low income energy efficiency

7/27/2019 Low Income Energy Efficiency

1/40

Evaluating the co-benefits oflow-income energy-efficiency

programmes

Results of the Dublin Workshop, 27-28 January 2011

W O R K S H O P R E P O R T

Grayson Heffner, Nina Campbell

June 2011


2/40


3/40

Results of the Dublin Workshop, 27-28 January 2011

W O R K S H O P R E P O R T

Grayson Heffner, Nina Campbell

June 2011

This workshop report was prepared or the frst o the IEA uel poverty workshops

held in January 2011. It was drated by the IEA Energy Efciency Unit. This paper reects

the views o the International Energy Agency (IEA) Secretariat, but does not necessarily

reect those o individual IEA member countries. For urther inormation,

please contact the Energy Efciency and Environment Division at: [email protected]

Evaluating the co-benefits of

low-income energy-efficiencyprogrammes


4/40

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974.Its primary mandate was and is two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its membercountries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide authoritative

research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 membercountries and beyond. The IEA carries out a comprehensive programme of energy co-operation amongits member countries, each o which is obliged to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days o its net imports.The Agencys aims include the following objectives:

n Secure member countries access to reliable and ample supplies o all orms o energy; in particular,through maintaining eective emergency response capabilities in case o oil supply disruptions.

n Promote sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protectionin a global context particularly in terms o reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contributeto climate change.

n Improve transparency of international markets through collection and analysis ofenergy data.

n Support global collaboration on energy technology to secure uture energy supplies

and mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energyefciency and development and deployment o low-carbon technologies.

n Find solutions to global energy challenges through engagement anddialogue with non-member countries, industry, international

organisations and other stakeholders.IEA member countries:

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea (Republic o)

Luxembourg

NetherlandsNew Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

The European Commission

also participates in

the work o the IEA.

Please note that this publication

is subject to specifc restrictions

that limit its use and distribution.

The terms and conditions are available

online atwww.iea.org/about/copyright.asp

OECD/IEA, 2011

International Energy Agency9 rue de la Fdration

75739 Paris Cedex 15, France

www.iea.org


5/40

OECD/IEA2011 Evaluatingthecobenefitsoflowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammes

Page|3

TableofContents

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................4

Introduction......................................................................................................................................6

Whatisfuelpoverty?................................................................................................................6

Energyefficiencyasafuelpovertyreductionpolicy.................................................................7

Evaluatinglowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammes............................................................8

WorkshopResults...........................................................................................................................10

Session1:Settingthescene....................................................................................................10

Session2:Indirecteconomiccobenefits................................................................................13

Session3:Directfinancialcobenefits.....................................................................................14

Session4:Participantcobenefits...........................................................................................16

Session

5:

Co

benefits

evaluation

case

studies

.......................................................................

18

Session6:Methodologicalapproachesandchallenges..........................................................21

Session7:Thewayforward.....................................................................................................24

ConclusionsandResearchPriorities..............................................................................................29

References......................................................................................................................................31

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................34

Glossary...........................................................................................................................................35

Listoffigures

Figure1.Driversoffuelpovertyandrelatedpolicyresponses........................................................7

Figure2.Nonenergycobenefitsoflowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammes...........................8

Figure3.DemographicsofwinterfuelpaymentrecipientsinUnitedKingdom(2008).................11

Figure4.UnitedKingdomfuelpovertybySAPratingofthehome................................................11

Figure5.DECCfuelpovertystatisticsat2010................................................................................12

Figure6.Heatoreatphenomenon.................................................................................................20

Figure7.Homeenergyinsecurityscale..........................................................................................23

Figure8.Distributionofbuildingratings socialhousingunitsinIreland.....................................26

Figure9.TheUKapproachin2010/11touchedoneachofthethreedriversoffuelpoverty......27

List

of

tables

Table1.Annualtargetedenergyconsumptionsubsidiesandenergyefficiencyspending.............7

Table2.Lowincomeenergyefficiencycobenefitsandbeneficiaries.............................................9

Table3.Directfinancialcobenefitsbybeneficiary........................................................................15

Table4.Incidence(%)offuelpovertyintheUnitedKingdom.......................................................15

Table5.Effectsofcoldhomes........................................................................................................17

Table6.Percentageofpopulationspendingmorethan20%ofincomeonheating

resultsfromtheWHOLARESsurvey.............................................................................19

Table7.Cobenefitsestimationmethods.......................................................................................21

Table8.Comparingincometodwellingtypetoestimatefuelpoverty.........................................22

Table9.Cobenefitsevaluationresearchsuggestions...................................................................30


6/40


7/40


Page|5

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of all of the participants in the IEAs

workshop on evaluating the cobenefits of lowincome weatherisation programmes, held in

Dublin,Ireland

on

27

28

January

2011.

The

presentations

and

policy

discussions

during

this

workshopprovidedmostof thecontentofthispaper.Specifically, thepresentationsofBrenda

Boardman (Emeritus Fellow, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK), Lisa

Skumatz(SkumatzEconomicResearchAssociates,USA),DanielaPopescu(TechnicalUniversityof

Iasi,Romania),SergioTiradoHererro(CenterforClimateChangeandSustainableEnergyPolicy,

Central European University, Hungary), Kathleen Gaffney (KEMA, Inc., USA), Sarah Brady

(Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation), Jenny Livingstone (NIE Energy, Northern

Ireland), Clare Ryan (CommunityBased Organisation Forum, Ireland), Philippa Howden

Chapman,(NZCentreforSustainableCities,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand),DavidOrmandy,

(WHO Collaborating Centre for Housing Standards and Health, University of Warwick, UK),

VroniqueEzratty(MedicalStudiesDept.,EDF,France),DeborahFrank(BostonMedicalCenter,

USA),Matthew

Murray

(Energy

Savings

Trust,

UK),

Roger

Colton

(Fisher,

Sheehan

&

Colton,

USA),

Bruce Tonn (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA), Tadhg OBriain (Directorate General for

Energy, European Commission, Brussels), Stjohn OConnor (Department of Communications,

EnergyandNaturalResources, Ireland),and JamieTorrens (DepartmentofEnergyandClimate

Change,UK).Theauthorswouldalso liketoacknowledgethecontributionsofIEAcolleaguesto

this paper, notably Bo Diczfalusy (Director of Sustainable Energy Technology and Policy

Directorate)and),RichardBradley(HeadoftheEnergyEfficiencyandEnvironmentDivision)and

theIEAPublicationsUnitandEditorialteam.


8/40

Evaluatingthecobenefitsoflowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammes OECD/IEA2011

Page|6

Introduction

TheInternationalEnergyAgencysEnergyEfficiencyUnit(EEU)isbeginninganewprogrammeof

workon innovativeenergyefficiencypoliciesformitigatingfuelpoverty.Thefocusofthepolicy

researcheffort

is

low

income

weatherisation

direct

investment

programmes,

which

many

IEA

member countries pursue in order to reduce the energy bills of lowincome households. A

common problem with such programmes is that the energysaving benefits alone provide a

relativelymodestreturnfortheenergyefficiencyinvestmentrequired,suggestingaweakreturn

on government spending. However, these investments also have cobenefits for property

owners,energyproviders,programmeparticipants, local communitiesand society as awhole.

Thesenonenergy cobenefits arenot currently considered in theprogramme evaluationsbut

mayneed tobe included inorder toprovideamore completepictureof the impactsof low

incomeweatherisationprogrammes.

Whatisfuelpoverty?

Households in fuel poverty1 have energy costs which are excessive compared to overall

household income.Acommondefinitionhasemergedthatanyhouseholdspendingmorethan

10% of its annual income on energy is in fuel poverty (Boardman, 1991). A slightly different

definition twicethemedianfuelexpenditureasaproportionofincomeiscommonlyusedin

theEuropeanUnion. Regardlessofthedefinition,the incidenceoffuelpoverty in IEAmember

countriesisgrowing.Recentstudiesestimate150millionpeopleinfuelpovertyintheEuropean

Union alone (Bird, Campbell and Lawton, 2010). Only half of these households receive fuel

poverty assistance, e.g. fuel aid or subsidised tariffs (EPEE, 2009). Analysts agree that the

combinedeffectsof theeconomic crisisand risingenergypriceshave furtherexacerbated the

problem. InNorthern Ireland, forexample,the incidenceof fuelpovertyhasrisenfrom34% in

2006to

44%

in

2009

(Brady,

2011).

Three factorscontribute to fuelpoverty: income,energyprices,andhousingquality (Figure1).

Combinationsof low income,highenergypricesandpoorhousingqualitycanforcehouseholds

to choosebetween adequateenergy services (e.g.heat and light) andotheressentials.While

lowincome level andhighenergyprices are importantdrivers, the tendencyof lowerincome

householdsto live inolderbuildingswithpoorheatingand insulationstandards iskeyfactor in

fuelpoverty.

Fuelpovertyhas alwaysexisted,butunderstanding its causesand theharm that can result is

relatively recent.Fuelpoorhouseholdscannotadequatelyheatandventilate livingspacesand

havedifficultypayingenergybills.Thebroader impactsof fuelpovertyare feltby lowincome

householdsand

communities

and

include

inadequate

thermal

comfort,

increased

morbidity

and

mortality, andpooreducationaloutcomes, amongothers.A studyof40000excessdeaths in

EnglandandWalesdemonstratedacrediblechainofcausationlinkingpoorhousingandpoverty

tolowindoortemperaturesandcoldrelateddeaths(JohnsonandGriffiths,2003).

Governmentsalreadyusearangeofpoliciestomitigatefuelpoverty(Figure1).Thesepoliciesinclude

incomesupplementingfuelpaymentsforqualifyinghouseholds,socialtariffstoreduceeffective

energyprices,andinvestmentsinimprovedqualityofhousingormoreefficientappliances.

1TheIEAusesthetermfuelpovertyasdistinctfromenergypovertywhichisusedbysomeexpertsbutmorecommonly

refers to the problem, faced in developing countries, of a lack of access to energy as a result of inadequate basic

infrastructure.Fuelpovertyissuesalsoappearunderdifferentnamesindifferentcountries,suchasenergyprecariousness

inFranceandaddressingthevulnerablecustomerinEurope.Refertotheglossaryattheendofthispaper.


9/40


Page|7

Figure1.Driversoffuelpovertyandrelatedpolicyresponses

Whileeffective,incomesupplementsandsocialtariffsareexpensive.Thesemeasuresareacost

tothe

state

as

well

as

the

energy

provider

and

may

not

be

sustainable.

For

example,

in

2010

the

United Kingdom provided USD5billion (EUR4.2 billion) in winter fuel and cold weather

payments(Table1).Ontheotherhand,energy efficiencyimprovementsmaynotbepracticalor

economical as a substitute for income supplements,especially forhardtotreat residences. In

thesecasesitmaybemorecosteffectivetoprovideongoingsubsidies.

Table1.Annualtargetedenergyconsumptionsubsidiesandenergyefficiencyspending(millionEUR)

CountryTargeted consumption

subsidiesTargeted energy-efficiency

investmentsEnergy efficiency as a share

of total targeted spending

Ireland 300 55 15%

United Kingdom 4 200 2 120 34%

United States 1 800 147* 8%

*ExcludesstimulusAmericanReliefandRecoveryAct[US](ARRA)spending.

Energyefficiencyasafuelpovertyreductionpolicy

Experience shows that improving abuildings resistance to the elements (e.g.weatherisation)

andotherenergyefficiencyimprovements(e.g.waterheaterandpipinginsulation;replacingold

and inefficient appliances, lighting and equipment) are effective in reducing fuel poverty.

Investmentsinenergyefficiencypermanentlylowerenergyuseinlowincomehouseholdswhile

reducinggovernment

and

energy

provider

outlays

on

fuel

assistance

and

social

tariffs.

A

2007

study calculated that almost one million vulnerable households could be taken out of fuel

povertywitha combinationofefficiencyand renewableenergy investments (insulation,boiler

improvement,solarwaterheating)atacostofUSD 8.2 billion (GBP 5 billion) (EnergyAction

ScotlandandNationalEnergyAction[EnglandandWales],2009).

ManyIEAmembercountrieshaverecognisedtheeconomicdevelopmentandpovertyreduction

benefitsoflowincomeenergyefficiencypolicyandhaveimplementedweatherisationassistance

programmes. In theUnited States, over sixmillion homes have beenweatherised over three

decadesvia theUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergysWeatherizationAssistanceProgram (US

DOE,2011). In theUnitedKingdom, theWarmFrontandEnergyAssistanceprogrammeshave

providedinsulationandheatingsystemstoovertwomillionvulnerablehouseholdssince2001.


10/40


11/40


Page|9

Directfinancialcobenefitsthataccruetogovernmentsandenergyproviders,andproperty

owners and participants. These include reduced outlays for energy assistance and rate

subsidies, aswell as other cost savings for utilities and ratepayers (e.g. avoided bad debt

writeoff; reducedcarryingcostonbillingarrears; reduced spendingonnotices,collections,

customercalls,andshutoffsandreconnectionsfornonpayment).

Indirecteconomiccobenefits toparticipants, ratepayersand taxpayers,propertyowners,

andsociety.These include increasedindividualorneighbourhoodpropertyvalues,economic

activity (including jobs created through spending on lowincome energyefficiency

programmes), improvedhome and fire safety, improved learning and earning capabilityof

participants,andreducedmobilityoflowincomehouseholds.

Socialwelfareandlivelihoodcobenefitstoparticipants,thelocalcommunityandsocietyas

awhole.Theseincludeimprovedhealthandcomfortthroughreductionofnoise,drafts,mold

andmildew; improvementincommunityappearance;environmentalbenefits;and improved

educationaloutcomes.

Table

2.

Low

income

energy

efficiency

co

benefits

and

beneficiaries

ParticipantsEnergy providers,governments, and

rate/tax payersProperty owners Society

Direct financialFewer reconnectionfeesWater savings

Fewer shut-offsSubsidies avoided

Arrearages savings

Indirecteconomic

Reduced mobility Tax revenue increasesHigher propertyvalueRents paid on time

Fewer firesLocal jobsLocal spending

Social welfareand livelihood

Improved comfortImproved healthImproved safety

Community prideImprovedappearance

Environmental benefits,Improved heath andeducation outcomes

Evaluatingenergyefficiency cobenefits ismoredifficult thanevaluatingdirectenergy savings.

Estimatingcobenefits iscomplicatedbya lackofdata,difficulties inaccountingfor intervening

variablesandmethodologicalissues.Degreeofdifficultydoesvary,however.

Cobenefitswith adirect financial impact, such as reducedoutlays for fuel assistance, canbe

estimated using the samemethods now used to estimate energy benefits. Indirect economic

benefits can be estimated assuming data are available and an estimation model can be

developed. Socialwelfare and livelihood impacts aremoredifficult to estimate and introduce

intotheevaluationframework,althoughrecentcohortstudiesintheUnitedStates,NewZealand

and elsewhere have positively linked improved health outcomes and other benefits to low

incomeweatherisation.However,methodological complications remain, including establishing

causalitybetween

programmes

and

co

benefits,

monetising

different

types

of

benefits,

accounting fordifferentbeneficiaries,and avoidingdoublecounting. Incorporatingnonenergy

cobenefits requires a broader evaluation framework, new sources of data, new estimation

methods,andnewwaystoexpressevaluationresults.

Improved understanding of such causal links togetherwith new evaluationmethodsjustifies

increased efforts to incorporate cobenefits into standard evaluation practice. Eventually,

evaluationmethods incorporating broader consideration of cobenefitswill support improved

policiesanddecisionmakingonallofthefuelpovertymitigationalternatives.

BENEFIT

TYPE

BENEFICIARY


12/40


Page|10

WorkshopResults

The IEA, in cooperationwith Sustainable Energy Ireland, organised aworkshop that brought

together international experts on lowincome weatherisation and fuel poverty for a focused

discussionon

evaluating

co

benefits.

The

workshop

was

structured

to

consider

the

three

main

categoriesofcobenefitscited in the literature (SeeTable2).Sessionsalso includedevaluation

methods and cobenefits evaluation case studies. The workshop was intended to share

information internationallyon lowincomeenergyefficiencyevaluationapproachesandresults,

create a community of interest around this important topic, and identify opportunities for

futurecollaboration.

Session1:Settingthescene

Fuelpovertyhas alwaysexisted,butunderstanding its causesand theharm that can result is

relatively recent. Many IEA member governments have already implemented fuelpoverty

reductionprogrammes,

including

low

income

energy

efficiency,

with

varying

results.

While

objectivegains intermsofenergysavingshavevariedwidely,participanthouseholdsuniformly

report positive effects on their quality of life. The opening session of theworkshop included

perspectives on lowincome energyefficiency programmes and how to evaluate them from

ProfessorEmeritusBrendaBoardmanofOxfordUniversityandUSenergyefficiencyprogramme

evaluationexpertDr.LisaSkumatz.

ProfessorBrendaBoardmandescribedhowthequalityofhousingandincomelevelscombineto

createconditionsoffuelpoverty.Fuelpovertywasoriginallythoughttobeaboutfuelpricesand

income levelsonly, particularly asoneof the common symptoms is debt anddisconnections.

Improvedunderstandingofthedynamicsoffuelpovertyhasledtoanincreasedappreciationof

the

mediating

role

of

housing

quality,

e.g.

energy

efficiency,

in

causing

or

preventing

fuel

poverty.Inthissense,energyinefficiencycanbeseenasamaincauseoffuelpoverty,withthe

goal of lowincome energyefficiency investments being to create a condition of affordable

warmthforlowincomehouseholds.

Definitionsof fuelpovertyvary,and it is important for thedefinition tobeclearlystated. In the

UnitedKingdom,ahouseholdisconsideredtobeinfuelpovertyifitmustspendmorethan10%of

incomeonenergyinordertomaintainasatisfactoryheating,lightingandotherenergyservices.

Usingthe10%definitionleadstoanestimateof5to6millionhouseholdsintheUnitedKingdom

livinginfuelpovertyalittlelessthan20%ofthepopulation.Thedefinitiontakesintoaccount

thecommonsituationwherehouseholdsdonotconsumesufficientenergytomaintainawarm

environment, thus risking health consequences in exchange for fuel savings.Householdswith

unmetdemand

for

minimum

levels

of

heat

and

warmth

should

be

considered

to

be

in

fuel

povertyregardlessoftheirenergyoutlaystodisposableincomeratio.

Thisdefinitionmakesitdifficulttotargetthefuelpoor.Evenifincomeandenergybillingdataare

known,ahouseholdmaybeunderconsumingforbudgetaryreasons.Targetingthefuelpoor is

imperfectlydone, throughproxies suchasageorentitlementseligibility.TheUKsWinterFuel

PaymentsProgrammeisavailabletoallpensionerhouseholdsregardlessoftheircircumstances,

whichamountstoover70%ofEnglishhouseholds.Asaresult,aboutthreequartersofthesefuel

assistancepaymentsflowtononfuelpoorhouseholds(Figure3).Onepolicysolutionwouldbe

better targeting of the fuel poor, through improved fuel poverty definitions, better

understandingofsocialanddemographiccontributorstofuelpovertyandimprovedoutreach.


13/40


Page|11

Figure3.DemographicsofwinterfuelpaymentrecipientsinUnitedKingdom(2008)

Over 60 with children others

Fuel poor households Pensioner

households

24% infuel

poverty

49%

Source:Boardman,2011a.

The

link

between

housing

quality

and

fuel

poverty

is

evident

from

United

Kingdom

data

on

the

housingstock(Figure4).Overhalfofthehouseholdsinfuelpovertyliveinhousingwithabuilding

energyefficiencyStandardAssessmentProcedure(SAP)2scorelessthan20,whichequalsaGrating

the lowest ranking in the UK buildings certification system.Warmth in these households is

expensive andmany households are not able to heat these homes to healthy levels. In this

context,investmentsinenergyefficiencyareanimportantfuelpovertymitigationtool.

Figure4.UnitedKingdomfuelpovertybySAPratingofthehome

Source:DEFRA/BERR,

2008.

The UK government is legally obliged, under the terms of the Warm Homes and Energy

Conservation Act 2000, to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016 as far as reasonably practicable

(Figure 5). Meeting this 2016 goal will require delivering energyefficiency investments to

850000householdsperyearoverthenextfouryears,movingthemfromSAPscoresintheless

than40rangetoscoresof60andabove.

2SAP is theStandardAssessmentProceduredevelopedby theBuildingResearchEstablishment (BRE) forgaugingbuilding

qualityandusedbycertifiedbuildingsassessors.Seewww.epcforepcs.co.uk/SAP_Ratings/.


14/40


Page|12

Figure5.DECCfuelpovertystatisticsat2010

Source:DECC,2010.

Thedemographicsandclimateinanyonecountryhaveastronginfluenceonfuelpovertypolicy

discussion.IntheUnitedKingdom,forexample,almosttwothirdsoffuelpoorhouseholdsown

thehomes

they

occupy,

often

with

paid

off

mortgages.

These

households

tend

to

be

elderly,

and

willoftenunderconsumefuelinordertoavoidenteringintodebt.Thissegmentwouldbeagood

choice foranenergyefficiencypolicy intervention.Thebalanceof fuelpoorhouseholds live in

socialhousing,whichisofafairlyhighstandardintheUnitedKingdom,orinrentalproperty.

Lisa Skumatz provided an overview of the lowincomeweatherisation cobenefits evaluation

landscape. Numerous studies in the United States and elsewhere have considered how to

evaluatethecobenefits(sometimescallednonenergybenefits,orNEBs)of lowincomeenergy

efficiency.Manyof these studieswereexploratory,using indirectestimationmethods suchas

revealed preferences. The objective of these exploratory evaluations was to bound the

magnitudeofthecobenefitsasafirstestimate.Suchevaluations,whilenotproducingaconcrete

value,provideanorderofmagnitudeestimatethatmightinformpolicymakersdecisions.Such

effortsstemmed

from

aconsideration

that

even

rough

estimates

of

co

benefits

are

better

than

assumingavalueofzero.

Ametaanalysissuggeststhatnonenergycobenefitsare indeedsignificant,addingasmuchas

threetimesthebenefitsofdirectenergysavingstoparticipants.However,theuncertaintybound

around these estimates is very high indeed from USD300 to USD5 000 annually per

participant.Theseexploratorystudiessuggestthatmostcobenefitsaccruetoparticipants,with

anotheronethirdbenefitingsocietyasawhole.Onlymodestbenefitscouldbefoundforutilities,

andnoattemptshavebeenmadetoestimatereducedgovernmentoutlaysonfuelassistanceas

a result of lowincome efficiency investments. Themetaanalysis identified health and safety

benefitsestimationaslaggingbehind,butdevelopingrapidly(Skumatz,2011a).


15/40


Page|13

Session2:Indirecteconomiccobenefits

Mostofthecobenefitsfromlowincomeweatherisationflowtotheparticipants.However,low

income energyefficiency programmes also have indirect economic benefits for other private

individuals as well as society, starting with the local communities where programmes are

implemented.Session2provided anopportunity to consider someof thesebenefitsandhow

they can be evaluated. Indirect economic cobenefits include increased property values as

buildings are improved and rehabilitated, increased tax revenue for governments, local job

creation, and other economic activity from programme spending in local communities. Less

tangible but still important social benefits can include community pride and social cohesion.

Thesebenefitsarehardtomeasurebecausetheyaccruetonumerousanddiffusebeneficiaries.

Thissessionincludedexpertspeakersfromtheprivatesectorandacademiadiscussingtheirresearch

intopropertyvaluationandjobcreationbenefitsfromlowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammes.

DanielaPopescuoftheIMMOVALUEprojectteamdescribedresearchontherelationshipbetween

market values and greenhousing.Even though researchon this topic isjustemerging, there is

increasedevidence

of

acorrelation

between

market

value

of

abuilding

and

its

energy

efficiency.

Forexample,asurveyby theUSGreenBuildingsCouncil foundnotonlyanaverage8% to9%

reduction inoperatingexpenses in greenbuildings,but also a7.5% increase inmarket values

(USGBC,2008).TheIMMOVALUEprojectteamareworkingfromtheassumptionthatgreenvalue

willbeanintegralpartoffuturemarketvaluationofhousingandcommercialbuildings.

The willingness to pay for green features depends on market state, transparency, location,

sector, exposure to environmental risk in the region, consumer awareness, andmany other

variables. For this reason it is not possible to formulate a general rule for valuing market

premiums for green buildings. Rather, the valuation processwill evolve through training and

adaptation of existing valuation methods in order to better incorporate energyefficiency

characteristics.

A

critical

element

of

this

evolution

will

be

acquisition

of

reliable

data

on

the

market performanceof green buildings.AGuidanceNote for integrating energy performance

into European Valuation Standards highlights some of the most relevant aspects of

environmental sustainabilityand its connection topropertyvaluation.Developmentofmarket

valuationpremiumsforgreenbuildingswillbefurtheredbypoliciesthathelplinkthebenefitsof

green features to increasedmarket value. Thesepolicies include strengthened regulations for

new and existing buildings and information and awareness building policies such as building

certification. Such supporting policies help create more consistent systems for all parties

owners,tenants,valuerstoequatedegreesofenergyefficiencywithcorrespondingdegreesof

valuationincrease.

SergioTiradoHerreroof theCenter forClimateChangeandSustainableEnergyPolicy (3CSEP)

describedmanifestations

of

fuel

poverty

and

the

co

benefits

of

low

income

energy

efficiency

programmes in the Hungarian context. Whereas the average Hungarian household spends

around10%of itsnet incomeonenergy,only12.4% report themselves as fuelpoormore

evidenceofthedifficultyineffectivelytargetingfuelpoorhouseholds.Manyresidentialbuildings

inHungarydatebacktotheSovietera,withprefabricatedconcreteconstructionandobsolete

district heating networks. Many of these households pay a fixed flat rate, with no energy

metering and no thermostats. Some of the coping strategies utilised includemaintaining low

indoortemperatures,reducingthefractionofthefloorareaheated,switchingfuels(naturalgas

tofirewood,sometimesobtainedillegally)andelectricitytheft.

3CSEP recently studied the employment benefits of a largescale, deepbuilding renovation

programme to improveenergyefficiency inHungary.Theproject scale is immense; in the less


16/40


Page|14

pushedscenario,USD1.4billiontoUSD2.8 billionperyear(EUR1billiontoEUR2billionperyear)

through2050,with 100000apartments renovatedperyear.Suchaprogrammewould create

over100000additionaljobsperyearandresultina40%reductioninthecurrentHungariangas

consumption.Thestudyconcludedthatenergysavingswouldpaybackinvestmentcosts(though

inarelativelylongtimeframe),andthatfuelpovertywouldbepracticallyeliminatedthroughthe

programme.In

addition,

the

study

assessed

the

direct,

indirect

and

induced

employment

benefits

in an input/outputmodelling framework.Calculationofemploymentbenefitsnecessarily took

intoaccountpotentialjob losses likelytooccur intheenergyprovision,distribution,andsupply

chainsectorsasaresultofreducedenergyusage,andconsideredthedurabilityofemployment

linked to oneoff renovations. It also noted that the labour intensity of lowincome energy

efficiencyimprovementsisconsiderablyhigherthanforotherenergyefficiencyinvestmentsand

thatdeeperrenovationsachievingareductionof80to90%oftheenergyuseforspaceheating

should be prioritised in order to avoid lockingin a large fraction of the energy saving and

emissions reduction potential of the building stock. They should also give more scope for

workforcetraininginadditiontobetterresultsforfuelpovertyalleviation.

Session3:Directfinancialcobenefits

Lowincome energyefficiency investments in fuelpoor households can yield direct financial

benefits for energyproviders,3 ratepayers and governments (Table 2).Many energyproviders

have initiatedtheirownprogrammestoassist lowincomecustomers,whileotherutilitieshave

establishedprogrammesinresponsetogovernmentfuelpovertyandenergyefficiencypolicies.

Involvementbyenergyprovidersinfuelpovertyprogrammesisimportantandbeneficial,asthey

have the most direct line of contact with fuelpoor families and can help identify needy

householdsandmonitorprogramme results.Utilitiesbenefitdirectly from lowincomeenergy

efficiency efforts. In addition to reducing the lossmaking sales of energy delivered on social

tariffs,utilities

can

reduce

the

carrying

cost

of

billing

arrears,

expenses

associated

with

collection

activities and disconnections, and bad debt writeoffs. Governments can also benefit to the

extent that energyefficiency improvements reduce outlays for fuel assistance and other

subsidiestoparticipatinglowincomehouseholds.

This session provided an opportunity to hear the perspectives of evaluators, regulators and

energy providers regarding how to include these cobenefits in evaluating lowincome

weatherisationprogrammes.

Kathleen Gaffney of theUS consultancy KEMA gave an overview of the US experiencewith

weatherisationcobenefits.Whileenergyprovidersareinterestedintheimpactofenergysavings

ontheirbottomline,theyhavebeenslowtoinvestigatepotentialcobenefitsforthemselvesand

others.US

energy

providers

are

mostly

concerned

about

reducing

collection

costs

and

bad

debt

writeoffs,andminimisinglossmakingsalesonsubsidisedtariffs(Table3).However,inaddition

todirectenergysavings,programmeparticipantsbenefitfromareducedneedtomovehouse(or

forcedmobility),lowerhealthcarecostsandsavingsonotherhouseholdbills.Governmentsalso

may financially benefit from improved tax base as well as reductions in the costs of safety

inspectionsforlowincomehousing.

The key problem faced in evaluating these direct financial cobenefits is a lack of good,

comparable data that can be treated as broadly representative of the different beneficiaries.

3The term utilitiesandenergyproviderswillbeused interchangeably in this instance.Energyproviders is themore

generictermasitreferstoregulatedenergyutilitiesaswellasunregulatedenergyretailers.


17/40


Page|15

These evaluation challenges data availability, measurement methods, persistence, and

avoidanceofdoublecountinghavemade itdifficultor costprohibitive to addressallof the

possiblecobenefits.Theresulthasbeenthatmostcobenefitsareestimatedwithlittleempirical

certainty,andwhatestimateshavebeendevelopedcannoteasilybegeneralised.Asaresult,this

categoryofcobenefitscontinuestobelargelyunrepresentedinprogrammeevaluations.

Table3.Directfinancialcobenefitsbybeneficiary

Energy provider Participant Governments

Arrearages Reduced mobility Improved tax base

Bad-debt write-off Lower health care costs Inspection cost savings

Terminations Other utility savings (water)

Reconnections Improved safety

Fewer loss-making sales ondiscounted rates

Collection activities

Safety emergencies

Electrical system reliability

Source:Gaffney,2011.

Kathleen Gaffney provided several examples of exploratory cobenefit evaluations carried out in

Wisconsin(UnitedStates)andQuebec(Canada).TheWisconsinstudyused input/outputanalysisto

identifyaneconomicboosttothelocalcommunitycreatedwhenenergyefficiencymeasuresreduced

bills and left householdswithmore disposable income. TheQuebec study facedmethodological

challengesinconcretisingcobenefitssuchashealthandcomfort;effortstodosowereabandoned

whenthe

direct

energy

savings

benefits

alone

proved

sufficient

to

justify

the

programme.

Sarah Brady described how energy providers participate in delivering all three of the main

policiesforfuelpoorhouseholds inNorthern Ireland.Fuelpoverty isacute inNorthern Ireland,

where its incidencehasrisenfrom34%to44%since2006;theshareoffuelpoorhouseholdsis

by far the largest in the United Kingdom (Table 4). This reflects several factors unique to

Northern Ireland, including a colder and wetter climate, housing quality and prevalence of

relativelyexpensiveoilheating systems.Energyprovidershelp reducebillsbydiscountedpre

payment meter services and through the Northern Ireland Sustainable Energy Programme

(NISEP),80%ofwhichisringfencedtobenefitvulnerablehouseholds.

Table4.Incidence

(%)

of

fuel

poverty

in

the

United

Kingdom

England (2009) Scotland (2006) Wales (2006) Northern Ireland (2009)

15.6 26.5 20.0 44.0

Source:Brady,2011.

TheregulatorinNorthernIreland,theNorthernIrelandAuthorityforUtilityRegulation(NIAUR),

ismandated tooverseeutilitybehaviour and energyefficiency implementation aswell as the

protectionofvulnerableenergycustomers.NIAURpatrolspricestructurestoensurethatenergy

providersreturnsarenotrelatedtoincreasedvolumes,anduseslicenceandotherconditionsas

well as the NISEP scheme to ensure energy providers have an incentive to provide energy

efficiencyadviceandcarryoutenergyefficiencyprojects.


18/40


Page|16

Jenny Livingstone provided additional narrative on how energy providersdeliver fuelpoverty

interventions inNorthern Ireland.Northern IrelandElectricityEnergy (NIE)delivers lowincome

energyefficiency schemes including heating system upgrades and weatherisation measures,

whicharefundedthroughtheNISEPscheme.NIEEnergyalsohasauniqueoutreachprogram,the

ForYourBenefitcampaign, inwhichNIEEnergyengagesvulnerablecustomergroupsbydirect

mailand

helps

them

review

their

eligibility

for

arange

of

low

income

entitlement

programmes.

In consultationwithother socialwelfare servicesdeliverypartners,NIEEnergyhas completed

over10000benefitentitlementchecks(BEC).TwoofeveryfiveBECsresulted inthevulnerable

householdclaimingadditionalbenefitstheywereunawareof.NIEEnergyalsooperatesahighly

successfulprepaymentmeterprogram.AlmostonethirdofNIEEnergyscustomerschoosethis

option,whichprovidesa2.5%discountreflecting lowercoststoserveprepaymentcustomers.

CustomersbuyelectricitythroughPaypoint,Payzone,PostOffice,telephoneorontheweb.This

customerfriendlyserviceoptionhelpswithdebtmanagementandbudgeting,whileafriendly

credit option minimises self disconnection. Providing customers with current and historical

consumption information through a display has encouraged customers to use about 4% less

electricity

than

comparable

customers

on

the

standard

service

(Livingstone,

2011).

NIEEnergysexperiencewithdeliveringenergyefficiencyprogrammestolowincomehouseholds

has convinced them of the benefits they accrue. These include improved corporate image,

customer loyalty, reduced bill arrearages and call centre costs, and closer relations with

regulatorsandgovernment.

Session4:Participantcobenefits

Lowincomeenergyefficiencyprogrammeevaluationiscurrentlylimitedtotheenergybillsavings

for programme participants.While these energy savings are sufficient tojustify government

spending,other cobenefits forparticipatinghouseholdsmaybe largerandmore important in

thelongrun.Thesebenefitsincludelowerfrequencyofmovinghouse,improvedschoolandwork

attendance,andimprovementsinhouseholdcomfortandsafety.Whilerecognisedasimportant,

estimating these benefits is challenging. This session examined participant cobenefits from

healthandwellness,qualityoflifeandcommunitywellbeingperspectives.

BrendaBoardman leadadiscussiononthemedical,socialandpsychologicalproblemsthatfuel

poverty poses for household occupants and the extent towhich these can be addressed by

energyefficiency improvements. Some analysts suggest that excess winter deaths are an

importantaggregate indicatoroffuelpoverty.Thesehaveaveraged 25000annuallyinEngland

aloneoverthepasttenyears,whichonapercapitabasisishigherthanincolderregionssuchas

CanadaandScandinavia.

Medicalreports

of

physical

health

effects

from

fuel

poverty

are

beginning

to

emerge,

especially

for veryyoung children and inpeople above40 years.Aparticularproblemwithpoorquality

housing is condensationandmould.Mould results fromcondensationoncold surfaces,and is

unpleasant,smelly,destructiveanddifficulttoeradicate.Mostsignificantly,ithasbeenshownto

cause asthma in children,which once contracted cannot be cured.Weatherisationmeasures

havebeenshowntobeaneffectivewaytopreventmould,suggestingthatpreventionofasthma

throughlowincomeweatherisationmayproducelongtermhealthcostsavings.Althoughdatais

sparse, in 1994 condensationrelated health costs to theNational Health Service (NHS)were

estimatedatUSD1.6 billion (GBP 1billion)(Boardman,2011b).Growingmedicalevidenceon

thelinkbetweencoldandpoorhealthsuggeststhatmoreclinicalresearchisneeded.


19/40


Page|17

In addition to physical illnesses being ignited or exacerbated by cold and damp in fuelpoor

households,ProfessorBoardmanpointedtostudiesshowingsignificanteffectsonmentalhealth

(Table 5). Another study found that the incidence of anxiety or depressionwas halved after

energyefficiencymeasures(GreenandGilbertson,2008).

Table5.

Effects

of

cold

homes

Impact Percent of Respondents

Made me/us feel miserable 55%

Made an existing health problem or problems worse 39%

Made me/us feel anxious or depressed 34%

Did not feel able to invite friends or family to the house 18%

Spent as much time as possible away from the house 18%

Brought on a new health problem or problems 18%

None of these 15%

Source:Anderson,FinneyandWhite,2010.

Denialisamajorobstacletoproperlyidentifyingthefuelpoor.Peopleoftensaytheyarewarm

enough,evenwhentheyarecold;thissuggestsafearofsocialstigmamaybepreventingthem

admitting their situation. Methods that rely on selfidentification through telephone ormail

surveysareunlikelytoobtainaccurateanswers.Detailed,facetofaceassessmentscarriedoutin

thehomeareamuchmorereliablewaytodetermineaconditionoffuelpoverty.

ClareRyanpresentedtheWarmProject,which isoneofseveralcommunitybased, lowincome

energyefficiency activities funded by Sustainable Energy Authority Irelands Warmer Homes

programme.TheWarmProjectisdeliveredincollaborationwithcommunitybasedorganisations,

enhancing human and social capital at the community level as part of lowincome energy

efficiency programme delivery. These communitybased organisations have a unique

understandingoftheeconomicandsocial infrastructureofcommunities,whichallowsthemto

effectively identify and engage with fuelpoor households. Local knowledge also allows

communitybased programme delivery to adapt to the broader socioeconomic needs of a

particular community and to achievemaximum participationof fuelpoorhouseholdswithno

stigma attached. Communitybased programme delivery can also maximise community

cobenefitsof lowincomeenergyefficiency investments intheformof improvedhousingstock

andpropertyvalues,creating local skilledjobs,providing training (especially for the longterm

unemployed),andreducingpressureonlocalhealthservicesviaimprovedhealthofparticipants

(Ryan,2011).

Communitybasedapproachesmightofferimportantopportunitiestoevaluatethecommunityand

societal cobenefits of targeted lowincome energyefficiency programmes. Such concentrated

programmescouldbeaccompaniedwithdatacollectionandcobenefitevaluation frameworks

thatmightidentifyatthecommunitylevelsomeofthecobenefitsfoundinTables2and3.

ProfessorPhilippaHowdenChapmandescribedtheworkcarriedoutbytheUniversityofOtago

HousingandHealthResearchProgramme.TheHeKaingaOranga (HealthyHousing)programme

considersthesocialgradientinhealthandusessolutionfocusedresearchtoreduceexcesswinter


20/40


Page|18

mortality(EWM)andrespiratoryandcirculatoryproblems,whichhavebeenlinkedtoinefficient,

poorqualityhousing.ResearchinNewZealandhasshownthatpoorlyinsulatedprewarhousingis

responsible for a recurring average of1600 excesswinter deaths annually (compared to 400

traffic fatalities).Acensusmortality linkagestudy foundhigherEWMamongolderhomes, low

incomepeople,those living inrentedaccommodationand inurbanareas.Thissuggestsasocial

gradientwithin

the

EWM

health

issue.

Other

studies

examining

excess

winter

hospitalisation

foundsimilarlinkswithhousingvintageandincomelevel.Basedonthecurrent10%ofhousehold

incomedefinition,25%ofNewZealandhouseholdsareestimatedtobeinfuelpoverty.

Ofparticular interesttocobenefitsevaluationareseveralNewZealandstudiesthattestedthe

linkagebetweenweatherisation,healthandcarbonmitigation.The2008Housing,Insulationand

HealthStudy targeted1400householdswithat leastonepersonalreadyexperiencing chronic

respiratory illness symptomsbycarryingoutweatherisationbeforeandafter temperatureand

humiditymeasurement.Resultsshowedmarkedreductionsinindoorcoldanddampnessaswell

asenergysavingsof23%.Additionalbenefitsmeasured included improvedcomfort,fewerdays

offschoolandwork, reductions incoldandwheezesymptoms,and fewerhospitaladmissions.

The

2009

community

trial,

the

Housing,

Heating

and

Health

Study,

enrolled

400

households

wheretherewasachildwithdoctordiagnosedasthmaandfoundthat installing insulationand

sustainableheatingimprovedtheindoorenvironment,reducedthechildrensasthmasymptoms

andthenumberofschoolabsences.

TheHousingandHealthResearchProgramme is continuing its research intoevaluatinghealth

outcomesofimprovedhousing.OnethirdofhousesinNewZealandhavemouldproblems,anda

study isbeingundertakento investigatetherelationshipbetweencoldhouseswithmouldand

the development of asthma in babies. Another community trial is looking at the benefits of

winterfuelpaymentsto520olderpeople,whohavebeenpreviouslyhospitalisedforrespiratory

conditions.Suchutilisationofsolutionorientedexperimentalframeworksispromisingfromaco

benefitsevaluationperspective.

ProfessorHowdenChapmanemphasisedtheroleofresearchersinfacilitatingthetranslationof

quantitative data from community trials,which demonstrated significant causal relationships

between weatherisation and cobenefits into governmental policy. Framing programme and

policy trials as housing and health research rather thanjust energy efficiency or poverty

alleviationprovedeffective inavoidingpotentialsocialandpoliticalstigma.Solutionfocused

studiesprovedmoreeffectiveincommunicatingtheavailablebenefitstopolicymakersaswellas

to the participants themselves. The team termed their approach Heat as Medicine, and

expressed the benefits of improved housing quality as concrete number of avoided hospital

admissions. This slant on weatherisation investments spoke loudly to politicians. Combining

energy savingswith health, educational and social impacts aswell as a calculation of carbon

emissions savings in the Insulation study was able to show a 2:1 cost benefit ratio from

weatherisation.A cost/benefit analysis of the national rollout of theNew Zealand Insulation

Fundonenergyefficiency,hospitalisations,pharmaceuticalusageandjob creation iscurrently

beingfinalised(HowdenChapman,2011).

Session5:Cobenefitsevaluationcasestudies

Thefuelpovertyandenergyefficiencydiscussionhasbecomecloselylinkedtohealthandsafety

issues, and considerableprogresshasbeenmade in identifying the avoidedmedicalexpenses

associated with lowincome weatherisation. New frameworks are needed to address the

correlationbetweenhousingstandardsandhealthsothatthesecobenefitscanbeincorporated


21/40


Page|19

intothepolicymakingprocess.ThissessionwasdedicatedtocasestudiesfromtheUnitedStates

and theEuropeanUnion inwhich thehealthbenefitsof lowincomeweatherisationhasbeen

quantifiedandevaluated.

Dr.VeroniqueEzrattyandProf.DavidOrmandypresented researchundertakenaspartofthe

WorldHeath

Organizations

(WHO)

Large

Analysis

and

Review

of

European

Housing

and

Health

Status (WHO LARES) study. In 200203 theWHO Housing and Health Programme undertook

housingandhealthsurveys ineightEuropeancities:Forli (Italy),Vilnius (Lithuania),Ferreirado

Alentejo(Portugal),Bonn(Germany),Geneva(Switzerland),Angers(France),Bratislava(Slovakia)

and Budapest (Hungary). Merging the individual city data created a powerful international

databaseuseful in studyinghousingrelated inequalitiesand theirpotential impactsonhealth.

The study found the incidence of respondents spendingmore than 20% of their income on

heating is significantly higher in the three Eastern European cities of Vilnius, Budapest and

BratislavaasshowninTable6.

Table6.Percentageofpopulationspendingmorethan20%ofincomeonheating resultsfromtheWHO

LARESsurvey

Vilnius Budapest Bratislava Genve Bonn Angers Forli Ferreira

46% 26% 21% 1% 1% 4% 2% 1%

Source:EzrattyandOrmandy,2011.

Dr. Ezratty described the direct and indirect impacts of prcarit energtique (energy

precariousness).Forexample,underconsumptionofnecessaryenergyservicesresulting in low

indoortemperaturescouldleadtorespiratoryandcardiovasculardiseasesandmentalstress;use

ofinappropriateformsofenergyforheatingandlightingincreasestheriskofaccidents,fireand

CO poisoning; poor indoor air quality and dampness increase susceptibility to asthma and

allergies.Such

health

impacts

create

not

only

individual

suffering

but

social

costs,

including

lost

workandschooldaysaswellasincreaseddemandonthehealthsector.

Prof.Ormandypresentedresultsofresearch inEngland,where ithasbeenpossibleto identify

the cost of diagnosing and treating health outcomes arising from socalled Cold (or energy

inefficient)Homes.ThestudydrewondataonthebroadconditionofEnglishhousingfromthe

EnglishHouseCondition Survey (EHCS).TheEHCS incorporates theHousingHealth and Safety

RatingSystem(HHSRS)whichwasdevelopedbymatchingdataonhousingconditionswithhealth

outcomesrecordsonthebasisofpatientspostcodes.Thisenabledtheexpansionofassessment

ofhousestoincorporatepotentialthreatstohealthand/orsafetyinadditiontobuildingdefects.

Linkingdataonhousingconditionswithhealthdatahasmadeitpossibletoestimatethehealth

relatedcostsattributabletoenergyinefficienthousing.TheUKNationalHealthServicegivesdata

onthe

cost

of

diagnosing

and

treating

health

outcomes

associated

with

exposure

to

low

temperaturesand throughaprocessofdata correlation,gaveanestimatedcostofUSD1263

million (EUR894million)annually,oraboutUSD548 (EUR 388)perdwellingperyear(Ezratty

andOrmandy,2011).

ThevalueoftheHHSRS inEnglandhascreated interestinreplicating itelsewhere.NewZealand,

theUnitedStates,andtheEuropeanUnionareallundertakingsimilarefforts.Otherinitiativesare

underwaytomorestronglylinkdataonhealthoutcomeswithdataonhousingquality.InFrance,

forexample,patients suffering fromasthmawill receivea referral forahousing surveyby the

ConseillerMdicalenEnvironnementIntrieur.Suchinterventionswillalsoprovidedataneededto

investigateboththecausesandeffectsofenergyefficiencymeasuresonindoorairquality.


22/40


Page|20

Dr. Deborah A. Frank presented research and viewpoints from the Childrens HealthWatch

programme in the United States. Childrens HealthWatch is a nonpartisan pediatric research

networkcarryingoutresearchonimpactsofeconomicconditionsandpublicpoliciesonthehealth

ofchildrenunder theageof three.ChildrensHealthWatchhasbuiltauniquedatabaseon the

linkagesbetweenhouseholdconditionsandhealthoutcomesbasedon interviewswith families

withyoung

children

in

emergency

departments

and

urgent

care

clinics

in

hospitals

in

five

cities

(Baltimore,Boston,LittleRock,MinneapolisandPhiladelphia)servinglargelylowincomefamilies.

OnepolicyinitiativeoftheChildrensHealthWatchhasbeentoconstructindicatorsofhousehold

insecurity across three dimensions: food, housing and energy. Each of these insecurities is

closely linked to negative health outcomes in young children. Indicators of severe energy

insecurity include interruptions ingas,oilorelectricitydeliverybecauseofnonpayment,days

withoutheatingorcoolingbecauseofnonpaymentoruseofunsafesubstituteheatingmethods.

Energyinsecurityoftencooccurswithfoodinsecurity;whereacceptablenutritionisnotavailable

orwherea choicehas tobemade tobetweenadequateenergy services andotheressentials

suchasfood.Thisphenomenon,termedHeatorEatsyndromebytheBostonresearchteam,is

supported

by

long

term

data

showing

a

correlation

between

cold

temperatures

and

underweight

children (Figure 6). Energy insecurity isparticularly correlatedwithunderweight children,due

both to childrens physiology and the simple physics of a high surfacetomass ratio, which

increasesheatlossincoldenvironments.

Figure6.Heatoreatphenomenon

Seasonaltemperaturevariationandlowweightforage

(N=11,118)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

J

uly(169)

Aug(242)

S

ept(243)

Oct(275)

Nov(291)

Dec(367)

Jan(438)

Feb(336)

M

ar(330)

Apr(275)

M

ay(304)

Jun(292)

AverageTemperature(C)

Percent Wt/Age


23/40


Page|21

There is also an emerging body of research regarding the health benefits of fuelpoverty

mitigation policies. For example, children in families benefiting from the LowIncome Home

EnergyAssistanceProgram(LIHEAP)intheUnitedStatesare20%lesslikelytobeunderweightfor

ageorlengthand30%lesslikelytorequireadmissiononthedayofvisitingahospitalemergency

room,thanchildreninsimilarfamilieswithLIHEAPassistance.

Session6:Methodologicalapproachesandchallenges

Bringing hardtomeasure benefits of energy efficiency within the scope of programme

evaluation requires new data sources and new estimationmethods. Thesemethodsmust be

developed in away that alignswith theobjective indicators (e.g. energy bill savings) used in

existingcosteffectivenessprotocols.

LisaSkumatzdescribedtheestimationmethodsthathavebeenappliedtocobenefitsevaluation

(Table 7).Methods vary according to the type of benefit, understanding of the cause/effect

linkage, and the data available.Computations or engineering estimates can be developed for

directfinancial

co

benefits

where

the

weatherisation

intervention

and

the

co

benefit

are

clearly

anddirectlylinked,(e.g.watersavingsfromlowflowshowerheads).Incrementalimpactsanalysis

using regressionorothermethods canalsobeused toestimate,onanaggregate level,direct

financial benefits (such as utility arrearage savings).However, establishing strong correlations

maybedifficultunlessanextensivedatabase isavailable.Modelbasedestimation isabroad

categorythatincludesmanypossibleapproaches,fromsimpleregressionanalysistocomplicated

logitmodels,althoughextensivedataisneededtobuildthesemodels.Surveymethodsaremore

appropriatefornonfinancialorintangiblecobenefits,suchascomfort,livelihoodimprovements

or socialwelfare improvements.Obtainingparticipant valuationof cobenefitson thebasisof

relativescalingofoutcomeshasprovedeffectiveinobtainingconsistentresults.

Table7.

Co

benefits

estimation

methods

Estimation method Example Limitations and issues

Computation/engineeringestimation

Participant co-benefit: water savingsRequires data on shower use andwater rates

Incremental impacts analysisUtility co-benefit: reduced arrearagecosts

Requires detailed data on both costincidence and weatherisationpatterns

Model-based estimationSocial co-benefit: Reductions inhealth costs due to fewer cold-relatedhospitalisations

Requires cold-related health carecosts plus an experimental frame tolink cause and effect

Revealed preference, contingentvaluation, and other surveymethods

Participant co-benefits: indoorcomfort improvements

Subject to bias; difficult to comparewith monetised benefits

Source:Skumatz,2011b.

Cobenefits evaluation is fraught with methodological issues. Evaluators must take care to

addressfivechallenges:

Persistence or retention of cobenefits. Unlike energy savings, other cobenefits may be

shortlived.Boththemagnitudeandthedurationofthecobenefitneedtobeestimated.


24/40


Page|22

Doublecountingandoffsettingcobenefits.Caremustbetakentoavoidcountingthesame

cobenefittwicee.g.jobcreationandlocaleconomicactivityandtoidentifycobenefits

toonebeneficiarythatmayappearasacosttoanotherbeneficiary.

Harmonising valorised results from different approaches. There is no accepted basis for

combining

results

from

surveys

of

willingness

to

pay

with

regression

results

based

on

energy

or health care provider cost incidence. Clear rules should be established for evaluating

financialandeconomiccobenefitsvs.socialwelfareandlivelihoodcobenefits.

Negativecobenefits.Someweatherisationtreatments,e.g.solarwaterheaters,mayimpose

costs suchasmaintenanceoraestheticson theparticipant.Suchnegativecobenefits (co

costs)shouldbeestimatedandsubtractedinanycosteffectivenesscalculation.

Useofcobenefitsincosteffectivenessevaluation.Careshouldbetakeninconstructingthe

socalledregulatorytestsforweatherisationprogrammes.Someregulatorytests,(e.g.utility

costorparticipantcosttest),willnecessarilyexcludesomecobenefits.

US utilities have some experience in estimating the changes in arrearages and collection

activities,andsoftercobenefitestimationisoftenusedinmarketingandtargeting.Howeverco

benefit estimation remains largely absent from programme evaluation, except in a few

jurisdictions.Developingmethodologies suitable tocobenefitsestimationandworking through

theevaluationchallengesrequires investment inevaluationresearch.Nevertheless,theremust

be an appetite by policy makers and regulators for cobenefits estimation results before

resourceswillbemadeavailable todevelopmentnewmethodsandapproaches.This chicken

andeggproblemneedstoberesolvedbeforecobenefitsevaluationresearchcanmoveforward

inasignificantway(Skumatz,2011b).

MatthewMurrayoftheUKEnergySavingTrust(EST)describedeffortsundertakenwithintheir

agency to harness existing consumer survey data to learn more about the incidence and

dynamicsoffuelpovertyinacosteffectivemanner.Themethodinvolvedsimpleanalysisofdata

collectedthrough

asurvey

of

individuals

who

had

contacted

the

EST

and

received

advice

on

energyefficiencyandother issues.Datacollected from thesurvey includedall the factors that

determinefuelpoorhouseholds,e.g.fuelbills,dwellingtypeandnumberofrooms,employment

status,familysizeandincome.

Table8.Comparingincometodwellingtypetoestimatefuelpoverty

9

Dwelling type and estimated fuel costs

Detbungalow

Dethouse Flat Terrace

Semibungalow

Semihouse

Householdincome

(10%ofactualincome)

899 1,388 629 849 899 989

500 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

625 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2%

875 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3%

1,250 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4%

1,750 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4%

2,500 3% 4% 2% 3% 0% 7%

4,000 2% 6% 1% 3% 0% 6%

5,000 1% 6% 1% 1% 0% 4%

Source:EnergySavingsTrust,2011.


25/40


Page|23

ESTmanipulatedthedataintwoseparatewaysinordertoconsiderthedifferencebetweenthe

reported level of household energy bills and the amount of energy a household would be

expectedtopurchaseinordertorequiretomaintainhealthy livingconditionswithreferenceto

the nature of the dwelling. Analysis based on reported spending yielded estimates of 19%

incidence of fuel povertywhile the needsbased analysis showed an incidence of 22%. Data

suggestedthat

incidence

of

fuel

poverty

is

highest

in

detached

and

semi

detached

houses

(Table8).4Thisworksupportstheargumentthatfuelpoorhouseholdsunderconsumeandthat

there is unmet demand for energy services. This methodology is of interest, recalling the

proposalmadebyLisaSkumatzthat,inlightofthecomplexityandcostbarrierscurrentlyfacedin

quantifying fuel poverty, practicalmethodswhich provide indicative and range values canbe

usefullypursuedtoinformdecisionmaking.

RogerColtonoftheUSlawfirmFisher,Sheehan&ColtondescribedthedevelopmentofaHome

EnergyInsecurityScale,usedtoshowimprovements inthelivelihoodofhouseholdsafterfuel

poverty reduction measures (Figure 7). Such a metric is useful for making outcomesbased

evaluationsofboth fuelpovertypolicymixesand identifyingtargetpopulations, irrespectiveof

the

type

of

policy

being

implemented.

The

vast

majority

(75%

to

80%)

of

low

income

households

receivingassistanceviatheWeatherisationAssistanceProgramme(WAP)fallintothevulnerable

orincrisiscategory.Thiswasbydesign,withtheintentionofachievingbillreductionssufficient

tomovehouseholdsup thehome insecurity scale towards selfsufficiency.However, for some

householdswithveryhighenergybillburdensthe20%reductioninaffordabilitywasnotenough

to lift them out of fuel poverty. This population required a different policymix additional

weatherisationorweatherisationplusfuelbillassistance.Thisscalehelpsshowthe importance

ofmeasuringoutcomes.

Figure7.Homeenergyinsecurityscale

HomeEnergy

Insecurity

Scale

InternalStructure:FiveThresholdsofIncreasingSelfSufficiency

*Thriving

*Capable

*Stable

*Vulnerable

*In

Crisis NEB

=

Movementtowards

self

sufficiency

Source:Colton,2011.

RogerColtondescribedanothermethodologywhichhasprovenuseful forenergyproviders in

quantifying the benefits of sponsoring fuelpoverty reduction assistance programmes. The

conceptofNETBACKlooksatcostsrelatedtocollectionandarrears,e.g.directfinancialbenefits

4Thefuelcostsarebasedonengineeringestimatesforeachdwellingtype.


26/40


Page|24

toenergyproviders(ratherthansocialconsequences)andcalculatesthetotalamountcollected

byenergyprovidersminusthetotalexpensesinvolvedwiththecollectiontechnique,toshowthe

neteffectontheutilitysbottomline.

Collection techniques are defined broadly and include traditional debt collection activities,

disconnectionsand

reconnections,

energy

assistance

programmes

and

low

income

energy

efficiency activities. NETBACK calculations have consistently demonstrated that assistance

programmeshaveapositiveeffecton thebottom line.Whilebills issued tocustomersundera

programmearegenerally lower,therevenuecollected ishigherbothasapercentageofthebill

and in real terms. Auseful tool forenergyproviders, theNETBACKcalculationalso shows that

peopleinassistanceprogrammesconsistentlyrespondbetterthanthosenotinsuchprogrammes.

BruceTonnofOakRidgeNational Laboratory (ORNL)described several aspectsof anongoing

programofevaluationfortheUSWAP.Theseevaluationeffortsarebeingcarriedoutincloseco

operationbetweenthestateand localjurisdictionsthatadministertheWAP,andwill includea

widearrayofdifferentevaluationapproachesandexperiments.

Akey

element

of

the

evaluation

research

programme

is

improving

understanding

of

issues

such

as indoorair quality impacts and nonenergy cobenefits of weatherisation. A controlled

experiment involving 550 singlefamily homes in treatment and control groups stratified by

housingtypehasbeencreated, includingpre andpostweatherisationsamplingperiods.ORNL

teams are installing inhome measurement equipment for carbon monoxide, radon,

formaldehydeandindoortemperatureandrelativehumidity.Homeswillalsobetestedpre and

postweatherisationforcarbonmonoxidefromcombustionappliances,moistureaccumulationor

mould growth and air leakage (blowerdoor) test results. This study isnovel in the extent to

whichis intendstoevaluatenonenergycobenefitsinadditiontohealthandenergyoutcomes.

One year afterweatherisation, a survey team including sociologistswill gaugenonenergy co

benefits, includingchanges incomfort, incidenceof illness,needformedicalattention,changes

in

indoor

safety,

changes

in

energy,

food,

medicinal

security,

changes

in

employment,

school

attendanceandchangesinfamilyfunctionality.Theresultsofboththeindoorairqualityandco

benefitswillbecorrelatedwithlargersamplesfromtheweatherisationprogrammetoallowthe

detailedresultsfromthisstudytobeextrapolatednationwide.

ORNL has attempted tomitigate the high financial and human resource burden of assessing

weatherisationoutcomes to suchaclosedegree through innovative resourcesharingbetween

government departments the US Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) contributed

fundingandscientificanalysisservicestotheWAPresearchteaminreturnfortheinstallationof

EPAsradonmeasurementdevicesbeinginstalledinadditiontoweatherisationmeasures.

Session7:Thewayforward

TheIEAresearchoninnovationinlowincomeenergyefficiencypoliciesissupportedbymember

governments who have identified fuel poverty as a problem in need of various policy

interventions. Policies and programmes have been developed that address each of the root

causesoffuelpoverty: low income,highenergypricesandpoorhousingquality.Thesepolicies

andprogrammesrelyonbalancedassessmentsofwhetherprogrammeinvestmentswillproduce

meaningful outcomes in a costeffectivemanner. Evaluation is a critical tool inmaking these

policyandprogrammeassessments,andconsequently improvements inevaluationcan lead to

improvementsinpolicies,programmesandoutcomes.

Thissessionprovidedanopportunitytodiscusstheimportanceofevaluationinthefuelpoverty

policy context and the relevance of cobenefits evaluation to future programme and policy


27/40


Page|25

development. Speakers from the EuropeanUnion, Ireland,United Kingdom andUnited States

described the policy landscape and evaluation needs in their countrieswith the objective of

informationsharingandidentifyingareasforcollaboration.

TadgOBrianoftheEuropeanUnionsDirectorateGeneral(DG)Energydescribedtheapproach

to

low

income

energy

efficiency

in

overall

European

energy

policy.

Under

the

EUs

Third

Package

which came into effect on 3 March 2011, emphasis has been placed on empowering the

consumerandincreasingconsumerprotection.Withregardstoenergyefficiency,obligationsfor

reducingenergy consumptionhavebeenplacedonDistribution SystemsOperators (DSO) and

suppliers to secure energy savings, reinforced by a renewed role for national regulators in

monitoringconsumerprotectionandmarketfunctioning.

Memberstatesarerequiredtoinstitutenewprotectionmeasuresforenergycustomers,including

complainthandlingmeasuresandombudsmen interactingwithothersocialpolicymeasuresand

institutingprohibitionsondisconnectionatcritical times.Thiswillalso includetheobligation to

define the concept of vulnerable customers. In attempting to seek a broad definition, the

vulnerablecustomermayrefertoenergypoverty,butisnotspecificallyrequiredto.Suppliersin

turnmust

identify

their

vulnerable

customers

and

prepare

strategies

for

assisting

them.

Stjohn OConnor of Irelands Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

described the fuelpoverty landscape in Ireland.20%of1.8million Irishhouseholdsare in fuel

poverty based on the Boardman definition, but these figures change significantly usingmore

specific indicators suchas selfreportednecessity to intermittently selfdisconnect.Asa result,

Ireland is now working on a new metric which might allow more targeted identification of

Irelandsfuelpoor.Irelandconsidersfuelpovertyamongitsnationalprioritiesandhasdeveloped

measuresandsupportstoaddresseachofthethreemaindriversoffuelpoverty.Fuelassistance

totalledoverUSD494million(EUR350million) in2009,splitbetween fuelallowancesand free

gas and electricity. In 2010, 370 000 Irish households received fuel allowances or energy

entitlements an average outlay of USD1 412 (EUR1000) per recipient. Thermal efficiency

measurestargeted

three

main

buildings

segments

private

housing

(1.6

million

units),

social

housing (130000 units) and voluntary housing. The Warmer Homes Scheme delivered by

communitybased organisations and private contractors, targets lowincome households for

energyefficiency interventions. Since 2001, some61412 homes have been upgraded at a

cumulative costofUSD84.7million (EUR60million)againanaverageoutlayofUSD1412

(EUR1000)per recipient.Otherhousing initiatives includea centralheating scheme for social

housing,renovationgrantsforolderanddisabledpersons,standardsforrentalaccommodation,

andretrofittingofvacantdwellingsandapartmentcomplexes.

These activities are modest compared to the vast opportunities for thermal efficiency

improvement in Ireland. Less than 10% of social housing units rate an A or B building

certification,while

more

than

half

have

aD

or

worse

rating

(Figure

8).

The

distribution

of

housingefficiencyratingsforprivatehousingstockislesswellknown,butlikelyquiteabitworse

thansocialhousing.


28/40


Page|26

Figure8.Distributionofbuildingratings socialhousingunitsinIreland

Source:OConnor,2011.

Neweffortsareunderwaytotryandshiftthebalanceoffuelpovertyreductionoutlaystowards

moreofanemphasisonthermalefficiency.ANationalAffordableEnergyStrategywillbereleased

in2011afterayearofconsultationandcomments.Somepossibleinnovationsincludecalibrating

fuel assistance to reflect the thermal efficiency of the property,more targeting of themix of

poverty policies for individual households, development of thermal regulations for rental

property,anddevelopmentofmorerobustdataespeciallyforprivatehousingstock.Thereisalso

support for amore areabased approach to thermalefficiency interventions. The hope is that

concentrationofeffortwouldcreateeconomiesofscaleandmakeiteasiertoidentifycobenefits.

JamieTorrensoftheUKDepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange(DECC)describedtheUnited

Kingdomapproach to fuelpoverty.TheUnitedKingdomsubscribestotheBoardmandefinition

forfuelpoverty,onthebasisoftheexpectedexpenditurewithreferencetothetypeofdwelling.

UK fuelpoverty policy is geared tomeet the target laid out in the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy,

namely, to eradicate fuelpoverty in allhouseholds inEngland by 2016, as far as reasonably

practicable(DECC,2009)5.

As in other countries,UK fuelpoverty policies address each of the factors contributing to fuel

poverty (Figure 9). Spending on thermal efficiency improvements delivered under the Carbon

EmissionsReductionTarget (CERT),whichobligesenergysupplierstoreducecarbonemissions in

thedomestic

sector,

is

an

important

element

in

the

fuel

poverty

policy

mix

(Table

1).

The

Warm

FrontSchemespentUSD573 (GBP 350 million) in201011,whileportfoliospendingunderthe

CERTisestimatedatUSD1.8(GBP1.1billion).However,energyassistancepaymentsstilldominate

totaloutlays;2010/11spendingonsocialtariffs,winterfuelpaymentsandcoldweatherpayments

totalledUSD5.2billion(GBP3.2billion).Targetingfuelpoorhouseholdsremainsachallenge.The

approachintheUnitedKingdomistotargetgroupsofhouseholdsthathaveahigherpropensity

tofuelpoverty,identifiedthroughreceiptofsomeformofentitlementpayment.

5TheScottishExecutivehasatargettoeliminatefuelpovertyby2016whiletheWelshAssemblyhasatargettoeliminateit

by2018.


29/40


Page|27

Figure9.TheUKapproachin2010/11touchedoneachofthethreedriversoffuelpoverty

Source:

DECC,

2011.

TheUKSpendingReviewwillresultinmajorchangestothewayinwhichsupportisdeliveredto

fuelpoorhouseholds.A smaller,more focusedWarmFrontSchemewillcontinue for thenext

twoyears,closingbytheendof2012/13.DECCarecurrentlyworkingontheGreenDealandthe

Energy Company Obligation (ECO). The Green Deal is being designed to provide a route to

customers to access highquality energy efficiency measures. Through the ECO, energy

companieswillbeobligedtosupportthedeliveryofenergyefficiencymeasures,focusedatthe

poorestandmostvulnerable.

TheWinterFuelPaymentandColdWeatherPaymentprogrammeswillcontinueandadditionally,

thenew

mandatory

Warm

Home

Discount

will

require

energy

suppliers

to

provide

direct

energy

billsupportintacklingfuelpoverty.

Challengesfacinganythermalefficiencyimprovementinterventionswillcontinue,including:

Costeffectiveness: The economic impact of deliveringmeasures to lowincome households

tendstobe low,duebothtothetendencyofthesehouseholdstounderheat (whichmeans

thatenergyandcarbonsavingsfromimprovementsinthermalefficiencytendtobelow)and

tothelackofmethodologiestotakeintoaccountnonenergybenefits(e.g.healthcaresavings).

Deliveryarrangements:It isimportanttotargetmeasuresatthosehouseholdsmostinneed

ofsupportbutdifficultiesinidentifyingfuelpoorhouseholdspersistandmaybecompounded

whenpolicies aredeliveredbyenergy supplierswho tend tohold little informationon the

economicand

social

circumstances

of

their

customers.

Linkage to climategoals:Energyefficiencymeasures generally contributeboth to reducing

fuel poverty and GHG emissions; however, some investments desirable from a thermal

efficiencystandpoint(e.g.newgasfiredcentralheatingsystems)canincreaseGHGemissions.

Ofparticular interest to thisworkshop is the role that evaluation canplay in illuminating the

broader economic benefits of lowincome energyefficiency policies and programmes. It is

particularlyimportanttostrengthentheevidenceinthefollowingthreeareas:

Valuationresearch:capturingmoreofthebenefitsofprogrammesinpolicyappraisal.

Behavioural research: understanding how lowincome and vulnerable households behave

whentheyreceiveinsulationandheatingmeasures.


30/40


Page|28

Delivery:identifyingwhichhouseholdsshouldreceivesupportthroughpoliciesthataredelivered

byenergysuppliers,andtradingoffpovertyreductionandGHGemissionreductionobjectives.

DECChascommissionedanewstudyonthehealthimpactsofimproveddomestichousingstock,

inorder toexpand therangeofeconomicbenefits included inprogrammeevaluation.Thekey

challengeis

linking

benefits

to

interventions

and

then

monetising

the

benefit

estimates.

BruceTonnprovideda reviewof the fuelpoverty reduction landscape in theUnitedStates.A

dominant consideration inUS fuelpoverty circles is the effect of thewithdrawal of stimulus

fundingdue in2012.With the2009passageof theAmericanReliefandRecoveryAct (ARRA),

fundingofLIHEAPdoubledandtheWAPreceivedan infusionofUSD 5billionoverthreeyears

(comparedtoUSD 250 millionannually).Thestimulusspendingmorethandoubledthenational

weatherisationworkforce, tripled the number of homes weatherised annually and increased

funding forhotclimate statesandUS territories. Italso fundedpublichousingweatherisation,

expansion of evaluation activities and piloting of innovative approaches to financing and

deliveringlowincomeweatherisation.

When

funding

returns

to

pre

ARRA

levels,

economic

impacts

will

include

lost

jobs

and

wasted

investments in support infrastructure,not tomentiongrowth in the incidenceof fuelpoverty.

Many innovative ideas to fill the fundinggaparebeing investigated,notably through theUSD

120millionWeatherizationInnovationPilotProgramme(WIPP).WIPPwillexplore innovationof

all kinds from technologies anddelivery arrangements to financing andevaluation. Several

projectswillfocuson innovation infinancing lowincomeweatherisationthroughrevolving loan

funds,energyservicecompaniesandmultifamilybuildings,onbillfinancing,mortgagefinancing,

propertytaxfinancingandcarbonoffsets.Thethrustoftheseeffortsistofindamechanismfor

financingprojects from savings. Innovations arounddelivery arrangements include YouthBuild

andHabitatforHumanity,whichwillexperimentwithalternativeweatherisationworkforces.A

paralleleffortcalledtheSustainableEnergyResourcesforConsumersProgram(SERC)willfocus

on

sustainable

technologies

for

housing,

e.g.

solar

PV

(Photovoltaics),

solar

hot

water

and

cool

roofs. SERC will pilot and then qualify promising technologies to be included in the list of

approvedtechnologiesforWAP.Finally,therewillbeeffortstoinnovatearoundtheroleofstate

and localagencies.With lessfederalfunding,theseagenciesmightbeginsomeofthefollowing

projects:offeringtheirownfeebasedservices,expandingexistingofferings,expandingintonon

lowincome housing weatherisation or undertaking largescale weatherisation ofmultifamily

buildingswithownerortenantcofinancing.Alloftheseeffortstobroadenaccesstofinancing,

upgradingtechnologies,reducingdeliverycostsanddevelopingnewmarketswillbenecessaryto

fillthegapleftbyARRAfunding.

ORNL has traditionally been the programme evaluator for LIHEAP and WAP and is now

implementing evaluationsof both theWIPP and SERC activitieswhichwill examine economic

benefits,implementation

issues,

energy

savings

and

innovation

outcomes.

Other

key

evaluation

activitiesincludeanenergysavingspersistencestudythatexaminessocialservicesnetworksand

their role in mitigating fuel poverty, a weatherisation deferral study and studies of under

performing homes and buildings. ORNL will also be evaluating the entire ARRA funding

experience,with special focus on the effectiveness of stimulus spending in creatingjobs and

economic benefits for communities.As part of this effortORNLwill estimate nonenergy co

benefits (e.g. national energy savings, household energy security, GHG emissions, and local

employment)of stimulus spending. Finally the enhanced evaluation effortwill address vexing

programmedesignquestions, such as linkagesbetweenweatherisation and indoorairquality,

theneedtocapperhomespending,programmeexpansionorrefinement(e.g.deeperretrofits,

multifamilybuildings)andrevisionoftheprogrammecosteffectivenesstest.


31/40


Page|29

ConclusionsandResearchPriorities

Asaresultoftwodaysof fruitfuldiscussionsandconstructiveideasharing,the IEASecretariat

wasabletodrawthefollowingpreliminaryconclusionsonthecurrentstateandfutureprospects

ofco

benefits

estimation

of

low

income

energy

efficiency

programmes:

Fuelpoverty definitions should be policyrelevant and lead to practical action. The

Boardman10%of incomedefinition ismost commonlyused,buthas limitations.Although

based on objective indicators (energy outlays and income), it has a qualitative ingredient:

satisfactory energy services. The EU definition of twice themedian spending has a similar

limitation. Taking apassport approach to fuelpovertywhere households are evaluated

basedonobservationaswellasobjective indicators isan improvementbut stilla static

approach toadynamic issue.Thesedefinitionshave realpolicy relevance,both in termsof

effectivetargetingandalsointermsofconfidenceinidentifiedcobenefits.

Howeverdefined,fuelpovertyisgrowing.Thelongtermincidenceoffuelpovertyhasremained

steady at about20% inmany IEAmember countries.However, several speakersnoted recent

spikesin

estimated

fuel

poverty

incidence,

for

example,

up

to

44%

in

Northern

Ireland.

Fuel

povertyisalsorelativelyhighinEasternEurope,basedonWHOLARESdata.Continuedeconomic

troublesandrecentincreasesinenergypriceswilldoubtlesscontinuethisupwardpressure.

Financial, economic and social welfare cobenefits of lowincome energy efficiency are

large,butmostlyexcluded fromprogrammeevaluation.Someevaluationexpertsestimate

nonenergycobenefitstobethreetimeshigherthanenergysavings.Participantcobenefits

dominate,buteconomicbenefitstocommunitiesandsocialwelfarebenefitsarelargeaswell.

Benefits to energy providers are small proportionally, but documenting them might be

strategicinincreasingutilitydeliveredlowincomeenergyefficiency.

Certain cobenefits stand out as opportunities for evaluation research. Childrens health

standsout

as

apotential

high

value

co

benefit

worthy

of

early

evaluation

research

attention.

For example, childhood asthma affects asmany as 15% of children in some IEAmember

countries and has been linked to damp and mouldy indoor conditions. Similarly, a

disproportionate number of underweight small children hospitalised during cold months

prove tobe from energy insecurehouseholds. Being

low income energy efficiency

Documents