Just a couple more thoughts to throw into the mix. 

(i) For me at least, decarbonisation has be something of a revelation.  In reality I bought both my heat pump and my electric car largely for 'green' reasons.  However having got them my electric car is far superior to any fossil car I have ever had, and my heat pump system is far superior to any boiler system I have ever had.  I would now require a significant subsidy to 'go back'.  Please hold this thought!

Currently the prevailing public narrative about heat pumps goes something like "they are green and expensive to install, you wont save anything on running costs and you will likely encounter some hassle"  Thas not a great incentive for many whatever the capital grant situation is. 

However the middle class in particular will pay large amounts of money to have something which either has kudos or gives comfort/convenience.   Is there a future in which people upgrade their heating (and in the process get a heat pump) not grudgingly or because they want to support the green agenda, but because they can boast about it/show it off to the neighbours and/or they recognise it will deliver better performance?  I would say that there should be such a future, and perhaps could be.  At present however it seems a long way off.  What needs to change and how can that change occur? 

(ii) without a doubt the best time to do an upgrade to your heating system is either (a) when you are refurbishing anyway or (b) when your boiler has broken.  Yet the timescale for getting a satisfactory heat pump quote simply isnt easily compatible, certainly with (b) and in some cases with (a).  How can we change this?

(iii) When grants eventually disappear entirely (which they obviously will)  and given the change to PD rules that was made in May, there would no longer be a requirement for MCS certification.  Does that offer any opportunities?

None of these comments is intended to weaken the arguments made against reducing grants, just exploring what a grant free landscape might look like.

Posted by: @editor

↑

This is very loosely connected, but today’s Public Accounts Committee hearing on ECO4 was brutal: 22,000 to 23,000 external wall insulation jobs are defective. 98% of installations under ECO4 failed.

It’s a trade epidemic out there! 

Now its been exposed the owners of the companies concerned are presumably busy paying themselves 'special dividends' and deferring paying tax, so that they can conveniently go bust and thus any liability for shoddy workmanship, which inevitably will end up falling onto us as taxpayers.  Much like (allegedly) PPE Medpro (the company linked to Baroness Mone) which, aside from delivering useless PPE and owing us £122M in damages, also owes us £39M in tax and, guess what, its in administration so we wont get it.

Aren't the people who do such things sh1t?

@jamespa Well not quite as ’sh1t’ does at least have uses.😉 Toodles.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @editor

↑

This is very loosely connected, but today’s Public Accounts Committee hearing on ECO4 was brutal: 22,000 to 23,000 external wall insulation jobs are defective. 98% of installations under ECO4 failed.

It’s a trade epidemic out there! 

Now its been exposed the owners of the companies concerned are presumably busy paying themselves 'special dividends' and deferring paying tax, so that they can conveniently go bust and thus any liability for shoddy workmanship, which inevitably will end up falling onto us as taxpayers.  Much like (allegedly) PPE Medpro (the company linked to Baroness Mone) which, aside from delivering useless PPE and owing us £122M in damages, also owes us £39M in tax and, guess what, its in administration so we wont get it.

Aren't the people who do such things sh1t?

I might be going off at a tangent but hey...

I'm well aware that the concept of a limited liability company is critical for attracting investment and so something that should be retained. However, I do feel that any sharp practices including those outlined above - and particularly any actions that might find a company director "unfit" - ought legally to render the director personally liable for debts incurred as a result of their action. In other words, if a company goes bust despite being reasonably well run then so be it but if it goes bust as a result of mismanagement with a view to directors feathering their nests then said nests should be stripped to deal with the company's problems.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Aren't the people who do such things sh1t?

Just flush it down somewhere..

There are good people in the Lords being put in the same group. It should be much quicker to clear these things...

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

(ii) without a doubt the best time to do an upgrade to your heating system is either (a) when you are refurbishing anyway or (b) when your boiler has broken.  Yet the timescale for getting a satisfactory heat pump quote simply isnt easily compatible, certainly with (b) and in some cases with (a).  How can we change this?

Always keep a boiler replacement quote open, "just in case"? Sorry, but there are so many players including environmental that are slowing this transition, how could we assume the ecosystem would deliver a good solution (without getting involved)? 🙂 

Well I have had my email form MCS reassuring me they are communicating directly with Government and they are not refuting the information, just assuring they are trying to verify the facts and will get back to us.

Now it feels a tad more real, someone must of said something if they still don't know 24hrs later.

@ashp-bobba, I’ve literally just finished editing the episode with the guys from BG, HG, Aira, EDF and Octopus (we recorded it exactly a week ago).

When we wrapped up, I was still recording, and we all carried on chatting “off the record.” I won’t name who said it, but one of them mentioned they’d been speaking with someone in the Treasury. Apparently there’s an Excel sheet with around 100 spending initiatives, and they’re working through it with a simple left-hand filter: yay or nay. And the BUS was on that list.

@editor so meaning being on the list its bad? or there had to be a Yay against it?

@ashp-bobba, the fact it was on the list wasn't good because it's potentially open to being hacked. Having said that, it's all still speculative. I think it'd be a silly thing to axe, but we'll find out in about two weeks time.

@editor Agreed, lets see what happens.

For anyone that's interested, here's what MCS sent out today:

You may have seen speculation in the media this week over the future of Government grants and incentives, including the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, and suggestions that they may be impacted in the upcoming Autumn Budget on Wednesday 26 November.

While we do not know what HM Treasury is intending to include in the Budget, MCS takes any potential risk to Government schemes extremely seriously.

Through both MCS and The MCS Foundation, we are engaging directly with Government departments, putting the data and evidence that speaks to the real-world impact of existing Government schemes – and the voice of the MCS installer community - directly at the forefront of any potential discussions.

We have made clear that any cut to the funding or delivery of impactful government incentives will hamper businesses, stifle growth and disrupt supply chains that are already experiencing significant obstacles. What our industry needs is consistency and confidence.

We appreciate that any significant changes to government schemes and funding significantly impacts you and your customers. While we await further updates, I wanted to ensure that you heard directly from us and assure you that MCS is representing your interests on this critical matter. We will ensure to keep you up to date once there is further clarity.

Kind regards,

Ian Rippin
CEO, MCS