The EPC’s Challenge with Real-World Energy Performance

Limited Predictive Value:

Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) have become a fundamental part of the residential property landscape in the UK, serving as key indicators of a building’s theoretical energy efficiency. Mandated by law for virtually all property sales and lettings since 2008, EPCs aim to inform prospective buyers and tenants about how energy-efficient a home is, what improvements could be made, and how much these might reduce energy costs.

Yet as the urgency of the climate crisis deepens, and as efforts to reach net zero intensify, a critical flaw in the EPC model has come under increasing scrutiny: the limited predictive value of the EPC when it comes to actual, real-world energy use.

Critics argue that the methodology underpinning EPCs does not accurately reflect how buildings perform once they are lived in. Instead, it relies heavily on standardised assumptions about occupancy, behaviour, and usage patterns. The result is a rating system that can diverge dramatically from the true energy profile of a home, misinforming occupants and leading to misguided retrofit decisions.

In this article, we explore the origins of this issue, the mechanics of EPC modelling, why the predictive gap matters, and what can be done to bridge it. The conversation around the ‘performance gap’ is no longer confined to energy specialists—it is central to the UK’s ability to decarbonise its housing stock in a fair and effective way.

Understanding EPCs: The Basics

An EPC assesses the energy efficiency of a property on a scale from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient). It includes:

• An energy efficiency rating based on theoretical energy usage
• A measure of environmental impact (carbon dioxide emissions)
• Estimated energy costs over a three-year period
• Recommendations for improving efficiency

These are generated by a qualified domestic energy assessor, who inputs data about the property—wall type, insulation levels, heating systems, glazing, lighting, and more—into a software tool that follows the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP), the government’s approved methodology.

However, SAP does not use actual household energy consumption data. Instead, it calculates performance based on standardised assumptions. For instance, it presumes typical occupancy patterns, heating behaviours, and internal temperatures. This approach was designed for consistency, not precision. And that’s precisely where the problem lies.

The ‘Performance Gap’ Explained

The term ‘performance gap’ refers to the discrepancy between the predicted energy performance of a building—based on its EPC or SAP rating—and its actual measured energy consumption. This gap can be surprisingly large.

Studies conducted by academic institutions, housing associations, and industry watchdogs have consistently revealed that homes often use significantly more energy than predicted by their EPCs. In other cases, some homes use much less.

For example:

• A property rated EPC C may perform worse than one rated EPC D due to real-world occupancy patterns, outdated heating controls, or poor maintenance.
• Occupants who heat only one room may consume far less energy than SAP assumes.
• Residents working from home or with medical needs may heat their homes more intensively, leading to energy bills far above the predicted figure.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has acknowledged this divergence, and the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) has called for EPC reform, citing the unreliability of EPCs as a proxy for actual emissions or fuel bills.

Key Factors Behind the Limited Predictive Value of EPCs

1. Standardised Assumptions

The SAP methodology assumes that occupants behave in a uniform, ‘average’ manner—heating all rooms to set temperatures for fixed periods. But real people have diverse lifestyles. Elderly residents may heat their homes all day; young professionals may be out 12 hours a day. EPCs are blind to these nuances.

Moreover, SAP doesn’t account for how residents interact with heating controls, thermostats, smart meters, or whether rooms are unused or left unheated.

2. Exclusion of Actual Energy Use

EPCs do not use real consumption data from gas and electricity bills. Even if such data were available (e.g., via smart meters), it is not currently incorporated into the EPC framework. This disconnect means the certificate might be theoretically ‘correct’ but practically misleading.

3. Outdated Software and Assumptions

Until recently, the SAP methodology used carbon intensity assumptions that no longer reflect the UK’s electricity grid, which has decarbonised significantly. Similarly, it has often favoured gas boilers over electric heating, despite the emergence of highly efficient heat pumps.

These outdated models can result in electric-heated homes being penalised unfairly, even if they are low-carbon in practice.

4. Quality of Assessments

The quality of EPC assessments can vary. Some assessors conduct only visual inspections; others may rely on default values if insulation levels cannot be determined. As a result, two identical homes may receive different ratings based on assessment technique alone.

5. Hidden Factors in Building Performance

Some aspects of a home’s performance, like thermal bridging, draughts, or poorly installed insulation, may not be captured in SAP modelling. These factors can dramatically affect how much energy is needed to heat a home but are rarely reflected in EPCs.

Why the Predictive Gap Matters

The limitations of EPCs are more than a technical annoyance—they have real-world implications for energy policy, consumer behaviour, and the green economy.

1. Misleading Information for Buyers and Renters

When buyers or renters rely on an EPC to gauge likely energy costs, they may be misinformed. A flat rated EPC B may end up costing far more to heat than expected, while a G-rated cottage with part-time occupancy might result in low actual bills.

This undermines trust in the rating system and makes it harder for consumers to make informed choices.

2. Inefficient Targeting of Retrofits

Government schemes and lender initiatives increasingly use EPC ratings to determine eligibility for grants, green mortgages, or retrofit funding. If those ratings don’t reflect actual energy use, funds may be misallocated.

For example, homes that appear efficient on paper may still be cold and expensive to run in practice, but not qualify for help.

3. Policy Risks

The UK government has proposed minimum EPC requirements for rental properties (e.g., all new tenancies must be EPC C by 2028). But if EPCs don’t correlate with real energy savings or emissions, then these rules may not deliver the intended environmental benefits.

Worse, landlords might invest thousands to nudge a property from D to C without significantly improving living conditions or lowering carbon emissions.

4. Missed Carbon Targets

If EPC-based models are used to forecast national energy savings or carbon reductions—and those forecasts are inaccurate—the UK could miss its legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act and Net Zero Strategy.

Towards a More Accurate System

Efforts to address the performance gap and improve the predictive value of energy performance assessments are already underway. Several proposals have emerged to build a more reliable, useful, and user-friendly system.

1. Smart Meter Integration

One proposal is to incorporate anonymised data from smart meters into EPC assessments, allowing actual consumption to influence ratings. This could add significant accuracy but raises privacy and data management concerns.

2. Dynamic EPCs

Some suggest a move toward a ‘living’ EPC—a digital document updated regularly based on occupancy changes, energy use, or upgrades. This would transform the EPC from a static certificate to a real-time building passport.

3. Building Performance Evaluation (BPE)

The use of sensors, thermal imaging, air quality monitors, and occupant feedback is gaining traction in pilot programmes. BPE provides deep insight into how buildings perform, although it is more resource-intensive than traditional EPCs.

4. Revised SAP Methodology

A new version of SAP, known as SAP 11, is in development. It promises improved assumptions about heating systems, better alignment with decarbonisation goals, and more accurate cost predictions. It may also provide a better framework for rating emerging technologies like heat pumps and solar PV.

5. Occupant Education and Feedback Loops

Rather than solely focusing on the building fabric, future energy performance strategies could include user behaviour and feedback mechanisms. Educating occupants about how to use heating systems efficiently and interpret energy data can make a measurable difference.

International Comparisons

The UK is not alone in facing EPC reliability issues. Across Europe, similar energy rating systems are under review. The Netherlands and Denmark have piloted performance-based certification schemes using in-use data. Meanwhile, Germany is exploring dynamic and regionally adaptive EPC models.

These international efforts highlight a growing consensus: theoretical models alone are not sufficient. A hybrid approach that combines calculation, observation, and behaviour is essential.

What Should Property Professionals Do Now?

While EPC reform is on the horizon, the current system remains legally mandated. Estate agents, surveyors, landlords, and energy professionals should:

• Explain the limitations of EPCs to clients, especially the fact that ratings are based on standardised assumptions, not actual use.
• Encourage post-occupancy evaluations, especially after retrofits, to measure whether anticipated savings have materialised.
• Stay informed about upcoming changes to SAP and EPC frameworks, and advocate for more nuanced and effective tools.

Conclusion: Rethinking EPCs for a Net Zero Future

As the UK continues its transition toward net zero, accurate and meaningful data will become increasingly critical. Energy Performance Certificates, though well-intentioned and widely adopted, have clear limitations in their current form. By relying on standardised, theoretical models, EPCs can fail to predict real-world energy use and risk misguiding homeowners, tenants, policymakers, and investors alike.

Reforming the EPC system to reflect actual performance, user behaviour, and the complexity of buildings is not just a technical exercise—it is a strategic imperative. Bridging the performance gap will require innovation, investment, and political will. But it will also unlock a more transparent, trustworthy energy market—one in which actions are informed by reality, not assumptions.

Only then will EPCs evolve from static paper exercises into dynamic tools of environmental progress.

Would you like this article in a formatted version for your website, such as HTML or Markdown? Or would you like to develop it further into a report, white paper, or downloadable resource?

Northants EPC offer Energy Performance Certificates throughout Northampton and the surrounding villages.
We also offer Energy Performance Consultations, with a full report on the energy performance of your property and a working plan to improve your rating.

To book and EPC or for further information contact us anytime.
Northants EPC
01604 807308