EPC ratings: the basics you need to know

EPCs grade properties from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient). But here is a detail many miss: beneath those letters lies a numerical points system. For example:

• 92-100 points = A
• 81-91 points = B
• 69-80 points = C

Why does this matter? Because your property could be just one point away from moving up a grade! For instance, a D-rated property might only need a tiny tweak to
hit a C.

Most landlords do not know their EPC score – here’s why it matters

Shockingly, only 5% of landlords understand how EPC points are calculated. But this knowledge is crucial. Slight changes can make a big difference if you know exactly how many points each upgrade adds.

The EPC report will show you how many points common improvements add to an EPC score. Let us dive into some examples.

Quick wins for boosting EPC ratings

If your property’s rating is teetering on the edge of an upgrade, a few small adjustments could push it over the line:

• Hot water cylinder insulation: +1.7 points
• Hot water cylinder thermostat: +2.4 points
• Low energy lighting: +1.1 points

These are not massive investments but can yield that all-important extra point or two.

Points first, eco second?

It might sound strange, but the most eco-friendly upgrades do not always give the best EPC points. Take biomass boilers—fantastic for the environment, but they add only +12 points. Meanwhile, a more traditional condensing gas boiler adds a hefty +23 points. So, while you might love the idea of going green, it is worth checking the EPC points impact first.

Big jobs worth considering

If you are ready to tackle larger projects, these are the ones to prioritise:

• Room in roof insulation: +9.91 points (most effective)
• Wall insulation: +7.7 points
• Loft insulation: +4.9 points
• Double glazing: +3.3 points

And do not overlook renewable energy! Solar panels, for example, can add +9.91 points, while a wind turbine brings in +6.39 points.

The future of EPCs: get ready for 2030

By 2030, it has been suggested that all rental properties will need a minimum C rating.

But why is it unlikely that EPCs will reach a ‘C’ rating by 2030?

While this goal is well-intentioned and aimed at reducing carbon emissions, several factors make it unlikely that the target will be fully met by the deadline. Here is why:

1) The scale of the challenge

According to recent statistics, a significant percentage of properties, especially older ones, still fall into the “D” rating or below. Upgrading these properties often requires
substantial investment, such as installing insulation, double glazing, and more efficient heating systems. The sheer number of homes needing improvement poses
a logistical challenge that cannot be resolved within the remaining time limit.

2) Financial barriers

Energy efficiency upgrades are expensive, and landlords, particularly small-scale ones, often struggle to afford these improvements. While government grants and incentives exist, they are often insufficient or overly complex to access. With rising costs of materials and labour, the financial burden may deter many property owners from making the necessary upgrades.

 3) Skilled labor shortages

The construction and retrofitting industries are already experiencing significant shortages of skilled workers. Achieving widespread EPC improvements will require a workforce capable of implementing energy-efficient technologies at scale. Without significant investment in training and recruitment, it will be difficult to meet the demand for retrofitting expertise.

4) Technological and practical constraints

Not all properties can be easily upgraded to a “C” rating. For example, period homes or those in conservation areas face restrictions on certain modifications, such as external wall insulation or window replacements. Even where upgrades are possible, achieving a “C” rating can be disproportionately costly or technically unfeasible.

Conclusion

While the ambition to achieve a minimum “C” EPC rating by 2030 reflects a strong commitment to environmental sustainability, the practical, financial, and systemic barriers make it unlikely that the target will be universally met. For this goal to become more achievable, substantial changes in policy, funding, and industry capacity will be required. A more flexible, phased approach may better balance ambition with the realities of implementation.