Launched in September 2020 and cancelled on the 31st March 2021, the Government’s £1.5 billion flagship Green Homes Grant scheme to improve energy efficiency and provide a much-needed boost to employment has collapsed with just a few days’ notice.
The scheme – intended to help finance 600,000 energy efficiency measures and provide 100,000 jobs has laboured in its delivery with only 96,000 grant applications approved and has made only a minor impact in the creation of jobs.
The scheme was originally intended to come to an end in March 2021 before the Government extended it to the end of March 2022.
So, what has gone so horribly wrong with this scheme and what can we learn from it?
The principles of the scheme are commendable in the creation of jobs whilst improving energy efficiency and playing a role in the Government’s Public Sector Decarbonising Scheme.
Firstly, the creation of jobs and decarbonisation are not short-term schemes and require planning, industry engagement and an achievable timeline which should sit outside of a Government’s term in Parliament.
The Insulated Wall industry, like other industries, had no real input into the how the scheme was to be operated and administrated and as BEIS, (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) stated: “The industry has to just get on with it and make it work”.
The scheme requirement to be registered with Trustmark was also a major hurdle to the delivery of the measures. With external / internal and cavity wall insulation measures, the requirement to be Trustmark registered also required PAS2030 certification, a process which was overloaded with request, delays and costs of around £1,500. The requirement to be registered with Trustmark is commendable, as Trustmark is there to help ensure that the quality of all measures installed are assessed, but it never had a chance of succeeding with the timeline proposed.
The administration process for the lodgement of measures and payment processes all had major issues to begin with, which has seen some installing companies left unpaid and many companies turning their back on the scheme as they believe it to be too expensive and involves too much red tape and risk.
What about training?
The idea to create new jobs within the sector should be welcomed, but given that new trainees in the insulated wall industry can take 6 months or longer to bring onboard for a scheme which initially was only to run for 6 months was ultimately flawed. This was also in addition to Brexit, which has had a serious impact on the labour market in certain sectors, despite the industry calling for the government to listen to their concerns, the unfortunate ship SS Green Homes Grant had already set sail on its doomed voyage.
Training is essential to our industry and more financial assistance with a view for companies to bring on more quality trained labour should be forthcoming, but training must come first with a guarantee of consistent workload and not the stop-start mechanism we have seen so often from Government funding schemes of the past.
What can we learn?
There is a demand for more energy efficient measures and the public are willing to contribute.
Before the scheme was cancelled, there had been over 100,000 applications under the GHG scheme and this involved the home owner paying a third of the value of the measures (up to £5000, in most cases). The public are more aware of climate change, renewable energy and their own energy efficiency than at any other time in history and the momentum of this should not be lost.
Home owners also understand that there is a longer-term financial benefit to having a thermally efficient property with not just reduced energy bills but property values reportedly increasing on homes which have had such measures carried out.
Decarbonisation is a long-term plan.
Decarbonising the Nation’s 19 million homes is a long-term plan and cannot be achieved with short-term, hastily prepared schemes. Decarbonisation should never be thought about as a fixed term plan to coincide with parliamentary terms, but should be considered in its longevity to deliver proper results.
We need long-term clarity on energy efficiency standards, stable long-term funding models, effective delivery methods without costly administration processes and an industry training for the future program.
If we can bring all these elements together then we will be on the road to success.
Job creation
A stable long-term energy efficiency model must be introduced and job creation in the industry will undoubtedly follow.
It was reported that only 1 in 6 households could find a local installer under the scheme. The question should be asked, why would installers adopt a scheme which would cost them time and money to gain the relevant certification and registrations, especially given the industry’s past experience of the Green Deal Scheme, which was abandoned overnight and cost thousands of jobs.
No scheme will work if the capacity to install is not there, and therefore there should be further investment in training and public relations. Intertwine this within the DNA of stable long-term incentive schemes and job creation will follow.
Administration
American administrators ICF came in for a lot of criticism, with reports of being uncontactable, slow in processing applications and slow or a lack of payments to installers.
It was evident that there was an appetite for the scheme, which was gathering momentum, but facing the backlog of delays, ultimately the scheme became unsustainable.
The question should be asked; why?
Why was an American organisation given such a pivotal role in this scheme, when we have a number of organisations better suited or more experienced in the UK?
This question no doubt has been digested within the walls of Government and we can but only hope that lessons have truly been learnt.
What next?
The government have certainly shown that they are willing to commit to decarbonisation and energy efficiency just because this scheme has fallen at the first hurdle doesn’t mean that we as a Nation cannot deliver on the UK’s carbon emissions targets. Building standards are already being prepared with better thermal efficiency as a keystone, such as the Building Homes for the Future Standard.
There is the potential for more incentivised schemes in the next couple of years, and we still have ECO (Energy Companies Obligation) which is rumoured to be set for a potential increased from the 17,000 properties per year, in addition to the LADS (Local Authority Delivery Scheme).
Get the infrastructure right and the future should be bright.
Recent Comments