As normal the Taxpayers Alliance are up their own back sides as this is self funding and using what was CERT.
More interesting is the reference to the scheme in Germany which was for insulation. This was withdrawn as it was deemed to have failed after a short period due to very low take up. This is in a country where electricity costs a lot more than in the UK.
Whilst being highly sceptical about the Green Deal, I do not have a better answer than the general principals on which it is based. The sums of money involved in improving the thermal efficiency of existing building stock are vast and unaffordable from the public purse. The need to do something about it is urgent if emission reduction targets are to be met. There are also major implications if the prevention of a marked rise in fuel poverty is seen as a priority.
The two major issues are the cost of finance and the reliability of the Green Deal assessment in accurately predicting fuel savings.
The first should be relatively easy if a little pragmatism was used as the driving force rather than ideology and libertarianism. The Government has been happy to pump vast sums of money in to the economy through Quantative Easing, the idea being the sale of bonds would stimulate the banking sector to buy this cheap money and do what they need to do to get the economy moving. All it appeared to do was allow them to reinforce their balance sheets. The Government then provided yet further funding at base rate or less specifically for lending for mortgages and business. Some of this is filtering through to first time buyers, but the banks are still not playing their part. Why not provide money on the same basis to the green investment bank or other Green Deal funders with a proviso of a maximum interest rate of 2.5%? This would be more than enough to cover the costs of loan administration and provide a profit. Maybe this won't happen as you really need a 'not for profit' organisation to run it which would mean the Governments fat friends couldn't get their snouts in the trough.
What it would mean was more Green Deal measures being cost effective as financing costs were lower. The benefits of increased commercial activity would stimulate the wider economy through the multiplier effect.
We also need to see no early repayment penalties on Green Deal loans. It is highly likely this will be something required as many prospective purchasers may make it a condition of sale if there is such a charge against a property.
The second point may be a little more difficult. Pressure on GDAs in vertically integrated businesses are likely to be considerable. My view is they should all be independent contractors to remove this risk. We are then left with their skill set and the methodology they work with. Talking to professionals in the field they are highly sceptical that a couple of weeks training at most can adequately equip someone with the kind of detailed knowledge required to properly assess a building and calculate it's performance. You are left relying on the methodology. If it is not sufficiently robust and foolproof in any way, there will be problems. As there are areas that can be subjective over occupancy and use, there are inherent risks. I do not have sufficient detail knowledge to produce any sort of empirical analysis, but understand from the comments of others there is a major risk. I suspect there will be adjustments over time as issues come to light. What is more important is compensatory funding for anyone who falls victim to a lack of cost saving.
This still does not take in to account people who are currently under-heating their property. They will simply use the same amount of energy to improve their comfort levels and be faced with a Green Deal Loan on top.
Part of the problem with the Green Deal is a lack of reasoned communication and explanation. If people can see they are able to save money, they will go for it. The problem is reasoned explanation means the Government having to own up to a number of inconvenient truths about the future cost of energy and the shambles of current energy policy. Whilst it remains the puppet of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, this is unlikely to happen.
