in Scotland or the North East one’s primary energy use would be lower or whether as we move to more efficient energy generation we will get higher EPC ratings without any further measures being taken