NSS

Not as far as I'm concerned. The firm that took over the job were excellent, and it's not their fault that the original (cowboys) miscalculated the RHI payments, nor that we achieved a better EPC than initially anticipated. The firm that finished the job were already installing the PV for us, and had I come across them before I contracted the original supplier I'd have given them the ASHP/UFH job anyway. The bummer was that the original supplier took me for about £1700 of work that they didn't complete. Fortunately I bought the heat pump and cylinder myself or it could have been a lot worse!

The new installer took over the job when the other went bust. There was no new quote as such.

Original estimation was made by a company who subsequently went bust and let's just say I think they were a little 'creatively' with their estimate, but also reduced as we got a better EPC than originally predicted so heat requirement was lower.

Be aware that what is projected and what they may actually receive are not always the same. We were originally given an RHI estimate of well over £700 per annum, but the actual figure is under £450. Over 7 years that's over £2k less than we'd been told to expect.

+1 ?

Should perhaps have mentioned that we'd spent a pile on the old place improving the insulation, glazing and installing a high efficiency boiler and LED lighting. And it's not all about cost. Comfort has to come into it too.

Projected total imported electricity cost for first 12 months (we have no gas) - £790 Projected FiT payments - £280 RHI payments - £444 Net energy cost - £66 165m2 = 40p/m2a Exclude the RHI and that rises to £3.09/m2a It's a rather different calculation from that I originally proposed, but provides a very stark comparison to our previous home where the same calculation would have given a figure of £9.79/m2a

Council Tax and water have no relevance to the energy consumption. Including them (and childcare) would only dilute the impact of the figure.

I just hope it's LED lightly ?

And there goes another thread on a completely unrelated tack.

But that requires the political will, and politicians know that anything that raises costs significantly will lose them votes, so it ain't going to happen. It has to be driven by the market (as in the consumer) demanding more energy efficient homes.

Okay, so Jeremy's suggestion of highlighting the last two year's worth of utility bills would perhaps be worthwhile for existing houses, but we all seem to agree that the problem is with new builds from the major house builders. There has to be a way of using estimated energy costs to encourage better standards, and that has to be driven by buyers being better informed about those costs and choosing accordingly. I accept that not everyone will be persuaded, but you have to start somewhere.

Except to say that you can, presumably, be fairly confident that a house rated as an A is likely going to be comparatively more energy efficient than one with a C, D or worse rating.

Is it apathy or ignorance? Perhaps, at least in the short term, the EPC could be used to draw attention, much like appliances have to have their energy rating clearly indicated. Putting a big colour coded box with the EPC band and a bold 'excellent,' 'very good', 'good', 'poor', 'very poor' or 'dreadful energy efficiency' alongside the house price would at least be a start.

The obvious answer is, don't leave buyers to ask, force sellers to tell. If on sales particulars, alongside the the sale price, sellers had to declare the 'average energy cost per annum' and highlight that number in a colour coded box (green is good, red is bad type of thing), then people would soon start to take notice.

Yep, and energy use will, for example, vary according to the number of inhabitants, their lifestyle, etc, but I merely think that the one number almost everyone will understand is one that gives them an indication of the money it will cost for the energy one home will use when compared to the next. That's what EPCs are supposed to do, but very few people even read them. As for my own motivation for projecting this cost per m2 per annum, it came in part out of a conversation in the pub with mates, trying to explain how much cheaper our house is to run than our previous property. That was a circa 190m2 house built in the late 80's. Our total energy costs there equated to more than double the kWh/m2a of the new house. There's still only two of us living in it, so it follows that the major difference in cost will largely have been due to the space heating cost (due to the relatively poor air-tightness and insulation). As for the AECB standard you mention, thank you (I think) but like the vast majority of Joe Public, certificates are of no particular interest to me, the piece of paper (virtual or otherwise) that matters is the energy bill. In short, I personally feel (and this is not a dig at any of you who strive for one standard or another) that the way to encourage more energy efficient homes is to sell the cost saving potential to buyers, not that it has passed some (to them) meaningless standard.

I presume it would be a case of fitting an export meter, though the downside of that (if you're using more than 50% of what you generate) could be a reduction in FiT payments if you had the declare the actual export amount.

Not so much those that couldn't give a toss, more those (policy makers and their advisors) behind these 'standards. Far more effective IMHO if you could just quote a total energy cost per square metre. For example, two newly built houses are built by two developers on the same street. House A is a £10k cheaper than house B, but they're the same size, same layout, same spec (in terms of finish), most would buy house A without giving a it a second thought. But if house A's energy costs are twice or three times those of house B (and that was clear as an energy cost per m2), maybe people would be more inclined to buy house B and, in doing so, encourage the builder of house A to up their game.

Precisely.

How the hell was that a pop at you?

Which is understandable, but 99% of Joe Public couldn't give a toss about how efficient it is to generate the fuel they are using, only caring about how much it costs them their homes. Perhaps part of the problem in trying to convince people to demand more energy efficient homes is that quoting things like SAP, PHPP and EPC calculations go straight over the vast majority of heads.

Form factor is pretty poor (irregular shape chalet bungalow with multiple gables/dormers). Walls, roof and floor all circa 0.14/0.15. Air permeability of 1.6m3/hm2, Paul MVHR and SageGlass electro-chromic glazing. No gas.

No, not modelled it as PH was never a consideration, but pleasantly surprised at how little energy we appear to be using.

Yep, I realised that. I'm talking TOTAL energy consumption (space heating/DHW/cooking/lighting/etc/etc) and my projected 40kWh/m2a seems to be correct. Even if I up the assumed use of solar to 75% of annual generation, the total only goes up to about 45kWh/m2a.

Really? I'd better recheck my calculations as I reckon we'll be looking at a total energy usage of circa 40kWh/m2.yr