BUILDING DISAPPOINTMENT: THE LIMITS AND POTENTIAL OF TORT LIABILITY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROBLEMS IN DOMESTIC BUILDINGS by Kim Alexandra Bouwer A thesis submitted to University College London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2016 UCL I, Kim Alexandra Bouwer confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. -------------------------------------------------- Kim A Bouwer 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….……..6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….……..8 ACRONYMS…………………....………………………………………….……..11 Chapter One: Introduction a) Thesis and chapter outline………………………………………….…...12 b) The governance of climate change………………………………..……16 c) Climate change litigation across scales………………………….….....23 d) Energy, energy efficiency and the built environment…………….…...31 e) Scope of the thesis, methodology and structure…………………...….35 i. Scope…………………………………………………………...….35 ii. Methodology…………………………………………………...….42 a. First phase……………………………………………………...46 b. Second phase………………………………………………….47 c. Third phase……………………………………………………..49 iii. Thesis Structure…………………………………………………..49 PART 1 Chapter Two: Decarbonising the Built Environment a) Introduction………………………………………………………………..52 b) How we make buildings energy efficient……………………………….53 i. Achieving energy performance………………………………….53 ii. How we measure energy efficiency…………………………….56 c) The performance gap…………………………………………………….61 d) Unintended consequences: overheating……………………………….68 i. The health consequences of overheating……………………...71 ii. Causes of overheating……………………………………………74 e) Conclusion…………………………………………………………………79 Chapter Three: Regulation a) Introduction………………………………………………………………..81 i. Political and regulatory context………………………………….82 b) Performance standards…………………………………………………..84 i. Building regulations……………………………………………….85 ii. Building codes and changing standards………………………..88 iii. Regulations for comfort…………………………………………..93 c) ‘Information’………………………………………………………………..96 i. Regulations for the assessment of comfort and energy efficiency…………………………………………………………...97 ii. Energy performance certificates……………………………….102 d) Economic incentives…………………………………………………….105 e) Conclusion……………………………………………………………….111 3 Chapter Four: Limits of the Obvious a) Introduction………………………………………………………………113 b) Parties, defects and loss……………………………………….……….114 i. Parties…………………………………………………………….114 ii. Defects……………………………………………………………118 iii. Losses…………………………………………………………….121 c) Regulatory compliance and enforcement……………………………..123 i. Problems…………………………………………………………130 d) Contracts…………………………………………………………………133 e) Insurance…………………………………………………………………137 f) Conclusion……………………………………………………………….139 PART 2 Chapter 5: Structure and Functions of Tort a) Introduction………………………………………………………………141 b) Structure of tort…………………………………………….…………….147 i. Protected interests………………………………………………149 ii. Correlativity………………………………………………………153 iii. Negligence……………………………………………………….156 iv. Some comments on the compatibility of environmental harms with tort’s deep structure………………………………………..160 c) The functions of tort……………………………………………………..168 i. Compensation……………………………………………………170 ii. Distribution (or: who bears the risk)…………………………...173 iii. Deterrence……………………………………………………….175 d) Conclusion……………………………………………………………….181 Chapter 6: Tort and the Performance Gap a) Introduction………………………………………………………………184 b) Excluding other torts…………………………………………………….188 c) Damage…………………………………………………………………..190 d) Duty……………………………………………………………………….194 i. Leading cases……………………………………………………196 ii. Policy……………………………………………………………..207 e) Deep structures in tort…………………………………………………..214 f) Remedies………………………………………………………………...221 g) Instrumental effects of tort……………………………………………...224 h) Conclusion……………………………………………………………….230 Chapter 7: Tort and Overheating a) Introduction………………………………………………………………233 b) Duty……………………………………………………………………….237 c) Duty of care in negligence……………………………………………...238 d) Breach of duty in negligence…………………………………………...239 i. Foreseeability……………………………………………………240 ii. The reasonable person…………………………………………243 4 iii. Regulation………………………………………………………..245 iv. Climate consciousness…………………………………………248 e) Liability in statute………………………………………………………..250 f) Causation………………………………………………………………...254 i. Factual causation………………………………………………..255 ii. Legal causation………………………………………………….260 g) Conduct of the claimant………………………………………………...262 h) Remedies………………………………………………………………...268 i) Conclusions………………………………………………………………271 Chapter 8: Conclusion a) Introduction………………………………………………………………276 b) Overview of thesis………………………………………………………277 c) Energy efficiency………………………………………………………..283 i. The importance of energy efficiency………………………….283 ii. Recourse for energy efficiency problems…………………….287 d) Small private disputes as climate change litigation………………….291 i. Distribution……………………………………………………….292 ii. Deterrence……………………………………………………….294 iii. Structural changes to tort………………………………………298 e) Potential for future work………………………………………………..299 f) Final conclusions……………………………………………………….301 CASES, STATUTES AND TREATIES……………………………………….302 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..307 99, 940 words 5 ABSTRACT This interdisciplinary thesis examines the potential for liability in tort in relation to two problems, which recur frequently in energy efficient buildings: energy efficiency failings – the ‘performance gap’ – and summer overheating. It works at the interface between tort theory, climate change litigation and energy efficiency, a key requirement for the mitigation of climate change. It is grounded in two key theoretical perspectives. The conception of private law is pluralist: a structural model of tort based on Cane’s ‘anatomy’: variably protected interests of parties in a correlative relationship. It relies on instrumental approaches to private law, informed by regulatory theory, strongly to emphasise the potential for liability outcomes to frustrate an already weak and poorly enforced policy area. The second theoretical perspective is a conception of climate change as a multiscalar phenomenon, a workable solution to which will require coherent treatment on all levels and across all scales. It highlights the need for ‘climate consciousness’: greater attention on small and more mundane issues that interface with aspects of domestic climate policy. The first half of the thesis explores the research context and encompasses most of the interdisciplinary work. It explains how building energy efficiency might technically be achieved and how problems arise. It explores the governing regulation, including the shortcomings of regulatory enforcement. The second half of the thesis examines doctrinal and theoretical mismatches that could arise in adjudicating the problem areas. The core conclusions include concerns that disputes in this poorly regulated area might undermine decarbonisation and hence, climate change mitigation policy; in addition, ‘climate blind’ litigation can lead to perverse 6 outcomes which reinforce a lack of awareness of both climate adaptation and mitigation policy goals. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My primary thanks go to Professor Maria Lee for her immense support, encouragement and guidance, kindness and incredible generosity. She has provided me with invaluable help not only in the preparation of this thesis, but throughout the challenges of the PhD process. (I thank Prof Lee here, but she is owed acknowledgement in every paragraph that follows in this section.) I must also thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for a studentship enabling me to carry out this project. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of my PhD, I was fortunate enough to be included in two research communities. I am grateful to PhD and researcher communities both at the UCL Bartlett School of Energy, Environment and Resources, and the UCL Faculty of Laws, for facilitating excellent learning environments, stocked with many kind and supportive scholars. Particular thanks go to my second supervisor, Professor Tadj Oreszczyn, and Dr Javier De Cendra De Larragan. I am also indebted to the private law and environmental law community for their attention to early incarnations of this thesis, and their generosity with feedback and encouragement. My particular thanks are as follows: I am grateful to Paul Mitchell and Charles Mitchell for their invitation to present at the New Work in Obligations Seminar in April 2014, to all present for their attention, to Eloise Scotford and James Lee for their written comments. Their comments, and those at the UCL PhD Work in Progress Forum in March 2014 helped significantly in the preparation of 8 the paper ‘When Gist Is Mist: Mismatches in Small Scale Climate Change Litigation’, referenced in this thesis. I am grateful to the organisers of the Adjudicating Climate Change Conference at KCL in September 2015 (Elizabeth Fisher, Eloise Scotford and Emily Barritt), for inviting me to write about ‘Climate Consciousness in Daily Legal Practice’ for discussion at the conference, and for their kind comments about my work. My thanks go to Linda Siegele for the opportunity to discuss my work on the performance gap at ‘The Retrofit Exchange’, a workshop at UCL in November 2015. I also acknowledge everyone present for their time and generosity, with particular thanks to Jane Holder and Christine Trenorden of UCL. I presented twice for the UCL-KCL Postgraduate Environmental Law Symposium, in November 2012 and May 2014. I am grateful to Eloise Scotford for