I am troubled by the implication that buyers of Green Deal packages are going to ‘shop around’ for a Green Deal solution. I understand why this is proposed by DECC, after all what kind of a market would the Green Deal be if there were no ‘shopping’ to be done in it. But it troubles me to imagine a Green Deal result where one property has work done to it by one Green Deal Provider, while next door the same work is done by another Green Deal Provider. This immediately doubles the number of deliveries, and introduces the risk, particularly with solid wall insulation, that two neighbours will end up with different solutions that creates an unhappy result for both. In addition, the opportunity to save costs on both measures and improve the profit margin for the Green Deal Provider has been lost, and both GDP’s lose out. Neither of these outcomes seem to me to be positive ones and ought to be avoided in a sophisticated process such as the Green Deal.
What if a Local Authority could ‘shop’ on residents behalf and could
-ensure that they are getting the best deal on a street by street or ward-by-ward basis, and
-ensure that the appearance of measure was within planning guidelines(for solid wall insulation) and
-that there were no unpleasant surprises, varying thicknesses, clashing colours, etc.
The installation of measures could then be delivered on an area basis to ensure that the fewest tonnes of CO2 were emitted in the delivery of the measures. One van delivers the people and the equipment and the materials instead of ten or twenty vans. If we are going to attempt to create a market to save CO2 we need to consider ALL the CO2 in the process and not just the operational CO2.