With insulation in the dock, we need impartial oversight rather than self policing

Yesterday’s Energy Security and Net Zero Committee (see Parliamentlive.tv - Energy Security and Net Zero Committee) was a tough watch. Sadly, listening to Zak Ashraf and Amanda Hoyles about their harrowing experience of failed insulation measures was all too familiar. If you want to hear more of these then speak to National Energy Action (NEA) about their amazing work clearing up the damage of failed insulation in Fishwick (which was funded by CESP rather than ECO4).

Unfortunately, this does feel like the tip of the iceberg. When Ofgem handed technical monitoring over to Trustmark in 2020 it sounds like they weren’t given the data. When asked Trustmark didn’t think there’d been significant issues with the previous single measure schemes (CERT, CESP, ECO3 etc.) Some of the worst work of all was done through CESP when generators were also obligated (who had no prior knowledge of the insulation sector).

We need insulation to be a cornerstone of our journey to net zero, not a pariah associated with football sized mushrooms, dry rot and crumbling houses. So what needs to happen to put it right?

Impartial oversight – Independent Retrofit Coordination

When Zak Ashraf spointed out that allowing insulation installers to act as their own Retrofit Coordinators was like 'marking their own homework', I was delighted. part of me leapt for joy. I’ve been making this point to civil servants since PAS 2035 was introduced. ?Companies installing retrofit work shouldn't be allowed to coordinate and check their own installations. This oversight needs to be done by a truly independent organisation - and if such a rule is introduced, it should prevent sister companies or associated businesses (owned by family members or friends) from doing these checks too.

This is essentially the role that we play at the Centre for Sustainable Energy , as an independent charity, delivering PAS 2035 services for grant funded retrofit programmes. We’re not alone. Others like Severn Wye , Plymouth Energy Community & Act on Energy do this.

But guess what, we are more expensive because we’re trying to deliver to the standard, we’re not cutting corners or ticking boxes. Which makes it hard to compete in the race to the bottom.

Using measurement to drive quality

Historically the supplier funded schemes like the Energy Company Obligation have used notional savings. These savings tables are a ridiculous hotpotch of rules that give some notional scores. The grant programmes now use SAP scores and changes in EPC bandings, but again it’s all theoretical – none of this measures the savings. We have the technology now to measure performance. As the CEO of Trustmark said, “we have the technology now”. If you measure the savings, then you drive quality because it encourages people to do it right. A heat pump won’t achieve a COP of 3.2 if it’s not installed correctly i.e. sized well, with the right distribution system and any necessary energy efficiency measures.

MCS has already reformed itself and implemented MCS 2025. But we need to see more physical quality checks from both Trustmark and MCS. I was really encouraged by what Trustmark and MCS had to say about the use of data – but you still need people onsite.

Don’t let cost drive poor quality work

Unfortunately, the use of fibre to fill cavity walls has been widespread despite a better product coming on to the market years ago, bead. We’ve only installed bead through the schemes we’ve managed because this helps minimise some of the risks associated with failed installs. But this cost more and as such reduces profit, but as a mission led charity that’s not our main driver.

Local authority procurement is not an exciting subject but it’s something I have immense frustration with. I’ve seen too many retrofit tenders wanting a single turnkey provider with a 60/40 split Quality/Price. The procurement team, who know nothing about retrofit, think that this will reduce their risk and deliver the best price. But in reality, it normally means larger company sub-contracts work to smaller company taking a top slice of profit.

Sadly, it’s something we’ve seen locally when Bristol City Council commissioned Climate Energy, yes now bankrupt, to deliver Warm Up Bristol. As reported by the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41278769 ) the scheme failed, needed remedial action and gave money back. As soon as someone told me Climate Energy had won the contract I knew that it would end in disaster. Because public procurement should be used to drive quality, ensure quality and promote growth in the local supply chain. Local jobs also represented good value.

Clerk of works

Speak to anyone who’s been at this game a long time or worked in the trades for years, they all say the same thing when external wall insulation is discussed. We need a “clerk of works” to oversee the installation process. There are some proposed changes to PAS 2035 coming. The idea is to have a “technical supervisor” role, it’s essentially a different person marking the installers own homework.

Independent oversight is what's needed

Be careful who you work with

As discussed in the Select Committee hearing, there are some cowboys out there. I don’t have a feel for how many or what proportion, but there are many good installers out there who take great pride in their work. We need to protect the industry from the bad apples who repeatedly spin up new companies or get their family members to act as directors for new ones.

We’ve always tried to build long-term partnerships with our local authorities and the installers we trust. Our work on the Somerset HUGS programme is a good example of this long-term investment. Resulting in use being one of the only schemes to install measures in year one of the scheme (see https://www.cse.org.uk/news/local-authority-retrofit-scheme-what-next/).

We need urgent reform to the PAS 2035 process and the grant making programmes to drive improvements in quality.

#insulation #PAS2035 #ECO #MCS #Trustmark #warmhomesplan