Upload
abel-lawson
View
220
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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