Posts

ESOS Phase 2 – time to start planning!

It is now just two years to the day until the ESOS Phase 2 compliance deadline of 5 December 2019. Don’t be complacent – two years might sound like a long time away, but you will save time, stress, and money if you start taking action now by carrying out energy audits. Read on!


The Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) have jointly advised organisations that they should all start now carrying out energy audits as part of the compliance process for ESOS Phase 2.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Just two years to go until ESOS Phase 2 compliance deadline – start carrying out energy audits now!” quote=”With just two years to go until ESOS Phase 2 compliance deadline – start carrying out energy audits now!”]

With only a few exemptions for public bodies, the regulations require all other large UK organisations to take three important steps before the compliance date of 5 December 2019 for ESOS Phase 2:

  1. measure their total energy consumption;
  2. conduct audits to identify cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities; and
  3. report compliance to their national scheme administrator – the Environment Agency in England, SEPA in Scotland, NIEA in Northern Ireland and NRW in Wales.

Consideration should also be given at this early stage as to whether adopting an approved energy management system such as ISO50001 may be a more suitable route to achieving compliance (ISO50001 is the internationally recognised standard for best practice in energy management).

If you plan to implement ISO5001, then early action is definitely required. Alternatively organisations caught under the ESOS regulations should now start conducting audits to identify their cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities for ESOS Phase 2.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Organisations should start conducting audits to identify energy efficiency opportunities for Phase 2″ quote=”Organisations should now start conducting audits to identify their cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities for Phase 2″]

Early action should avoid some of the issues and that occurred during the first phase of ESOS. According to Carbon Trust, around 2,800 organisations had to send notifications advising that they would be late in reporting compliance, and a number were ultimately fined.

Carbon Trust also reported that of the hundreds of compliance audits conducted for Phase 1, it was found that that just 16 percent of participants were fully compliant. A full three-quarters of audited participants needed to undertake remedial actions in order to become compliant.

A full three-quarters of audited participants needed to undertake remedial actions in order to become compliant.

The Environment Agency has also indicated that in England there were approximately 500 organisations that qualified for ESOS in the first phase but had not engaged with the scheme. There have been over 300 enforcement notifications sent out to date, more will be going out in the near future. Civil penalty proceedings have also been commenced against a number of non-compliant organisations.

During the first phase of ESOS, EVORA helped a number of organisations to comply with the regulation and we would concur with the Carbon trust’s reported findings that cost-effective measures could usually cut energy costs in buildings, transport fleets and industrial processes by about 20 percent.

ESOS reports have been proven to identify real energy saving opportunities. Good governance requires that Directors consider the report recommendations.

Further reading on ESOS:

ESOS Phase 2 Practical Hints and Tips


The EVORA team is ready to support you with ESOS Phase 2 compliance. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch to learn more.

Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) Regulations: How they will impact flexible workspace from April 2018

Scroll down for our MEES Management 10-Point Strategy


What I’m about to write will come as a great shock to many operators in the serviced and managed office industries: you may not be able to sign up clients for more than 6 months as of April next year. This is less than a year away!


Why is the flexible workspace market at risk?

As of April 1 2018 landlords are no longer able to lease out commercial office space in buildings with an F or G EPC rating unless a time-limited exemption applies, which must be registered on an Exemptions Register.

Many serviced and managed office providers thought that they were exempt from this rule as they are not the primary landlord, however this regulation applies to any tenancy agreement over 6 months and this can include sub-leases and agreements sometimes referred to by serviced operators as licenses (we’d recommend that you speak to your solicitors to determine if your “license” really is a license or a lease/tenancy). This creates something of a challenge for the serviced workspace sector. But they are not the only ones who are not aware of the legislation: in a recent survey by Property Week magazine, 32% of all respondents did not know what MEES was and how it would impact their business.

[clickToTweet tweet=”In a recent @PropertyWeek survey, 32% of respondents still didn’t know what #MEES was…” quote=”In a recent PropertyWeek survey, 32% of respondents still didn’t know what MEES was and how it would impact their business.”]

MEES represents a significant risk to companies looking to sub-let space, because they may be treated as a landlord and as a result must undergo the same process of due diligence as the superior landlord.


What about the rest of the market?

Outside of the serviced office sector, occupiers of all types of non-domestic property may struggle to sublet sub-standard space without undertaking improvement work, the benefit of which may ultimately revert to the superior landlord. And while assignments are not captured until 2023, sub-standard properties may become stigmatised by their poor EPC rating making this type of transaction difficult. Indeed, there are already occupiers, such as Government and large corporates that will not lease sub-standard space. As an example, EVORA was recently engaged to develop an EPC improvement strategy by a fund landlord that needed to obtain a C EPC rating to secure a Government department. This requirement for a C rated property goes far beyond the requirements of MEES, highlighting the growing importance of EPCs as a benchmark for predicted energy efficiency.

Landlords with E (or even in some cases D) rated properties may still be at risk because the EPC calculation is dynamic. The calculation methodology is linked to Part L of Building Regulations which deals with the conservation of fuel and power in new properties. Part L, like most of Building Regulations, is updated on a periodic basis and the minimum energy efficiency targets in Part L have to-date been strengthened with each successive iteration. This has impacted the EPC rating, and in particular the changes adopted in 2010 affected EPC ratings from 1 April 2011 onwards (the date on which EPC software was updated). In plain English, what this means is that an E rated property before 1 April 2011 if reassessed today is likely to be an F or G rated asset if nothing in the building has changed. This means that planned preventative maintenance and improvements will need to factor in these regulations.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Landlords beware: even your D or E rated properties may still be at risk from #MEES…” quote=”Landlords beware: even your D or E rated properties may still be at risk from MEES regulations…”]

Failure to comply with the regulations will result in fines of between £5,000 and £150,000. The enforcement authority may also impose a publication penalty. This means that the enforcement authority will publish some details of the landlord’s breach on a publicly accessible part of an Exemptions Register.


What actions can you take?

Here is The EVORA 10-point Strategy for Managing MEES (an image version is available at the bottom of this post):

  1. For landlords with multiple assets, such as funds or workspace providers, review how you store your data. This should be digitalised and in a central and accessible location
  2. Identify where there are gaps in the data (missing EPCs etc.) and identify those assets that are at risk by virtue of their (EPC) rating, capital or rental value and/or a lease or transactional event
  3. Consider the use of software such as EVORA’s highly versatile, market-leading platform, SIERA
  4. Use or involve CIBSE (Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers) accredited assessors, or assessors that work for a recognised and reputable engineering practice – preferably with additional professional qualifications (such as those recognised by the Engineering Council)
  5. Have your professional EPC assessor review the existing certificate for accuracy and relevance
  6. If it is necessary to prepare a new EPC, ask for an indicative (draft) certificate. The assessor may be able to deliver an improved rating by using better quality data and/or by having better knowledge of building services. However, if the asset remains at risk from MEES, then commission a strategy to improve the building to include capital costs, energy savings and, where appropriate, life cycle costs
  7. Review point 6 in the context of the lease(s) and the fund or asset management strategy
  8. Consider ways to recuperate capital costs through energy savings or asset management driven opportunities
  9. Ensure you retain future access to the energy model used to prepare the EPC and utilise it for energy and asset management purposes, including MEES management. After all, you paid for it!
  10. Finally, to ensure that you’re getting the best result from your EPC-driven improvements, review how operational performance can be monitored to determine if the predicted energy savings align with the operational realities. Again, SIERA can assist with this, thanks to its intuitive and easy-to-use monitoring and targeting capabilities

[clickToTweet tweet=”Here is the @evoraglobal 10-point Strategy for Managing #MEES Regulations…” quote=”Here is The EVORA 10-point Strategy for Managing MEES Regulations…”]


Final Thoughts

This all sounds very onerous, but in fact MEES should be regarded as an opportunity.

For occupiers

MEES is obviously an opportunity to save money through reduced energy bills and resultant CO2 emissions, and energy efficient buildings are more likely to help deliver a productive working environment.

There are also opportunities for occupiers to use MEES to mitigate rental increases after 1 April 2018 as a result of rent reviews and lease renewals. And it may be the case that occupiers can use MEES to reduce or remove any liability towards dilapidations.

For landlords

MEES is a great opportunity to engage with tenants, but if that were not incentive enough – MEES will become increasingly synonymous with building value and building resilience. Improve your EPC rating and you reduce your risk, and this could influence yields and even, in time, headline rents.

Energy savings could provide an opportunity to look at alternative methods of financing, using the value (£) of the energy saved to redeem finance. This could provide a cost-effective method of improving your estate.

Finally, for those looking to buy or sell sub-standard properties, MEES introduces an opportunity to discuss the price!


As CIBSE accredited assessors, we are perfectly positioned to support you with EPCs and MEES compliance. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


EVORA MEES 10-Point Strategy

Air Conditioning Inspections: 5 Years on From Mandatory Lodgement

Neil is an air conditioning expert with over 30 years of experience in the sector.


The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) was first adopted in 2002. The recast Directive, adopted in May 2010, replaced the original Directive from 1 February 2012 and was progressively implemented from January 2013.

The Directive required  ‘measures to establish a regular inspection of air conditioning systems of an effective rated output of more than 12 kW’. In the UK, separate legislation was introduced. In England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, building owners or managers are required to undertake regular (every five years) inspections of air conditioning systems.

The regulations and requirements relating to air conditioning system inspections for England and Wales have now been in place for over six years, and for a slightly shorter period for Northern Ireland and Scotland. The principle guidance for the inspections is contained in CIBSE TM44.

An air conditioning system is defined as ‘a combination of all components required to provide a form of air treatment in which the temperature is controlled, or can be lowered, and includes systems which combine such air treatment with the control of ventilation, humidity and air cleanliness’.

This includes both fixed self contained systems, such as split systems, and centralised systems. Mechanical ventilation systems that provide no mechanical cooling themselves, but serve spaces that are cooled by other means are included. Any components contained in air conditioning systems that are only intended to provide heating are excluded.

Air conditioning systems that provide refrigeration for process applications, such as server rooms, would also require an inspection if that part of the system allows an inspection to be carried out.

EVORA Air Conditioning Inspections Blog Image

The wonderful world of air conditioning inspections!

If the building owner or manager wants to sell or let a building with an air conditioning system, which should have been inspected, then it is very likely that the legal advisors to the prospective tenant or buyer will require sight of the report during the legal processes prior to exchange of contracts. Failure to have a report, where one is required, may have a negative impact on the transaction process.

In England and Wales mandatory lodgement of air conditioning inspection reports on the national database was introduced on the 6th April 2012. Since then, over 55,000 reports have been lodged, and coupled with inspections carried out before mandatory lodgement was introduced we are now seeing a large number of requests for renewal reports alongside requests for sites that are currently non-compliant.

We can now check the national database to confirm if a property has a valid air conditioning inspection and advise on the renewal date.

The challenge for assessors has been to ensure that they identify real energy saving opportunities for building owners and managers.

At EVORA EDGE, we have introduced an enhanced report that goes beyond the requirements of the legislation. Through providing a supplementary report, we are able to provide photographic evidence of issues identified and greater detail around the financial modelling of improvements.


If you require further information about Air Conditioning Inspections, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

CRC Scrappage: Winners and Losers

Today marks the end of the monitoring period for the third year of Phase 2 of the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC): the seventh year the scheme has operated.

That means in two years, CRC Participants will be starting to collate, report and then pay for their relevant emissions for the final time. Understandably, that can’t come soon enough for some.


The CRC started with good intentions under a progressive cap and trade scheme that rewarded those who reduced emissions through ‘recycling’ CRC allowances from those who did not. Before the Scheme took off, however, it was announced in the Spending Review 2010 that CRC allowances would not be recycled to participants in the scheme but instead would be used to support the public finances. Thereby, the CRC became a tax for all intents and purposes.

The CRC will be scrapped in 2019 and from this, it is important to understand who are the winners and losers and what actions should be taken now to mitigate risks for the ‘losers’ and take opportunities for the ‘winners’.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Who are the winners and losers of the #CRC scrappage? What are the risks and opportunities?” quote=”Who are the winners and losers of the CRC scrappage? What are the risks and opportunities?”]

A key decision to scrap the scheme was the cost of administration. Back-of-an-envelope maths tells me that the annual £1,290 subsistence fee paid by all 1,869 Participants in 2015/16 equates to an administrative cost of 0.27% of total revenues (£2.4m subsistence fee over £902m revenue through CRC allowance purchases).

For comparison, administrative costs for the Swedish Tax Administration is 0.1 % of total revenues for their carbon tax model.1 The approach used in Sweden (since 1991) will be implemented in the UK to maintain carbon tax revenues once the CRC is scrapped (more on this later).

So the Swedish model appears to cost half as much as the UK CRC model to administer. The true cost, in reality, is far higher once you add in the internal resource time and/or external consultant costs required to administer and meet CRC requirements such as maintaining an Evidence Pack, undertaking an Internal Audit and fulfilling actions to report, order and then surrender CRC allowances. Compared to the £1,290 annual subsistence fee, the true cost to Participants is likely to be three to 15 times higher, dependent on size and complexity, based on our experience. Suddenly, the Swedish models looks much more appealing: it has also contributed to Sweden’s total greenhouse gas emissions falling by 16 percent between 2000 and 2012, while its overall GDP grew by about 30 percent. 2

The CRC is being replaced by an increase in the Climate Change Levy (CCL): a tax on energy delivered to non-domestic users that is charged per kWh usage. Notably, the CCL is applicable to all energy users (with some exemptions), rather than a select group of CRC Participants. Key to the reduction in administrative cost, is the fact that energy users ‘do nothing’ to calculate their tax liability: a value is calculated and inserted as a line item on energy invoices and collected by the energy supplier. This will be a relief for some, however, the benefits of reporting emissions to improve understanding of impact (and costs) should not be forgotten.

From April 2018 to April 2019, the CCL is going to increase 48% in one year to ensure the CRC revenue of about £1bn is maintained for public finances. This increase will add approximately 3% to the ‘typical3’ energy spend of an air-conditioned office (see Table 1 below for estimated values).

CRC Scrappage: Winners and Losers: Blog Image 1

Table 1

At EVORA, we recommend building owners and tenants take action now to mitigate the onset of the tax hike through identifying and implementing energy efficiency measures that will lead to energy reductions.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Take action now to mitigate the onset of the #CCL tax hike… Identify #energy efficiency measures.” quote=”Take action now to mitigate the onset of the CCL tax hike… Identify and implement energy efficiency measures.”]

However, even with a 48% increase in the CCL, existing CRC Participants will see a net benefit through CRC scrappage, with a tax reduction equivalent to a 5.5% of total annual energy spend (see Table 2 below for estimated values).

CRC Scrappage: Winners and Losers: Blog Image 2

Table 2

The tax saving through scrapping the CRC Scheme (for CRC Participants) is notable at asset level and will be even greater when considered across a portfolio for an existing CRC Participant.

These savings present a great opportunity to budget for energy efficiency improvements that may otherwise have been put on hold. I recommend landlords / energy managers hold early dialogue with tenants / finance directors to discuss the savings and identify the economic case for progressing measures that will deliver attractive returns on investment. A number of measures could be considered, from strategic metering  and Monitoring and Targeting programmes (such as SIERA) to energy efficient retrofits  of LED lighting.

Whether you are a winner or a loser from the CRC scrappage / CCL tax hike, the overall message is the same: if you want to reduce your energy spend, the best action you can take is identify, implement and track the impact of energy efficiency measures.

Planning ahead will give you the best chance of success.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Want to reduce #energy spend? Identify, implement & track the impact of energy efficiency measures” quote=”Want to reduce your energy spend? Identify, implement and track the impact of energy efficiency measures.”]


Don’t leave any compliance matters to chance.
Speak to one of our experts today.


1 Ministry of Finance, Sweden Senior Advisor Susanne Åkerfeldt, 2011
2 Worldbank.org, 2014
3 Typical energy usage calculated from Better Building Partnership Real Estate Environmental Benchmarks (BBP REEB) 2015 for air conditioned offices. Typical energy costs based on BEIS Prices of fuels purchased by non-domestic consumers in the UK, December 2016

CRC Annual Report Publication: Key Results for Phase 2

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Annual Report Publication (ARP) covering the first 2 compliance years of Phase 2 has been published today.

CRC Annual Report: key results

Key results for Phase 2 to the end of the 2015/16 compliance year show:

  • Total revenue through carbon allowance purchases in 2015/16 increased 18.2% to £902,957,350 compared to 2014/15
  • Total energy use reported for 2015/16 was 3.2% lower than 2014/15: equivalent to 3,558,208MWh
  • Total reported emissions for 2015/16 were 9.7% lower than 2014/15: equivalent to 4,415,594tCO2
  • 1,858 participants registered for Phase 2; this is a small reduction in the number of participants when compared with the final year of Phase 1

The key results present some very serious numbers, including a near £1bn revenue stream for the government and some notable improvements in energy usage and carbon impact.

3.2% reduction in annual energy usage

The CRC is due to be scrapped following completion of the 2019 compliance year (in July 2019). The Scheme has been widely criticised by Participants as overly burdensome and costly to administer.  Others will argue that the benefit of identifying and reporting annual emissions has brought attention to energy efficiency improvements, as demonstrated through the 3.2% reduction in reported energy use.

Irrespective of what happens going forwards, monitoring will continue to be essential to ensure understanding of energy performance and to help track energy efficiency. Our proprietary software, SIERA, is a market leading, innovative and easy-to-use environmental management software system. SIERA is already managing billions of pounds worth of real estate, and is being rapidly adopted by large organisations across the globe.


Find out how SIERA can transform your data capture and reporting by calling our experts today.


 

Legal Update: Heat Network Regulations

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has confirmed that no regulatory action will be taken for non-compliance with key requirements set out in the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014; namely, in relation to ‘heat suppliers’ testing whether it is cost-effective to fit heat meters in multi-occupancy buildings, and where appropriate, fitting them by 31 December 2016.  However, it must also be noted that the remaining requirements in the regulations are unaffected (for example in relation to installation of heat meters at newly constructed buildings).

BEIS does, however, intend to launch a public consultation on a new cost effectiveness tool and accompanying regulatory amendments in early 2017.

About the Heat Network Regulations

A heat supplier obligated under the regulations is defined as a person (or organisation) who supplies and charges for the supply of heating, cooling or hot water to a final customer, through either communal heating or a district heating network.

Whoever is supplying the end user with heat is classed as a heat supplier. This includes the supply of heat as part of a package – i.e. through a service contract. The contract does not need to explicitly mention the supply of heat. Shared / multi-let offices and shopping centres where heating and/or chilled water is provided to more than one tenant in a building are identified as obligated examples within the guidance document.

Requirements

Heat suppliers were required to notify the National Measurement Office of the existence of heat networks by 31st December 2015.

In addition to notification, heat suppliers were required to test whether it is cost-effective to fit heat meters in multi-occupancy buildings, and where appropriate, fit them by 31 December 2016.

Regulatory Update

The cost effectiveness tool is currently being revised by the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Therefore, pending the revision of the tool it is advised that no further assessments should be undertaken.

“The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed that it would not be appropriate for them (the FCA) to impose fines or other disciplinary measures in respect of a breach of the requirement within the heat network (metering and billing) regulations 2014 (as amended), that certain heat suppliers must test whether it is cost-effective to fit heat meters in multi-occupancy buildings, and where appropriate, fit them by 31 December 2016.”

“Furthermore, it is unlikely that the FCA would take other regulatory action (where a heat supplier was separately regulated by the FCA) if the only non-compliance was in relation to the requirement to test for and fit meters where cost effective. As such, it is not considered necessary for a heat supplier to inform the FCA if it has been unable to meet this requirement.”

What next?

Following a planned public consultation, BEIS intend to launch the new cost effectiveness tool and accompanying regulatory amendments later in 2017.

EVORA will be watching updates on regulatory amendments in 2017 and can assist you in maintaining your compliance.

[clickToTweet tweet=”Discover how EVORA can support you with the Heat Network Regulations.” quote=”Discover how EVORA can support you with the Heat Network Regulations.”]

Questions? Please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Follow us on LinkedIn:


Scotland’s Approach to Building Energy Efficiency

This post originally appeared here on the UKGBC blog, to which we are regular contributors.


 

Scotland’s ‘competitor’ to the much publicised Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES), due to be introduced in England and Wales in 2018, has been finalised and will be introduced next month. The approach is markedly different to the plans in place for the rest of the UK.

The scheme in summary

In Scotland, building owners who plan to sell or lease space will need to comply with the new regulations for units over 1,000 square metres in size, from 1 September 2016[1].  An energy performance certificate (EPC) is required, as usual.  However, an Action Plan must also be established to identify energy saving opportunities.  Action Plans can be issued by qualified Section 63 Advisors (many EPC assessors are in the process of gaining this additional accreditation) who use approved software to calculate improvements.  The software has been developed to consider the feasibility of seven improvement opportunities.

  • Draught-stripping windows and doors
  • Upgrading lighting controls
  • Adding central timer controls to the heating system
  • Insulating hot water storage
  • Improving lighting
  • Improving insulation
  • Replacing boilers if existing units are older than 15 years

Following completion of the Action Plan the owner can then decide to implement the relevant measures or produce an operational energy rating in the form of a Display Energy Certificate (and maintain this on an annual basis). Owners have 12 months to decide which approach to take and have a further 3.5 years to implement improvements if progression of the Action Plan is chosen as the approach.

Exemptions

It is also important to note that buildings constructed in accordance with a building warrant applied for on or after 4 March 2002 are exempt (for now)[2] – although there is a likelihood that this date will change over time to bring more assets into the scheme.  In many cases, exemption due to date of construction will be clear.  However, this rule has already raised questions.

For example, will a recently refurbished unit located in a building constructed prior to 2002 be exempt?

Consideration will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. The software used to generate EPCs and Action Plans will identify whether the unit meets the exemption criteria or not. As a result, the first part of the process, the EPC assessment, will need to be completed before the requirement for an Action Plan can be confirmed.

The Challenges

The approach, at first glance, seems practical.

Seven sensible improvement measures have been identified that, if feasible, need to be considered for implementation, and the bar has been set at the relatively low level of 2002 building warrant standards.  However, practical challenges remain.

Take the following scenario:

An owner wants to let an old (pre 2002) and large (over 1,000 square metre) office building on a Full Repairing and Insuring (FRI) basis.  The EPC and subsequent Action Plan will be produced.  To continue to comply, the owner will need to produce either a Display Energy Certificate or progress the implementation of the Action Plan.  However, lease structures for most FRI buildings will prevent compliance (as the owner will not have access to data and will not be able to implement improvements). 

To ensure compliance, owners of such buildings will need to ensure lease clauses are in place that require single-let FRI tenants to provide energy performance data to owners, as a minimum.

As a priority, landlords should review their portfolios and develop compliance plans to prevent problems in future.

[1] Units under 1,000 square metres will still need to produce an EPC, but will not be required to progress further.

[2] Transactions that are exempt from requiring an EPC are also exempt from additional action plan requirements.


If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Follow us on LinkedIn:


CRC and the Energy Efficiency Legislative Landscape: The Road Ahead

The deadline for Phase 2, Year 2 of the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Scheme is tomorrow! Here at EVORA, we are helping our clients to submit their CRC annual reports by tomorrow’s deadline. However, there are many challenges to come.

What’s happening with the energy efficiency legislative landscape?

It has been announced that the Department of Energy and Climate Change will close and energy will be incorporated into a new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This has raised many questions, one of which is: Does this Governmental move indicate a reduced focus on energy efficiency, or a move towards true integration of energy for the benefit of all?

For now, we have to consider CRC, which itself is due to be scrapped after the end of Phase 2 (the 2018/19 year). Incidentally, revenue generated by CRC will be replaced by an increase in the climate change levy.

I can understand the scrapping of CRC. It sits within a disjointed and confused legislative landscape made up of many elements, including the Climate Change Levy (CCL), the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) and mandatory GHG reporting, with more to come in the form of Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES). The Government has promised a simpler energy policy focused on delivering change.

We will have to wait and see how this pans out.

How can business manage its way through compliance requirements and drive improvement?

At EVORA, we recommend that consideration is given to the development of a systems approach to energy and environmental management as a convenient and effective way to achieving performance improvement and minimising risks. Our Director, Paul Sutcliffe, recommended in his recent UK-GBC article that further consideration is given to the roll out of ISO 50001 systems.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch for more information.


Follow us on LinkedIn: