A practitioner study into the variability of UK domestic energy assessments

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to focus on the assessment of a domestic property's energy performance status by a domestic energy assessor (DEA), to ascertain the possible underlying reasons for variability in the results of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). By variability, the authors mean discrepancies in assessment between different DEAs on similar properties. This is important because the uses for the EPC have been extended beyond their original function as an asset rating system, to include themes encompassing building policy decisions, building performance and the distribution of incentives and grants. Consequently, inaccuracies in EPC reporting will have a greater impact than may have been the case at the outset.Design/methodology/approachA case study approach involving the conducting of semi-structured interviews with 20 practicing DEAs was carried out, with transcribed recordings of the interview material subjected to thematic analysis. This formed part of a wider mixed methods study.FindingsThe results identify a wide range of underlying reasons for variability driven by issues in both practice and process, including conflicts of interests, the EPC auditing process, the default inputting of missing data by RdSAP where information may not be available/discoverable by the DEA, the quality and perception of EPCs and DEA training and experience.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample size of 20 is by definition limiting, and it is possible that different results would have been obtained from a different sample. Although thematic saturation from the analysis of the responses on the key question of whether EPCs are considered variable does mitigate this. The respondents were all in possession of five years or more experience and of carrying out EPCs for different purposes. Less experienced DEAs may inevitably have responded to questions differently. The thematic analysis gives the researcher control over the presentation of the results, and it is noted that this creates a potential for bias. The researcher is immersed in the world of construction and property, with regular contact with DEAs and EPCs, which may influence the perspective of the results.Practical implicationsThe research identifies risks to the accuracy of EPCs. To this end, and with the specific research findings in mind, this research may be of interest to construction professionals with respect to EPC practice and procurement, to the Accrediting Bodies who audit EPCs, to the creators of RdSAP with respect to automated EPC inputs, to academics either at face value or for use in further research and to policy makers who may wish to consider RdSAP data in future with qualifiers or margins of error, or may even look to review the EPC as the instrument of choice for some applications.Originality/valueThere is much literature analysing the shortcomings and nuances of RdSAP results, and the software model that generates the EPC, but only very limited literature extending the discussion about RdSAP to its operator: the DEA. At the time of writing, there is no literature focusing directly on the DEA and its role within the EPC production process. Their role is more important now, given the expanding use of EPCs, and increased reliance on EPC data.