There is for example, overlap in the work of Energy Savings Trust, Carbon Trust, Envirowise and Zero Carbon Hub resulting in duplicated effort and cost at taxpayers' expense. I therefore look forward to the new Government's plans to change this.

In this context, Energy Savings Trust, once slated as one of Britain's nine worst quangos, costs taxpayers' more than £40 million a year to run - money which its critics say, could be far better spent. Since 1993, I estimate EST has received over £400 million of taxpayers' money to provide consumers with information, advice and other services. However, numerous organizations and consultants in the public and private sector now provide these services so is EST still required?

The fact of the matter is only a minority of consumers have improved the energy efficiency of their homes or adopted low carbon lifestyles and it would be very easy for EST to make excuses and blame this situation on consumers themselves. However, after 17 years, I believe there are a number of very important questions that need to be answered by EST's management. For example: 

Has ESTs marketing / communication strategy worked? 

• Still, 71% consumers are confused as to where to go for advice and help related to improving energy efficiency. (source: Energy Savings Trust)
• Still, only 25% of people agree that climate change is both happening and primarily man made (source: Jonathon Porritt, EcoBuild)
• 59% people still don't know insulation saves them money (source: National Insulation Association)
• Most homeowners are alienated by EST's call to ban the sale or rent of homes with F/G EPC ratings. (source: Estate Agency News)
• Most landlords are still not aware of the Landlord Energy Saving Allowance. (source: various)
• Most consumers have been alienated by scaremongering adverts and marketing that has talked of restraint and sacrifice and used jargon to which they cannot relate: Travel less. Turn down the thermostat. Bath less. Eat less meat. Act on CO2. Save X tonnes of carbon. (source: various) 

After 17 years, I would therefore be very surprised if anyone thinks the money spent by EST on marketing has provided good value except EST's management.   

Does EST provide good service? 

EST run regional advice centres staffed by hard working people who unfortunately operate with one hand tied behind their back because they can only signpost consumers to suppliers of energy efficiency services, not refer and they make few follow up calls to see if consumers have acted on advice and if not, why not. 

Of around 1.5 million people who contacted EST's advice line last year, I understand only 150,000 were signposted to grants for measures with only 27% taking up the grants. That means over 90% of people who contacted EST with an intention to potentially act, probably now haven't and EST doesn't now why or of those who have acted, what steps they have taken to improve energy efficiency because no mechanism exists to record this. 

In this context, 4 million existing EPC owners should be prime targets to improve energy efficiency. However, still no mechanism exists to contact them and still buyers/tenants cannot compare EPC ratings of homes they are thinking of buying or renting.

As a result, most stakeholders including energy suppliers and insulation installers believe leads "disappear into a black hole" when consumers contact EST.

And still, the Green Homes service for which EST apparently received £100 million from Government in 2007 has not been established. Can anyone advise what has happened to it - and the money? 

This poor record on service reflects badly on the last Government and EST's management.  It damages the hard work of it's staff, damages the energy efficiency industry and damages the work of the green movement.  

Why has EST failed to establish many corporate partnerships?

Over 17 years, I estimate EST has established less than 500 partnerships with the UK's 2 million businesses despite it's management saying that "forging partnerships with the private sector is crucial to making a low carbon society a reality."   

In this context, DECC recently appointed EST to manage the PAYS pilots but EST failed to persuade any bank or building society to tender let alone participate in the pilots. Only one retailer is participating.

EST has also alienated estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and other organizations in the home selling, buying and renting supply chain by their calls to ban the sale or rent of homes with F/G EPC ratings. And now, I understand EST is considering mailing F/G rated homes without considering if they could partner with estate agents to help them improve response rates and reduce costs to taxpayers. How on earth does that make sense? 

Why is EST's doing work that overlaps with that of other quangos and councils?

EST also works with companies, UK housing / building professionals and councils to help them engage customers, employees and residents. 

Why?  Isn't this the responsibility of Carbon Trust, Zero Carbon Hub or Councils themselves? 

Why is EST not open and transparent?

EST is mainly funded by the taxpayer who has every right to know how it's money is being spent. However, EST does not publish accounts or details of it's spending and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Why is EST still recruiting staff?

Despite the need to cut back public spending, EST has advertised over 20 vacancies for staff since the election with titles such as Business Analyst, Assistant Data Services Manager, Data Management Assistant, Desktop Support, CRM & Digital Team Assistant and Assistant Information and Data Manager. 

I estimate these new jobs will cost the taxpayer over £400,000 per year and the mind boggles as to what these staff will do all day. Wouldn't the money be better spent on employing staff to encourage consumers to improve energy efficiency instead of on administration? 

Is Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, working?

EEPH is managed / facilitated by EST and it's aim is to provide an effective mechanism for cross-sector cooperation and joint delivery of energy efficiency initiatives between the public, private and voluntary sectors.

It has around 600 organisations as members. Most of these are from the public and voluntary sector. Less than 200 of the UK's 2 million businesses have joined, despite membership being free. Trade Associations representing banks, building societies, retailers and other consumer facing organisations are conspicuous by their absence despite their help being needed to deliver energy efficiency initiatives and the forthcoming Green Deal.

EEPH operates like a private members club, only a select number of organisations being invited to it's events and to join it's workshops.  It's recommendations to Government and the consultations it facilitates are heavily influenced by EST, environmental groups and other public sector stakeholders instead of the private sector. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

And what does EEPH do with taxpayers money? Well, I understand around 80% of it's budget is spent on consultants. (I have no way of checking if this % is correct because like EST, EEPH does not publish accounts or details of it's spending).

In this context, EEPH has a Chair, two Deputy Chairs and a Director but only three staff. I know of no other organisation with such a top heavy management structure. Can any reader advise me of any others? 

A new part time Chair was appointed earlier this year with I understand, a salary equivalent to over £120,000 per year. How can this be justified?  Wouldn't the money have been better spent on recruiting staff to improve co-operation amongst members and on increasing membership? 

What is EST's future? 

Despite spending £ hundreds of millions on marketing and hiring hundreds of staff, I suggest EST has not achieved it's task, despite having 17 years to do so. 

EST controls a wide range of activities which would be better provided by local councils and the private sector. There is overlap in it's activities with other green quangos and because it has failed to establish many partnerships with the private sector, the diversity and competition needed to drive innovation and growth in 'green' services has not happened.

The new Government will issue the Green Energy bill later this year, the main elements being implementation of a "Green Deal" to deliver energy efficiency to homes and business by enabling a 'pay as you save' approach and it will be down to councils, private and voluntary sectors to generate demand. 

Councils must be put firmly back in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about delivery of energy efficient housing and they along with the energy efficiency industry, retailers, banks, estate agents and other consumer facing organizations supported by the 'green' movement, must drive forward delivery, not the quangos. 

I therefore call on Government to scrutinise the green quangos perceived flaws and failings and make necessary changes as soon as is practical. I suggest changes to be considered should include:

• Merging EST and EEPH with other quangos such as Carbon Trust, Envirowise and Zero Carbon Hub. In this context, ZCH is part funded by CLG and has done excellent work on moving forward the agenda on zero carbon homes and I have no criticism of it's management.  

However, it solely focuses on new homes and in february this year, it acknowledged there is need for an integrated consumer marketing strategy covering existing and new homes on a national basis. It does not therefore make sense for it to remain separate. 

• Creation of a national sales and marketing strategy that focuses on delivery of the Green Deal, using language that the public can embrace and understand. That puts customer service first, not bureaucracy. That engages all sectors of industry. That encourages the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together. That is led by individuals focused on innovating, inspiring and persuading consumers and businesses to improve energy efficiency, not on building empires.
• Making quangos subject to the FOI Act. The public don't want to see ever more of their money go to ineffective marketing. The public should be able to see where their money goes and what it delivers. 
   
• Stopping EST and other quangos calling for legislation. Campaigning for changes in legislation is not the brief of quangos and should not be done at taxpayers' expense. 

The final questions therefore are: 

1. Will EST and EEPH's senior management be willing to accept part of the blame for failing to convince consumers and businesses to improve energy efficiency?
2. Will they object to any reform that Government requires? or
3. Will they co-operate with Government to ensure the most effective green services and initiatives are delivered and cost savings are delivered.

Only time will tell.  

In my view, their decision is inexplicable. My criticism of them should not have gotten in the way. Did they expect praise for their dithering over 6 months? Homeowners should come first but their decision is clearly not in the best interests of 4 million homeowners with EPCs or the environment and flies in the face of Government's wish to see action on EPCs.

1. Is EST providing good value for taxpayers' money?  
2. Is there any need for them to continue to provide advice services to consumers?
3. Could services they provide be better supplied by the private or voluntary sectors?
4. Does EST's impartiality get in the way of providing good service?
5. Should EST be merged with other 'green' quangos?  

• Only 25% of people agree that climate change is both happening and primarily man made (source: Jonathon Porritt, EcoBuild)
• 71% consumers are still confused as to where to go for advice and help related to improving energy efficiency. (source: Energy Savings Trust) 
• 59% people still don't know insulation saves them money (source: National Insulation Association).
• 5 out of 6 business managers are still doing nothing about climate change (source: Chartered Management Institute)
• less than 200 of the UK's 2 million businesses are members of Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, despite membership being free.
• Only one of the LDA's Green 500 companies has established an insulation referral scheme. 

“Thanks for your emails, I agree with much of what you have had to say. You are sending a clear message to Government and indeed to all political parties that the time is now to act on transforming our homes for the future”. 

“I completely agree on the importance of getting the private sector – particularly lenders - actively engaged with energy efficiency delivery, including PAYS.   

“ The last few years don’t give me much reason for optimism about the role estate agents will play – the opportunity has been there, but they haven’t shown any appetite to get involved.  However if they do, I’ll be the first to cheer”. 

“It is incredibly frustrating that after so many meetings, discussions, presentations, roadmaps and customer journeys about how we turn the advice from EPC’s into action, little progress has been made and we seem no nearer putting in place a simple referral mechanism”. 

“You appear to be a “man on a mission”. This is a breath of fresh air to me as the vast majority of the industry players appear to have given up. Keep up the good work”. 

“You make a number of operational and management criticisms (about councils) with which I fundamentally agree.  I just wish more political leaders listened to us”. 

“Watching with interest, Nigel. I saw this coming as soon as I read the consultation. I'd hoped Council's wouldn't risk undermining both their own credibility and that of the HEA scheme itself, but I'm thinking their choices are forced through a combination of tough budget decisions and deadlines”  

“The solution (re HEAs) suggested makes perfect sense. Canvass by phone and/or paper advertising, book appointments and use advisers who know what they're talking about.” 

 “I agree. The home improvement agenda is not providing good value for taxpayers’ money. Let’s hope the next Government sorts it out”. 

“Fantastic stuff. I love it. Keep up the good work”. 

“We know the message is not getting across to consumers. Things have to change. Please keep me advised of developments” 

“I know that you have devoted a lot of time and energy to this project and the change of heart must be very frustrating”. 

 “I agree that action on EPC’s has to be a vital part of the package. Keep on keeping on!” 

“Nobody can say that you are not trying!” 

“We’re keen to see your work succeed. Please keep us advised”. 

“We agree it is a mammoth task to persuade owners of buildings to improve energy efficiency. Keep up the pressure!” 

“We need to expand the EPC market and encourage homes to be improved. Good luck in your endeavours.”  

“Thanks for this. Is there anything you want me to do?” 

“I am conscious that we have not yet met to go over ideas. Lets get together – there are some knotty (and nutty) issues around (re EPCs) which need to be sorted.” 

“Have you been invited to the EST / CLG meeting on 13th May? Is that an opportunity to make noises about 'lots of talking' but no resources?” 

“We’d be very interested in the outcome of your proposed calling programme. Please keep us posted.” 

“I do wish you all the best with your work”.

“It is a pleasure to hear from someone wanting to make a real difference”

How can Government and industry make it happen? 

The scale of the challenge is unprecedented. The need for action urgent but no consensus exists on what needs to be done and how it can be best delivered.  The public and private sector have a joint responsibility to work together to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes. However, they are not doing this. Things have to change and every one needs to play their part. 

Government cannot do everything. There will be public spending cuts and councils need the private sector’s help to promote energy efficiency.  And less must be expected from central Government by way of legislation. This will antagonise homeowners not incentivise. We need more carrot than stick. 

Industries that have historically not worked together now need to do so in partnership. Councils, energy suppliers and insulation companies with banks, retailers and estate agents to provide innovation, diversity and competition that stimulates growth in 'green' services and provides leadership for others to follow. 

Stakeholders such as quangos, trade associations and environmental lobby groups will need to compromise. Differing interests and concerns need to be accommodated. Closed minds, opened. Differences overcome. And, we need joined up thinking, openness and transparency to provide cost effective delivery instead of duplicated work and costs.  

And key to it all will be sales and marketing by highly skilled, energy efficiency professionals who evangelise, inform, educate, inspire and incentivise consumers to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and adopt low carbon lifestyles.  

We have no choice. Carrying on as we are is not enough. We must improve. We cannot give up. A way forward must be found for the benefit of homeowners and tenants, their children, future generations and the environment.

More after the election.

Conveyancing solicitors and estate agents could refer homeowners with EPCs to Energy Savings Trust (EST) for advice and / or insulation installers. However, they are not doing this. In an attempt to change this situation, I therefore arranged meetings between the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), EST and the National Insulation Association (NIA) with the Law Society which led to the latter agreeing to publish articles to encourage their conveyancing members to refer homeowners with EPCs to NIA member installers. 

Seperately, I also arranged for DECC and the NIA to meet with the National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) and the Association of Residential Lettings Agents (ARLA). This led to the latter two agreeing to consult their members on referring homeowners with low EPC ratings to NIA installer members. 

As the next step, a calling programme was due to commence in april on NAEA and ARLA members to assess their interest in referring EPC owners. It was also intended that the calling programme assess the potential for estate agents and conveyancing solicitors to:  

• provide details of homes made more energy efficient to EST so the Home Energy Efficiency Database could be updated
• encourage potential homebuyers to buy zero carbon new homes. (circa 50% of new homes are marketed / sold by estate agents).
• improve compliance with commercial EPCs and promote action by commercial landlords.
• ensure the energy performance of a home is reflected in its market value. (market valuations are determined by estate agents not RICS surveyors).
• promote 'pay as you save energy' loans to homeowners as and when they are introduced.  

Lessons learnt from the calling programme would help shape best practice for future engagement drives with other organisations in the home selling, renting and supply chain such as banks, mortgage brokers, surveyors and building societies.    However, the calling programme is now 'on hold', an appeal to Ministers to reconsider their decision not to fund being unsuccessful. The reason given for declining was that if the calling programme  proves successful, it would present commercial opportunities from which estate agents and insulation companies will benefit.  

In this context, Labour has previously funded hundreds of energy efficiency related market research programmes and projects where consultancy firms, insulation companies and companies such as B & Q, British Gas and Sainsburys have gain commercially. However, in giving their decision through DECC, Ministers gave no reason as to why this project was being treated differently. No mention was also made of the fact that the project would benefit the work of Government funded organizations and potentially reduce the cost of their work to taxpayers.     The cooperation of estate agents and conveyancing solicitors clearly needs to be stimulated in order to achieve the real benefits that EPCs are capable of providing. Their representative bodies have in good faith offered to play their part to see if this can be achieved as have the NIA. It is therefore dissapointing that Labour chose not to play it's part given that Ministers and other Government representatives have repeatedly said since 2007 that action on EPCs is vital.  

The traditional home selling and buying season is underway and if £18,000 cannot be found after the election to enable the calling programme to go ahead, an opportunity to potentially improve the energy efficiency of 500,000 homes will be lost and four million existing EPC owners and millions of future owners will continue to wrongly believe that EPCs are an additional, unwanted, moving cost and a stealth tax by Government.  

If anyone has a better alternative to securing the help of estate agents and conveyancers on EPCs, please do let me know.

What Labour has effectively done is collected £60 - £100 in return for a piece of paper and walked away with the cash without any obligation to do anything. As a result, most EPCs have not been acted upon and to most sellers and landlords it seems Government has simply taken their money and abandoned them. If this happened in the private sector, it would be regarded as dubious practice. 

The current situation is clearly unsatisfactory and not in the public's best interests:  

• The EPC was meant to be the most important tool for facilitating improvement in the energy efficiency of homes, reducing energy bills and carbon emissions. However, it has become "tarred" by being part of the unpopular Home Information Pack (HIP)
• There is no mechanism in place for Energy Savings Trust (EST) to be given the contact details of EPC owners or those of buyers and tenants so they can provide help and advice on how to implement recommendations made in the EPC.
• The main suppliers of EPCs to homeowners - estate agents and conveyancing solicitors - are not referring homeowners or tenants to EST or insulation installers.
• Domestic Energy Assessors cannot give advice on EPCs or make recommendations as to possible suppliers as they are required to stay impartial.
• EST cannot refer EPC owners to installers, only 'signpost'.
• There is a widespread gap in the commercial EPC sector. A recent survey by National Energy Services indicates that only around 40% of commercial properties for sale / rent have EPCs.
• Some EPCs are 'strewn with schoolboy errors' and 'glaring omissions', according to CLG in a warning to the accreditation schemes that are meant to police the regime.
• Sellers pay for EPCs but buyers mainly benefit.
• There is no mechanism to transfer ownership of an EPC. It stays with the seller after sale of a property.
• No mechanism exists to record the contact details of buyers upon purchase of a property
• Address details on the EPC register are those of the tenant, not the landlord
• Homes are valued by an estate agent before an EPC is issued which precludes consideration being given to the energy rating or what measures could be implemented to increase value.
• Neither buyers or tenants can search homes by EPC ratings or compare properties they are considering buying or renting
• Government has no statistics on the number of homes with EPCs that have been improved as a result of the document because no mechanism exists to record such details.
• Some social landlords are not arranging EPCs / implementing recommended measures.
• There is no legal obligation to include the full EPC in property particulars. All that is required is to include the EPC bar chart which is not helpful to homeowners and tenants without further explanation.   

And, following a recent change in legislation, it is my understanding that EST is to mail F/G EPC rated homes at taxpayers expense. However, the mailings are likely to be unproductive and costly because: 

• Their letters will be unsolicited and addressed to 'the occupier' as they do not have the owners' contact details. They will therefore probably 'end up in the bin'
• Printing, envelope and postage costs will be incurred.
• There will be no follow up calls.
• Letters intended for landlords will be received by tenants.
• No contact will be made with owners of E rated homes  

Since 2007, Labour has been saying EPCs are very important but at the same time has done little to police them or deliver action. Doing nothing is not an option and an urgent rethink is therefore required on how to get sellers, buyers, landlords and tenants to act. 

Around 1 million new EPCs are expected to be issued this year and annually thereafter at an estimated cost to homeowners of £60 million per year. This excludes the cost of EPCs that may be required for e.g. houses in multiple occupation and short term lets in the future.

In an attempt to solve the problem, Labour is now considering banning the rental of un-insulated homes and EST has called on Government to also ban the sale of un-insulated homes. However, these calls have alienated homeowners and the home selling, buying and renting supply chain and have little likelihood of being put into practice because of overwhelming opposition to such a draconian proposal.

It therefore has to be questioned as to whether EST's mailings will be a good use of taxpayers' money and if legislation is the best way forward.

What are the alternative solutions? 

Most sellers and landlords purchase EPCs as part of a HIP through estate agents. Buyers subsequently receive the EPC through their conveyancer. Tenants are given a copy of their EPC by the letting agent. 

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have said that if elected, they will abolish HIPs. However, EPCs will remain and both have also said that they want to see action on them. 

If HIPs are abolished then it appears there are two options: 1) give responsibility to EST or ANO organisation for the purchase / sale of EPCs to homeowners and to generate action or  2) encourage estate agents, conveyancers and others to establish EPC referral schemes.

Option 1 would incur considerable reorganisation, staff and marketing costs. It would also require a change in legislation and given the need to cut back public spending, I question this option's viability.  

In October 2008, I therefore wrote to the then Ministers for Housing and Energy & Climate Change pointing out the inadequacies of the current system and proposed a solution. This was rejected. 

In July 2009, I sent another proposal that a calling programme be launched on estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and other organisations in the property selling, buying and renting supply chain with the objective of delivering action on domestic and commercial EPCs. 

This proposal was taken up by Labour through the Department of Energy & Climate Change but at the last minute',  I was advised that the £18,000 cost of the calling programme would not be funded by Labour as if it were to prove successful, it would present commercial opportunities from which estate agents and insulation companies will benefit. A subsequent appeal to the Ministers responsible for energy/climate change and housing to reconsider their decision was unsuccessful.

As a result, the calling programme is 'on hold' and an opportunity to potentially create 000s of jobs and make 500,000 homes with E-G EPC ratings more energy efficient, is in jeapordy.

More on this later this week.

If Government is to meet it's domestic carbon reduction targets then every UK business has to play it's part in promoting the benefits of energy efficiency to customers and employees. 

However, instead of encouraging businesses to do this through partnerships with local councils and energy suppliers, Labour has relied on a few proactive councils, volunteers in small scale local community programmes and the work of environmentalists to generate demand.

As a result:  

• most council energy efficiency programmes are operating without the help of consumer facing organisations such as retailers, supermarkets, banks and estate agents.
• only a handful of companies have established insulation referral schemes for customers and employees eg Tesco and Marks and Spencer.
• Most companies are only looking to reduce their own carbon emissions. In London for example, only one of the Green 500 businesses is promoting energy efficiency to customers and employees. 
• Only 200 of 2 million businesses are members of Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, despite membership being free.
• No banks or building societies are in the PAYS pilots

And now Labour intends to unfairly placed responsibility on councils to lead delivery at a time when councils are under severe pressure to cut back spending. 

Will therefore Labour's public sector led, HEMS work? I think not.

 Whilst councils are clearly in an excellent position to improve social housing and reduce fuel poverty, their willingness and ability to improve private housing has to be questioned and there are already worrying signs:

 Improving private housing is low priority for Councils
Quite rightly, councils top priority is to improve social housing and reduce fuel poverty so although private housing accounts for 80% of carbon emissions, it is exceedingly unlikely that improving private homes will be a political priority at a local level.

 Councils lack confidence to deliver
According to recent research, most councils lack confidence to deliver carbon emissions reductions. Reasons given include having other priorities that were more important such as maintaining front line services and wanting to get their own house in order first. In this context, only 2/3^rd  of  Local Authorities have adopted NI 186. (In London, only 18 out of 33 boroughs).  

 Councils do not have the necessary in-house skills or resources
Most councils have outsourced or intend to outsource responsibility to third party delivery agents for marketing and home energy adviser (HEA) recruitment. For most councils, their only involvement will therefore be in product procurement and "lending" their name to marketing material. 

 The success of energy efficiency programmes will therefore largely depend not on the councils themselves but on the performance of their appointed delivery agents and the quality of HEAs they recruit.

 Many delivery agents are small, non - profit making organisations with limited financial resources and new ones are springing up to take advantage of opportunities that will arise through CESP, HEMS and PAYS etc. None are regulated and as council programmes roll out there will be a growing risk that some delivery agents will not be able to perform as resources become stretched. This would result in complaints increasing, resident's trust in Councils being undermined and energy efficiency programmes failing.

 Worryingly, some councils have already appointed agents on a "permanent" basis without any performance targets / low uptake penalties or review dates built into their contracts. Some delivery agents in London for example, are installing measures at the request of tenants without prior approval from landlords.  

 Most council backed projects have uptake rates of less than 30%
Reasons for the low uptake include: 

• Councils being handicapped by lack of access to the EPC registry and HEED data to help identify target areas.
• HEAs not having the necessary "sales" and communication skills.
• Most door knocking is on a cold call basis with few pre-booked appointments arranged.  
• HEAs are expected to gain homeowners permission to carry out energy audits at the time they door knock. Audits can take up to two hours and not surprisingly most homeowners are not receptive to this without pre-agreement.
• Most homeowners are out during the day and are not receptive to unsolicited visits during evenings and weekends.
• Local businesses and community groups have not been pre-engaged to publicise programmes

Home Energy Advisers are being poorly trained
Under HEMs, a huge and unfair responsibility is to be placed on HEAs to deliver energy efficiency. Though door knocking on a street by street basis often on a cold call basis, they will be required to carry out home energy audits, persuade homeowners to install insulation, advise on adopting low carbon lifestyles, encourage owners to reduce waste and even carry out benefit entitlement checks. However:    

• The current National Occupation Standard (NOS) has no "sales-skills" training module.
• Some delivery agents are hiring unemployed people with inadequate skills on a self-employed basis with pay linked to the number of visits not uptake of measures.
• Some vacancies are being advertised without any requirement for City or Guilds / DEA qualification or minimum standards of attire.
• The salaries offered (£16K-£22K in London) have not attracted the best quality candidates.

And, training companies are champing at the bit to offer courses. Are we to see what unfortunately happened to Domestic Energy Assessors, repeated?

Lack of corporate partnerships
Delivery agents by their own admission have failed to engage local businesses to promote council backed programmes. In any event, decisions by large businesses on their involvement are made at head office or regional office level so it is difficult for councils or their delivery agents to secure local bilateral agreements.

Businesses find it difficult to access information about council delivery plans and locate the most appropriate officers to talk to.  Few council run programmes have private sector representation on their boards and as a result, there is no "independent voice from the outside world" to provide commercial expertise or help ensure programmes provide good value for taxpayers' money.

So, what is the solution? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer.

Creating a critical mass of energy efficient homes will not happen just because Government says it will. A public sector led strategy will not work. Taxpayers will demand good value for their money and councils will not be able to guarantee this with only the help of energy suppliers. We must persuade other private sector companies to work with councils and I propose the next Government consider the following steps to help overstretched councils out: 

 Establish a national corporate engagement programme

In particular, there is an urgent need for Government to engage large consumer-facing organizations with high footfall e.g shopping centre owners, supermarkets; retailers; banks, estate agents and building societies. Even the large football clubs.

 To achieve this, it is proposed a small team of experienced sales professionals be recruited by Energy Savings Trust to arrange meetings with the CEOs of the UK's top 1000 companies in order to secure their agreement to promote energy efficiency to customers and employees. Options to be considered should include:    

• Energy Savings Trust establishing a national insulation referral programme
• Individual companies or trade associations establishing referral programmes
  Local support being provided to council schemes by corporate branches displaying marketing material, donating products and sponsoring events. 

Support and commitment by large corporates will provide much needed publicity for council backed schemes and 'kickstart' improved response. They will also provide the innovation, diversity and competition needed to stimulate growth in 'green' services and leadership for other businesses to follow.

 In this context, it is particularly important to persuade banks and retailers to become involved at an early stage as they will ultimately be required to provide loans for more expensive measures such as solid wall insulation.

I have previously proposed that such a programme be established without success.

 Rethink HEA training
Like every other product / service, energy efficiency needs to be "sold" to consumers and every commercial organisation knows that top quality sales staff are required to be successful, not mediocre ones. Thus:  

• Domestic Energy Assessors with proven sales consultancy and communication skills need to be retrained as HEAs not unemployed or people on apprentice schemes.
• A sales module needs to be included in NOS
• Salaries on offer need to be increased to attract the best quality candidates
• telesales staff needed to pre-book appointments for HEAs as much as possible. 

Of course this will increase staffing costs but the risk is that if delivery agents don't do this, council programmes will end up as an expensive failure at taxpayers' expense and carbon reduction targets will not be met. 

 Other measures

•  Annual reviews of delivery agents' capabilities to ensure uptake is maximized.   Reviews should include an assessment of delivery agents' management, financials, HEA recruitment policy and performance. Councils should only grant one year? contracts and build in penalties for low uptake.  
   
• A national code of practice should be established to minimize risk of consumer complaints to which all councils and their delivery agents are required to comply. This should include a door- knocking protocol and complaints procedure. Standardised data collection procedures and homeowner questionnaires should also be introduced. Councils / delivery agents should be requested to always obtain landlord approval before HEAs carry out any work.   
   
• Further "pressure" needs to be put on Government to release EPC Registry / HEED data to councils and to leverage use of EPC comparison data from external data providers.

 Next, Labour's £250 million Energy Performance Certificate Scam.....

The three biggest failures have been in 1) engaging homeowners  2) getting consumer facing organisations such as retailers, banks and estate agents to help  3) the lack of joined up thinking which has led to duplicated effort and cost. 

The Home Energy Management Strategy will not work because it is public sector led. Where will Councils get the money from? Do they have the staff, skills and resources needed? Whilst they can improve social housing, can they really do the same in private housing? We all need to work together but Labour has unfairly put the onus on Councils and energy suppliers to deliver. The private sector has to do their fair share. More on this next week.  

Thousands of hard working, people in the energy efficiency industry who know what needs to be done are therefore frustrated by the situation and the results of Labour's failed energy efficiency strategy speak for themselves:   

• 71% consumers are still confused as to where to go for advice and help related to improving energy efficiency. ( source: Energy Savings Trust)
  Only 25% of people agree that climate change is both happening and primarily man made (source: Jonathon Porritt, EcoBuild)
• 59% people still don't know insulation saves them money (source: National Insulation Association)
• 2 out of 3 adults are still unaware that around half a house's heat can be lost through the walls and roof of an uninsulated home (source: National Insulation Association)
• Only 1 in 5 adults know that they could save over £250 per year on their energy bills by adequately insulating their homes (source: National Insulation Association)
• Uptake rates in local authority led domestic energy efficiency schemes are less than 30%
  (source: Energy Savings Trust, London Development Authority and others)
• Most of the UK's 4 million EPC owners have received no or little advice.
• Still, no mechanism exists to contact homeowners after purchasing EPCs to see if they would like help and advice on implementing recommended measures.
• Still no mechanism exists to record which homes have been improved. 
• Still buyers/tenants cannot compare EPC ratings of homes they are thinking of buying or renting.
• Homeowners and the home selling, buying and renting supply chain alienated by Energy Savings Trust's call to ban the sale or rent of homes with F/G EPC ratings from 2015. (source: Estate Agency News, British Property Federation and others) 
• CERT obligations on energy companies have resulted in higher fuel prices for everyone.  Effectively a system has been created by which low income households living in rented accommodation subsidise the improvement of an asset owned by a wealthier household. The majority of consumers don't' realise this and it is inequitable and unsustainable.
• Most landlords still not aware of the Landlord Energy Saving Allowance. (source: Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes and others)
• 13,000 people conned into spending as much as £12,000 to train as Domestic Energy Assessors or Home Inspectors by false government promises on career opportunities.
• Home Energy Advisers now being recruited with poor sales and communication skills instead of skilled Domestic Energy Assessors  
• Most councils will still not provide planning permission for external solid wall insulation or solar panels on Victorian property.
• Most homeowners have been turned off by adverts telling them to travel less, turn down the thermostat, bath less, eat less meat and by jargon they cannot relate to such as "Act on CO2" and "save X  tonnes of carbon". Scaremongering tactics used by Government in nursery rhymes adverts have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.
• 5 out of 6 business managers are still doing nothing about climate change (source: Chartered Management Institute) 
• Very few businesses have established programmes to encourage customers and employees to improve energy efficiency.   
• less than 200 of the UK's 2 million businesses are members of Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, despite membership being free. (source: Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes)
• There is a lack of confidence within local authorities in their ability to deliver emissions reductions that could develop into a major barrier to progress. (source: Impetus Consulting).
•  Only 100 of 150 Local Authorities have adopted NI 186 - in London, only 18 out of 33 boroughs. (source: Impetus Consulting).
• Most Local Authorities only have an interest in improving social housing, not private housing despite the latter being responsible for 80% carbon emissions (source: London Development Authority workshop and others)
• Most Local Authorities are frustrated that Government will only allow Energy Savings Trust statutory access to EPC records.
• The Parliamentary watchdog has been asked to investigate Government's broken promises and broken laws related to sustainable energy and fuel poverty. (source: Association for Conservation of Energy)
• Only a handful of retailers have established insulation referral schemes e.g. Tesco / M & S.
• Estate agents and conveyancers are not promoting action on EPCs.
• No banks are involved in the PAYS pilots or expressed an interest in participating (source: Energy Savings Trust).
• A 180 million lightbulb scheme was flawed and has resulted in significant wastage at taxpayers expense. (source: DECC and Energy Savings Trust)
• 7 million free water savings devices sent out to consumers at taxpayers' expense. No mechanism exists to monitor if the devices have been installed.
• At current insulation volumes, Government's target to insulate all cavities and lofts by 2015 will not be achieved. Unless urgent action is taken to increase and sustain insulation volumes, the insulation industry could be permanently damaged.
• The stop start of CERT has resulted in insulation firms being unable to plan ahead with certainty and it now needs to be amended to help shore up the loft insulation industry.
• During the summer 2009, many insulation companies were on a 3 day working week due to lack of demand and resorted to sending crews out to canvas and leaflet drop. (source: Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes)
• Over 7 million homes require solid wall insulation. However, only 20,000 are currently being achieved per year. This needs to increase to 200,000 per year but there are insufficient installers trained to do this. (source: National Insulation Association)
• The Decent Homes programme spends money on putting in new bathrooms instead of showers and insulation. (source: LSE conference)
• Government has failed to meet its own targets on reducing fuel poverty (source: Energy and Climate Change Committee) 
• No UK carbon offset programmes for homes, exist. There is no developed and accepted mechanism for accounting for these. 
• Commercial estate agents not obliged by law to ensure that the properties they market have a valid EPC in contrast with the situation with domestic estate agents who are compelled to include an EPC in the Home Information Pack. 
• Widespread non-compliance with EPC legislation exists in the commercial sector. A recent survey by National Energy Services indicates that only around 40% of commercial properties for sale / rent have EPCs.
• Some EPCs are being issued that are not worth the paper they are written on. 'Strewn with schoolboy errors' and 'glaring omissions', according to CLG in a warning to the accreditation schemes that are meant to police the regime. 
• There is still no definition of zero carbon homes.
• New home builders have a problem believing in the demand for zero carbon homes. Most would rather pay fines for not meeting government targets than risk losses on developments for which there may not be a market (Source: Loughborough University's Civil and Building Engineering Department)
• The focus on making each new home carbon neutral may lead to lower-density developments that use more green field space and encourage more car use.
  
   So, what is the solution?  I propose four key steps that need to be taken by the next Government:
• Put responsibility for domestic energy efficiency into the hands of one Government department. Currently, DECC, CLG, BERR, DEFRA and UKTI all have their say and this has resulted in differences of opinion, dithering and no delivery plan. Umpteen changes in policy and ministers responsible for housing and energy / climate change has certainly not helped. 
• Cull the quangos. Under Labour, there has been an era of empire building, mission creep and duplication of work and costs which has resulted in a jamboree for consultants. We have for example, Energy Savings Trust, Carbon Trust, the Sustainable Development Commission, Envirowise, Countryside Agency, Housing and Communities Agency, Natural England, English Nature, Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes and Zero Carbon Hub which is partly funded by CLG.  As a result, there has been overlapping research, projects, workshops, consultations and forums all at taxpayers' expense.
• A delivery plan that embraces the private sector to encourage the innovation, diversity and competition needed to drive forward growth in 'green' services; that encourages, unites and inspires energy suppliers, councils, retailers, banks and estate agents etc to work together with a common goal; that includes a national insulation referral programme at it heart to encourage businesses to refer customers and employees to installers and a consumer driven sales and marketing programme devoid of bureaucracy and jargon that educates, inspires and incentivises consumers to take action.
• Openness and transparency on what is spent and by whom.The public don't want to see ever more of their money being spent on ineffective measures to try and cut emissions, particularly in the wake of the Climate Gate scandal. 

•  Failed communication strategy. After spending an estimated £400 million of taxpayers' money, still more than 15 million homeowners are unaware about insulation and confused as to where to go for advice and help.
• Duplicated work and costs. Government departments and quangos responsible for housing and the environment have wasted £ millions on projects that haven't worked and on hundreds of consultations, research reports, workshops and focus groups.
• Four million homeowners forced to pay £250 million for EPCs have received little or no advice on them. To most, it seems Government has simply taken their money and abandoned them and in any other sector, it would be regarded as a scam. As a result, through no fault of their own, most homeowners now wrongly regard EPCs as an additional, unwanted, moving cost - and a stealth tax by Government.
• Labour's deliberating and dithering and the stop start of CERT has resulted in more than a quarter of staff at insulation companies being idle and at current volumes the target to insulate all cavities and lofts by 2015 will not be achieved. Over seven million homes still require solid wall insulation. Only 20,000 are currently being insulated per year.
•  Disengaged home selling, buying and renting supply chain because Labour has made no attempt to ask for their help in promote energy efficiency and alienated them over Home Information Packs.
• Disengaged consumer facing organisations such as retailers, banks and building societies at a time when the energy efficiency industry needs their help. As a result, the innovation, diversity and competition that such organisations could provide to stimulate growth in 'green' services has simply not happened.
• Disengaged local authorities despite Labour saying they will lead the delivery of energy efficient homes. Most councils only have an interest in improving social housing not private housing and given the need to cut back public spending, where are Councils going to get the money from?
• 10,000 Domestic Energy Assessors and Home Inspectors conned into believing they would have good career prospects. Home Energy Advisers next? 

The fact is that after 13 years of Labour, there is still no clear vision. No joined up thinking. No coherent strategy. No delivery plan. Insufficient buy-in from the private sector and councils.  Insufficient market led solutions. Insufficient consumer incentives and insufficient account taken of commercial realities. 

                                                                            We cannot go on like this. Change is desperately needed.

The UK's taxpayers' including 26 million homeowners and 10 million tenants need to know how Labour has squandered their money and if re-elected, that there is a risk they will continue to do so. Over the next few weeks, I will therefore be writing about subjects such as:         

• Energy Savings Trust's failed communication strategy
• Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes jamboree for consultants
• The £250 million EPC scandal
• The need for mergers of environmental quangos
• Why PAYS will not work but the Green Deal, could
• Why Councils will not be able to deliver energy efficient homes
• why engagement of the private sector is key to creating energy efficient homes.  

I hope the forthcoming articles will be of interest and that the next Government will deliver what is needed for the sake of homeowners, tenants and the environment.

If this is the case, then the success of energy efficiency programmes will largely depend not on the Councils themselves, but on the performance of their appointed delivery agents and the quality of staff they recruit. In this context, there are only a small number of existing delivery agents. Some of these may not be able to perform satisfactorily if their resources become stretched as programmes roll out. They are not regulated, some are small, non – profit making organisations with limited financial resources and new ones are springing up to take advantage of opportunities that will arise through CESP, HESS and PAYS etc. Some councils have already appointed agents on a “permanent” basis without any performance targets / low uptake penalties or review dates built into their contracts. As energy efficiency programmes roll out, there is therefore a danger that too much power will be in the hands of delivery agents. 

Convincing homeowners to take up energy savings measures in the private sector is a huge challenge. If delivery agent resources become stretched and they recruit low quality staff with poor sales and communication skills, low uptake will follow and complaints will increase resulting in resident’s trust in Councils being undermined and energy efficiency programmes, failing. 

So, what is the solution? Every council must pay careful, ongoing attention to delivery agents’ capabilities. This includes assessing the quality of management, financials, recruitment policy and their ability to perform in the future. Councils should also only grant one year? contracts to delivery agents and build in financial penalties if low uptake of energy saving measures, arises.  

What do you think?

However, results from existing projects and trials to date are not promising.  The London Development Authority’s Home Energy Efficiency Programme (HEEP) trials for example, show that more than 70% of consumers did not take up easy measures offered even though they were free. Energy Savings Trust’s Penistone area project had only a 13% uptake. As a result, costs are currently around £2,000 per tonne of carbon saved.

Some of the reasons for the low uptake rate are: 

• most door knocking is on a cold call basis with few pre-booked appointments being arranged  
• most homeowners are out during the day and are not receptive to unsolicited visits during evenings and weekends.
• HEAs are expected to gain homeowners permission to carry out energy audits etc at the time they door knock. Audits can take up to two hours and not surprisingly most homeowners are not receptive to this without pre-agreement.
• Most HEAs do not have good,  “sales consultancy” and communication skills.
• The salaries offered (£16,000-£22,000 in London) have not attracted the best quality candidates
• there is no agreed national standard for HEA training 
• businesses and community groups have not been pre-engaged to publicise programmes.

Convincing homeowners in the private sector to improve energy efficiency is a huge challenge. Like any other product / service, energy efficiency needs to be “sold” to homeowners and therefore top quality “sales consultants” are required. However, some delivery agents are hiring unemployed people with inadequate skills on a self-employed basis with pay linked to the number of visits, not uptake of energy saving measures. Some vacancies are also being advertised without requirement for a City & Guilds Energy Awareness or DEA qualification or minimum standards of attire.

So what is the solution? Every commercial organisation knows that top quality sales are required to be successful. If delivery agents recruit HEAs with poor sales and communication skills, low uptake will follow. Complaints will also increase resulting in resident’s trust in Councils being undermined and energy efficiency programmes, failing. In my view, Domestic Energy Assessors with proven sales consultancy and communication skills are required to be retrained as HEAs, not young people on apprentice schemes. Salaries on offer also need to be increased to attract quality candidates and telesales staff are needed to pre-book appointments for HEAs as much as possible. 

Of course this will increase staffing costs but the risk is that if  delivery agents don't do this, we will end up with low uptake of energy savings measures, loss of  residents' trust, failure of energy efficiency programmes and carbon reduction targets not being met. 

What do you think?