Fuel Poverty Evidence Review: Measuring, Explaining &

Identifying Fuel Poverty in Scotland

Liz Hawkins & Jamie Robertson

Scottish House Condition Survey TeamCommunities Analytical Services Division

Purpose of today

• Background

• Definitional Issues

• Summary of findings

• Next Steps

Why do an evidence review

• Large independent review of fuel poverty in England asked to review from first principles the fuel poverty definition and target (Hills Review)

• Fuel Poverty Forum tasked to undertake a smaller scale review in Scotland

• Evidence review aims to contribute to this process in Scotland

Evidence Review – Research aims

• To review the current definition of fuel poverty and consider alternative approaches (Hills Review)

• To draw on the wider evidence base to analyse the impacts of fuel poverty & compare this to the Scottish data

• To identify who the fuel poor are in order to inform effective intervention targeting

Fuel Poverty – Its definition & extent

• In 2010 28% of households were fuel poor (658,000)

• Statutory duty to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016 (“where reasonably practicable”)

• Fuel poverty is rising (projected 35% in SHCS 2011)

“A household is in fuel poverty if it would be required to spend more than 10% of its income on all household fuel usage”

A picture of fuel poverty in Scotland

Measuring Fuel Poverty (JR)Energy Costs: SHCS & BREDEM• 2 temperature schemes

(Regular/Vulnerable)• 2 zones

(Primary living zone/Secondary)• Vulnerable Groups

(Pensioners/LTSD)• 7 climate zones

(degree day regions)

Income: SHCShousehold income based on wages, benefits and council tax for the highest income householder and their partner only

7%

7%

18%

26%

43%

Older HomeOwners

Unemployed - NotOwned

Urban familybenefits

Workinginefficient rural

Ungrouped

A. 23%

B. 31%

C. 26%

D. 20%

F. 17%

E. 83%

Evidence Findings 1 – Number and Type of Fuel poor

depends on definition • Who the fuel poor are depends on how we

define fuel poverty• Current definition favours older people • Changes to the definition would (e.g.)

– Increase/decrease importance of fuel costs– Increase/decrease importance of housing costs– Increase/decrease importance of energy

efficiency

Evidence Findings 2 – Evidence confuses fuel poverty and heat poverty and actual behaviour? • Tends to be an assumption that fuel

poverty=cold home • Only half of a fuel bill relates to space heating• When asked only 7% of households said they

had difficulty keeping warm in winter• Modelled heating regime may not be equivalent

to people’s view of thermal comfort (we have no evidence on temperature in people’s homes to check)

Changes to fuel poverty definitionEnergy Costs

All Costs

Heating and Hot Water

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

B C D E F G

Fu

el P

ov

ert

y R

ate

More Efficient

Energy Efficiency & income povertyModelled and Reported Costs

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Efficient, good income Efficient, low income Inefficient, goodincome

Inefficient, low income

Fuel Poverty Running Costs

Actual Annual Energy RunningCosts

Fuel poverty & income povertyModelled and Reported Costs

£0

£500

£1,000

£1,500

£2,000

£2,500

Fuel poor, notincome poor

Fuel poor andincome poor

Neither incomenor fuel poor

Income poor,not fuel poor

(Scotland)

Modelled Running Costs

Actual Fuel Spend

Evidence Findings 3 – Energy efficiency cannot solve fuel

poverty but it can reduce it

• If all homes had a good energy rating (NHER=10) then 10% would still be fuel poor

• 40% of fuel poor are in a dwelling already rated ‘good’ in terms of energy efficiency

Fuel poverty & income povertyEnergy Efficiency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10NHER Rating

Neither income nor fuel poor

Fuel poor, not income poor

Fuel poor and income poor

Income poor, not fuel poor

More Efficient

Evidence Findings 4 – Fuel poverty is too complex to

statistically identify for targetting• Various statistical techniques used to try to

predict fuel poverty (based on household and/or dwelling characteristics) to assist in targetting

• Current programmes tend to be targetted on benefit eligibility but 59% of fuel poor are not entitled to means tested benefits

• Most mileage in mapping of proxy variables

Identifying fuel poor households

Evidence Findings 5 – Action to reduce fuel costs will have a

greater impact on fuel poverty than income

• £10 reduction in cost is equal to £100 increase in income

• Fuel costs can be reduced by: – Improved energy efficiency– Reduced energy consumption– Reduced tariffs – Other direct measures eg. winter fuel allowance

• Current programmes aim at right measures but difficulty targetting right people

Changes to fuel poverty definition Winter Fuel Payments

20%

41%

59%

18%

34%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Large adult Older smaller Single pensioner

Fu

el P

ove

rty

Rat

e

Evidence Findings 6 – No Scottish evidence to support fuel poverty

having poor health outcomes

• No direct link between fuel poverty and poor health outcomes inc. respiratory health & asthma in children

• No direct link between fuel poverty and excess winter deaths

• Some potential association between thermal comfort and mental health

• Data unavailable for indirect effects

Dissemination & next steps

• Publish final report on SHCS website in July