Scotland’s EPC reforms may be delayed — but the direction of travel is clear

Energy performance remains a key issue for property owners, landlords and investors, particularly as regulatory approaches in Scotland and England continue to develop in different ways. Although Scotland’s planned EPC reforms have been delayed, they still indicate a clear direction of travel towards more detailed reporting, shorter certificate validity periods and a stronger focus on building performance and emissions.

What is the current position in Scotland?

The Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2025 were originally expected to come into force as a first step, aspart of the Scottish Government’s wider Net Zero and building decarbonisation strategy. However, implementation has now been delayed, meaning that the current 2008 Regulations continue to apply for the time being.

At present, there is no confirmed revised implementation date. The delay appears to reflect the need for further consultation, alignment with wider heat in buildings legislation, alignment with the UK Government’s timetable for EPC reforms, and practical considerations around delivery and market readiness.

What will change?

The new regulations are expected to include:

• the introduction of new rating systems for both domestic and non-domestic buildings (for example an energy performance rating, an energy use rating and a direct emissions rating);
• a requirement for EPCs to be accompanied by a Property Report (replacing the previous Recommendation Report) which will set out potential improvement measures;
• a reduction in the validity period of EPCs from 10 to 5 years to ensure more up-to-date information; and
• updated requirements on the disclosure of energy performance data.

Although delayed, these reforms represent a shift in approach from one-off compliance to more active asset management. Early preparation will put owners in a much stronger position when the new regime does come into force.

We recommend that property owners use this period to:

• review portfolio energy performance and identify at‑risk assets, for example stranded assets that cannot economically be upgraded;
• plan upgrade strategies in advance;
• consider how leasing structures, such as green lease provisions, can support future compliance; and
• engage early with surveyors and energy consultants to understand the likely new methodology.

Differences Between EPC Regimes in Scotland and England

Although Scotland and England both operate EPC frameworks derived from common UK and EU origins, the regimes are increasingly diverging in both design and policy intent. This divergence is particularly evident when considering the direction of reform, the role EPCs play in regulatory enforcement, and how each jurisdiction is embedding energy performance within wider property and climate strategies.

At a high level, both systems continue to rely on an A–G rating scale to communicate a building’s energy efficiency. However, Scotland’s proposed reforms mark a clear departure from reliance on a single headline metric. The introduction of multiple ratings covering energy performance, operational energy use and direct emissions signals a move towards a more sophisticated and transparent assessment framework. This approach recognises the limitations of existing EPCs, which are often based on modelled performance rather than actual energy consumption. England, by contrast, has so far retained a primary focus on the headline EPC score, although there is increasing discussion about incorporating operational metrics into future reforms.

One of the most significant practical differences between the two regimes lies in their respective compliance mechanisms. In England, EPC ratings are closely linked to the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES), which prohibit landlords from granting new leases and, in most cases, continuing existing leases for properties with an EPC rating below E, unless an exemption is registered. MEES has created a clear and immediate regulatory driver, tying energy performance directly to a property’s let-ability and market value. There is also a trajectory towards tightening these standards, with current proposals suggesting a move to EPC B for larger commercial properties over time.

Scotland does not currently operate an equivalent MEES framework. Instead, minimum standards have historically been imposed through alternative mechanisms, such as the Section 63 regime for certain non-domestic buildings, which requires owners to undertake improvement measures or implement operational ratings. While this regime has similar objectives, it does not create the same direct link between EPC rating and leasing activity. As a result, the compliance landscape in Scotland has been less immediately restrictive, although the proposed reforms suggest a shift towards more proactive and enforceable requirements in the future.

Another area of divergence is the role of EPC-related recommendations. In both jurisdictions, EPCs are accompanied by suggested improvement measures, but their practical importance differs. In England, recommendations have traditionally been secondary to the overarching requirement to meet a minimum rating under MEES. In Scotland, however, there is a clear policy shift towards embedding these recommendations into a more structured and actionable framework. The proposed replacement of the Recommendation Report with a more comprehensive Property Report reflects an intention to support ongoing asset management, rather than simply providing a snapshot at a single point in time. This aligns with a broader move towards lifecycle performance tracking and continuous improvement.

The validity period of EPCs is another point of differentiation. Scotland’s intention to reduce the lifespan of EPCs from 10 years to 5 years represents a significant change, aimed at ensuring that energy performance data remains current and reflective of both improvements and changes over time. A shorter validity period is likely to increase the frequency of reassessment and the associated administrative burden, but it may also provide more reliable data for owners, occupiers and policymakers. England currently retains a 10-year validity period, although this may come under review as part of ongoing EPC reform discussions.

Data transparency and accessibility are also developing along different lines. Scotland’s proposed reforms place greater emphasis on the collection, updating and sharing of building performance data. This reflects a broader governmental focus on integrating EPCs into a wider evidence base for decarbonisation policy. Enhanced data requirements may also support the development of digital building records and facilitate more informed decision-making across the property lifecycle. In England, while there is growing interest in similar concepts, such as passports for buildings and performance monitoring, the implementation of these ideas remains less advanced and more consultative in nature.

Scotland’s approach is increasingly holistic, with EPC reform being developed in tandem with wider heat in buildings legislation and decarbonisation strategies. This integrated approach is intended to align regulatory requirements with long-term climate goals, encouraging property owners to adopt comprehensive upgrade strategies rather than leaving compliance considerations to a later date. England’s approach, while still evolving, has been more market-driven, using mechanisms such as MEES to incentivise improvement through financial and transactional pressures.

For property owners and investors operating across both jurisdictions, these differences have important practical implications. In England, the immediate focus remains on ensuring compliance with minimum rating thresholds and anticipating future tightening of MEES requirements. In Scotland, greater emphasis is likely to be placed on understanding a broader range of performance metrics, engaging with more detailed property-level reporting, and preparing for more frequent reassessment cycles.

In summary, while Scotland and England continue to share a common EPC foundation, their regimes are diverging in meaningful ways. Scotland is moving towards a more detailed, data-rich framework with a stronger emphasis on active performance management and regulatory oversight, whereas England continues to rely more heavily on minimum standards linked to leasing and market activity. As reforms progress, these differences will become increasingly important in shaping how energy performance is managed, reported and regulated across the built environment. For property owners with cross-border portfolios, understanding these differences will be essential when shaping compliance strategies and investment decisions.

How we can help

If you have questions regarding issues raised throughout this article, please contact Dawn MacPherson or a member of our team.