Most new homes must have solar panels and heat pumps under Government proposals
Builders will be required to fit solar panels on rooftops and install low-carbon heating for most new build homes in England under proposed changes to be published this year.
The Energy Department (Desnz) said on Friday that the future homes standard (FHS), which will be published in autumn, is expected to require new residential properties to have solar panels by default.
Gas boilers will also not meet the proposed standard, meaning low-carbon heating – such as heat pumps – will also likely become the new default under building regulations.
With a significant amount of the UK's carbon footprint coming from gas heating of homes, the FHS will require new housing in England to produce fewer carbon emissions than those built under current regulations.
The Government said the measures will also help to slash household energy bills and boost the nation's energy security.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: 'Solar panels can save people hundreds of pounds off their energy bills, so it is just common sense for new homes to have them fitted as standard.
'So many people just don't understand why this doesn't already happen. With our plans, it will.'
Desnz calculates that a typical existing UK home could save around £530 a year from installing rooftop solar based on the current energy price cap.
Matthew Pennycook, housing and planning minister, said: 'The future homes standard will ensure new homes are modern and efficient with low-carbon heating, while our common-sense planning changes will now make it easier and cheaper for people to use heat pumps and switch to EVs so they can play their part in bolstering our nation's energy security.'
Current building regulations do not require developers to add solar panels or heat pumps to new homes.
In 2023, the previous Conservative government proposed new build homes would need solar panel coverage equivalent to 40% of the building's floor area.
But this also allowed for exemptions, which would lead to no solar on many developments, the current Government says.
Under the proposed changes, developers who cannot meet 40% coverage will still be required to install a reasonable amount of solar coverage – or other forms of renewable electricity generation, with rare exceptions.
Ministers also say the FHS will effectively require low-carbon heating, such as domestic heat pumps installed into new builds.
The previous Conservative government faced criticism for rowing back on its proposals to ban the sale of new gas boilers by 2035.
While the Government is not planning to introduce such a ban, citing concerns around cost, Desnz confirmed on Friday that FHS proposals include mandating minimum criteria for energy efficiency which mean newly built homes have to install greener heating systems.
Recent changes to planning rules aimed at removing barriers to heat pump installations came into force on May 29, enabling households to install a heat pump within one metre of their property's boundary without having to submit a planning application.
The first quarter of 2025 saw a record number of applications to the boiler upgrade scheme, which provides households with up to £7,500 off the cost of a heat pump, seeing a 73% jump from the same quarter last year.
Charles Wood, deputy director of policy (systems) at Energy UK, said: 'This change, alongside wider reforms to planning processes and network connections, will reduce bills for people in new build properties while also giving the industry confidence to invest in increased manufacturing and installer training as demand increases, creating jobs and bringing down technology costs for everyone.'
The UK is legally committed to reaching its net zero target by 2050, meaning the UK must cut carbon emissions until it removes as much as it produces, in line with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
In win for Trump, Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data
WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on June 6 said Department of Government Efficiency can have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. The court paused a judge's order blocking DOGE from immediately getting broad access to the data which includes Social Security numbers, medical and mental health information, tax return information and citizenship records. The court's three liberal justices − Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson − disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now —before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. "In essence, the `urgency' underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." Jackson said the court has "truly lost its moorings" when deciding what's worthy of emergency intervention and may be showing preferential treatment for the administration. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said access is warranted now because the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can have the information. A delay would harm the administration's reorganization efforts and not be in the public's interest, the majority wrote. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion.' Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste – as DOGE officials said they intended to do. 'District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads,' Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be 'fiercely protected.' DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
What's next for DOGE after the wild Trump-Musk breakup?
The very public internet feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week has thrown the fate of Musk's 'Department of Government Efficiency' operation into question. A clash over the Trump-backed spending bill devolved Thursday, with Musk suggesting Trump ought to be impeached and the president suggesting halting government contracts for Musk's companies. Trump downplayed the significance of the pair's blowup Thursday evening, and Republicans appeared eager to ease tensions after their dispute dominated headlines. But their bitter public brawl has raised a host of questions about how the Trump-Musk relationship will change moving forward. Advertisement Some federal employees are hopeful that DOGE will lose power within the administration after its early push to slash funding and fire employees. The fracas also raises questions about whether Musk's allies who remain in the DOGE operation will stick around, or might leave — or be nudged out — sooner than they had planned. 'The girls are fighting, and I'm here for it,' said one Energy Department career official who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. 'This could bode well for shaking things loose at DOE,' that person said. 'Right now, there is an ironclad hold on all funding activities, and that freeze is mostly at the request of DOGE.' Asked Friday about DOGE's fate in the wake of the Trump-Musk fight, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an email, 'The Trump administration will continue the mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse across all agencies to ensure the federal government is effectively using taxpayer dollars.' Rogers added that the passage of 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill' and the rescissions package the White House sent to Congress are 'essential to further codifying the DOGE cuts.' EPA and the Energy and Interior departments did not respond to requests for comment about whether DOGE's stature within the administration and inside federal agencies will change in the wake of the fight. 'We were hopeful for this failure of relationships,' said an Interior Department employee who was granted anonymity because they fear retaliation. 'There is still a feeling that DOGE is heavily influencing things here,' due in part 'to contracts and agreements being scrutinized,' that person said. The public spat between Trump and Musk could give agency heads like Energy Secretary Chris Wright more leeway to make decisions independently, said a former Energy Department career staffer who was granted anonymity because they fear retribution. Musk being on the outs could also possibly make new hires and normal funding flow a little more likely, said that former staffer, who added that it's unclear whether the gutting of agency staffing and funding was due to Musk's efforts in particular. Tom Pyle, president of the conservative think tank Institute for Energy Research, said it's 'too early to tell' what the feud means for DOGE over the long term. Musk formally left his DOGE post last week, when Trump hosted a farewell event with the Tesla CEO in the Oval Office. Musk said last Friday that his exit was not the 'end of DOGE, but really the beginning.' When Trump created DOGE, he required agencies to establish their own DOGE teams. Many of the officials deployed early on by the administration have ties to Musk's companies, including SpaceX, X and xAI. Trump praised the DOGE team's work last week and said that many DOGE people would be 'staying behind' after Musk's departure. Musk contended at the time that he was leaving because his time as a temporary special government employee had come to an end, but Trump disputed that claim in one of his disparaging posts Thursday on Truth Social. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump posted. It remains to be seen whether DOGE was 'just a pet project that Donald Trump created for Elon Musk,' said Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist. The answer will become clear pretty quickly, Payne said. 'I think it's probably a pretty good bet that at a minimum it is not the high-profile effort that it was.' But even if there's a public effort to declare a truce, Payne said, 'I doubt the relationship between their collective worlds will ever be OK.' Despite the rift, Republicans and some agency employees aren't expecting an immediate or dramatic shift in DOGE's work at agencies. 'The DOGE folks that have been planted in these agencies have some pretty firm backing from the White House, and I don't think this changes that dynamic,' Pyle said. 'I think that they're still empowered to do their work, at least for now.' Sean Spicer, who served as White House press secretary during Trump's first term, said DOGE 'is much bigger than a group of staff. It has been a mentality that is now part of every department and agency.' Trump's energy and environmental Cabinet bosses — Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin — were all together in Alaska this week to discuss energy issues and stayed out of the fray on social media. They have all previously praised Musk and the DOGE team's work. Nicole Cantello, president of an American Federation of Government Employees union local that represents employees in EPA's Chicago-based region, doesn't expect big changes in store for DOGE. 'We believe the spat between Trump and Musk will have no effect on the plan to dismantle the EPA,' Cantello said Friday. 'This administration has shown time and again that it is determined to put polluters first, over the health of the American people.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Angela Rayner could face a backbench rebellion from MPs demanding a 'progressive alternative to our planning system'. Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
