I agree with your analysis, Steamy, that price IS the blunt tool that could make a difference, either directly in the minds of the masses or indirectly in raising funds to invest.
cjard,s comments earlier, and his analogy of the, presumably normal, lovely bride to be, just shows however how irrational we humans can be. One day/night of fun and possibly a lifetime of regret, our "animal" species does it all the time,-- screw tomorrow.

This is purely anecdotal, but Cornwall has had a pretty busy summer. Also, many of my colleagues in the catering/hospitality industry have reported that they have had a very good summer with takings up on last year. Many places have also decided to close up a month earlier than usual as 'they have made their money'.
One reason for this is may be the relative cost of going to the Euro zone for a holiday has increased by between 10 to 15%.
Another is the Poldark affect.
Some have said the weather was better this summer (it wasn't).

But regardless of the real reason, I think, and this is an opinion, not a fact, is that there is a perception that staying in the UK for a holiday was better value than going abroad this year (I suspect that next summer will be quieter). But I fail to see how anything that a family does on a rainy day that costs £100 is good value, think Eden Project, Flambards, Newquay Aquarium, parking in just about any town...

So to me, the nominal, or absolute, price of anything is not affected by a rational process (the rational actor in the market place), it is more a case of the perceived value. So 'desirables' like a holiday can stand a much higher price than a necessity, like energy in the public mindset.
I never hear that the government is ripping us off when we go away on holiday, but then I don't go away on holiday (I live in a holiday destination after all), but if a necessity goes up in price, then someone somewhere is profiteering.

I think (and again this is not evidence based) that the public believe that they have no real choice when purchasing mundane necessities, and from the little research I have done, they are probably right. Yes you can get an impressive one off saving by swapping supplier, as long as you were on an expensive tariff and you swap to a lower tariff. You can't do that forever though.
The banks are even worse.

What the public could do though is to just use less. This will not work if every one cuts their consumption by say 30% overnight, the industry could not survive that sort of shock. But if there was a 10% decrease in usage over the next 3 years, the industry would probably react by closing a few, less efficient plants, not having to invest in infrastructure, and could probably hold prices relatively stable.

Ian, Part L Building Regs compliance is DER < TER.
There is no max heating demand as far as I know? where is it in the SAP document?

In England DFEE < TFEE for compliance too.
But there is no set target, it depends on the shape/size of the building.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DarylP</cite>In England DFEE < TFEE for compliance too.<img src="/newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt="" title=""></img>
But there is no set target, it depends on the shape/size of the building.</blockquote>

Daryl - I assume that the SAP software takes the shape/size/volume of the building into account and compensates accordingly to arrive at the minimum efficiency target embeded in the software...so a 2 storey cube shaped building will need less insulation thicknesses than a long thin bungalow in order to hit the heating demand target.

....the caveat to the above is thermal bridging Psi-values.
Part L compliance is sensitive to heat loss from thermal bridges, and different designs can/will have vastly different Heatlosses from Thermal Bridges. (HTB)

Cheers