Categories
Blog Post

Heat networks are failing consumers

On paper, a heat network seems like an excellent idea. Surely heating hundreds of homes from one central system should be more efficient than running hundreds of individual boilers? In theory, heat networks should cut energy use and make decarbonising heat much easier.

Sadly, as many of the million or so households connected to one will know all too well, the reality can be very different. Regular outages, soaring bills and flats that are punishingly hot in summer and dangerously cold in winter have become a feature of Britain’s network of heat networks. And residents connected to them have been brutally exposed to the price volatility that has characterised energy markets since the war in Ukraine began – unprotected as they are by the energy price cap which covers most households.

Recognising these problems, the Government recently got moving on a new system of regulation and oversight. As of January this year, Ofgem took over responsibility for regulating heat networks as well as other gas and electricity consumers.

But this regime has hit early problems and bigger issues are looming as further price rises creep up thanks to the conflict in Iran. While this may be framed as a niche problem, it is one that Andy Burnham’s new administration should take a keen interest in before it becomes a bigger scandal.

Another winter without basic protections

The first issue is that the guaranteed standards of performance promised by Ofgem are not yet in place. These performance standards grant consumers the right to compensation if heating or hot water is off for too long, and require alternative provision for vulnerable customers.

This has been a major problem on heat networks. I have spoken to people in their 80s who have spent weeks without heating in the middle of winter, and young professionals who have had to drop off at the local gym every morning for months before work to get a warm shower.

But nothing has happened. Heat Trust – a consumer group – is extending its voluntary standards regime to fill the gap, but this only covers part of the market. As it stands, consumers face another winter without protection.

Consumers are paying for wasted heat

The next problem is technical performance. In many cases, only 35% of the energy contained in the gas burned in the communal boiler is delivered to homes for heating and hot water, and in the worst cases efficiency drops as low as 15%. By contrast, a household boiler is about 85% efficient. This is a terrible state of affairs – both because it wastes energy and because consumers still have to pay for it.

New technical assurance standards were supposed to require building owners to bring existing networks up to a minimum level of performance, while ensuring new systems are built properly. Much of the problem is remarkably basic: pipes aren’t insulated and heat is wasted.

This has contributed to some devastatingly hot temperatures in blocks of flats this summer: the heat that leaks out doesn’t just disappear, it goes into communal areas and people’s homes. I know of flats where indoor temperatures stay artificially high all summer thanks to the heat network. In the summer just past, that was a very, very dangerous state of affairs to live through.

But building owners are fussing about how the upgrades will be paid for, and the lobby for builders is worried that tighter new standards will result in delays and red-tape.

“[W]e’ve had a lot of people in industry talking to officials and ministers, trying to claim that the scheme as proposed is too burdensome, is too difficult to deliver, can’t be done, and so on. And at the moment, it’s on hold,” says Stephen Knight, chief executive of the Heat Trust.

“And my concern is that the voice of consumers and the interest of consumers is going to get lost in this a little bit, and people will forget that the reason that we’re doing this is that the current heat networks are often so inefficient that they’re completely unaffordable for consumers. We can’t carry on just expecting consumers to be a magic money tree to pay for all this energy that’s being wasted.”

Who pays to fix the system?

The question about how the upgrades will be paid for is a legitimate concern. The Government does not have enough money on the table currently to cover what could be substantial work. Without additional funding, the cost could ultimately fall on leaseholders and social housing tenants through their service charges and rents. Part of the £450 million boiler upgrade programme could be rerouted to heat networks, producing a bigger carbon saving for less money.

Finally, there is a looming disaster on costs. Unlike households with conventional gas heating, heat network customers are not protected by the domestic energy price cap. Their building owner typically buys energy on commercial markets and passes the cost on. In the aftermath of the War in Ukraine, some tenants faced eviction because they could not pay bills which rocketed by more than 350% as gas prices spiked. The conflict in the Middle East may not have caused spikes quite this severe, but it has sent prices up. Without protection, some of the poorest households in the country will face the biggest energy bill increases.

Some form of price capping is essential to avoid this. “We’ve argued the answer is to regulate the price of energy supplied to heat network, so all heat networks can get a reasonable, fair price for their energy,” says Mr Knight. “The prices have to be smooth – based on an average price over the preceding three month period or similar, to avoid these horrible spikes. There is no reason why heat network customers should be totally unprotected when other homeowners are. It’s unfair.”

The Government has a lot of things to think about currently, and heat networks are easily forgotten. But there are millions of people out there in homes that are expensive to heat and often far too cold or far too hot. 

Postscript

A spokesperson for Ofgem said: “The introduction of heat networks regulation marks a significant milestone in strengthening consumer protections. Our focus is on getting the framework right so it delivers better outcomes across the whole sector. Where heat networks currently provide protections or compensation arrangements, including through voluntary schemes, we expect suppliers to continue to honour these.”

“The Guaranteed Standards of Performance (GSOPs) were always intended to be a phased element of the new heat network regulatory framework. We will consult on the next stage of these proposals later this year.”

Pete Apps is the author of Homesick: The End Of London, which covers the impact of housing policy changes on communities in the capital. It is out in paperback now and available here. He is speaking in Manchester with Isaac Rose from the Greater Manchester Tenants Union about housing crisis in both cities on October 13. Free tickets are available here. 

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

How can people who need air conditioning the most afford to run it during heatwaves?

As climate change drives hotter summers, cooling is becoming a public health necessity, not a luxury.

For anyone looking for an answer to this question, the recent Climate Change Committee (CCC) report, titled A Well-Adapted UK and backed up by no less than 1,841 references, is essential reading. Among many other necessary recommendations, it highlights the importance of adapting existing homes to keep them cool in hot weather.

Air conditioning and the cooling hierarchy

How do we do this? Experts at Shade the UK are correct that we need to use a combination of ‘nature-based’, ‘passive design’, and ‘active ventilation and cooling’ measures in the right order. In this cooling hierarchy, a significant and often sufficient amount of cooling can be achieved by simple external shade and good insulation. However, passive measures will not always be sufficient. In some homes, active cooling such as air conditioning (AC) will be needed.

Until recently, we haven’t had a good idea of how much active cooling we might actually need, or how many people currently have AC.

Now, we have a much better indication. According to a recent academic study, published in June of this year, estimates of present-day AC use across the UK vary widely, with figures ranging from 3 per cent to 19 per cent of homes.

Although future trends are uncertain, one conclusion this study comes to is that previous official assumptions about AC uptake “are too narrow, and present ownership is potentially an order of magnitude higher.”

Cooling is also becoming an issue of inequality. As with all energy services, AC ownership and use is fundamentally unequal. Recent evidence shows that some people who are at the most risk from heat in the UK, including older adults, low-income households and many social housing tenants, are less likely to have and use AC. As a result, the side of energy poverty long experienced elsewhere in Europe – summer cooling – has landed in the UK.

Leaving aside the upfront purchase cost, in what follows we want to focus more on the running cost issue. A small AC unit using roughly 1kW for seven hours per day over 30 days would cost around £54.83 in electricity. That might not seem like much, but for those on the lowest incomes, it absolutely is.

A Hot Weather Payment?

In what you might call classical UK fuel poverty policy, energy affordability is driven by three factors: energy prices, the energy efficiency of the home, and low household incomes. The same factors will shape the affordability of running AC and other active cooling measures.

It follows that policy interventions might be required to support lower-income and heat-vulnerable households with the costs of running AC in summer, and especially during heatwaves, when they will be needed most.

One option is for the Government to start thinking about a Hot Weather Payment. This could mirror the current design of the Cold Weather Payment, with some improvements based on previous learnings. The objective would ultimately be to reduce heat-related mortality and morbidity during hot weather.

For example, eligible households could receive a payment for each period of hot weather between 1 May and 31 October. The trigger for this payment could be based on temperature, like the Cold Weather Payment. Another possibility would be to link payments directly to Heat-Health Alerts, ensuring that financial support is automatically triggered when dangerous temperatures are forecast.

Any Hot Weather Payment system would need to make payments in advance of a heatwave, and would also need an eligibility criterion that effectively targets those on low-incomes and most vulnerable to heat-related mortality and morbidity.

To be balanced, there might be alternative ways of achieving the same outcome as a Hot Weather Payment. The CCC is right, but perhaps a little optimistic, to suggest that our future energy system could have enough clean, cheap electricity to make this problem go away without direct financial support. Homes with solar PV could also feasibly generate enough electricity to power an AC unit.

However, we would be wise not to rely on renewable electricity generation and wider energy system reform to meet the potential costs of keeping cool in the more regular 40°C summers of the future.

22 per cent of homes will need AC

Astute readers might have realised that earlier we wrote that until recently we haven’t had a good idea of how much active cooling we might actually need. But now we have estimates of this too.

The recent CCC report states that in future climate conditions of 2°C global warming – which is around what we are heading for – approximately 22 per cent of UK homes will require active cooling, like AC, to cope with overheating. Under more drastic warming scenarios, which are still not impossible, active cooling is required for almost every single home in England.

The exact level of warming we hit is still subject to choices made by us all. But if we assume a minimum of 22 per cent of UK homes will need AC, and that many of these will be lower-income households and/or particularly vulnerable to heat-related harm, the question of how these households will afford to run their AC units when they need to becomes inescapable.

A Hot Weather Payment might not be the best solution. Wider electrification, solar PV, battery storage, and smarter electricity tariffs could instead reduce cooling costs over time. Either way, the time to begin that conversation has clearly come.

Further reading

You can find original research from Matthew Scott at the Chartered Institute of Housing and Mehri Khosravi at the University of East London below:

From building codes to behaviour: Strengthening extreme heat adaptation policy in the United Kingdom – May 2026

Heat Adaptation in the UK: Policy Brief – October 2025

A nation unprepared: Extreme heat and the need for adaptation in the United Kingdom – June 2025

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)