Adelaide Solar City

HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM
Providing energy assistance to low income households, including
new arrivals and refugee communities

19 March 2013

Dario De Bortoli, Adelaide Solar City Program Manager

Amanda Murray, Adelaide Solar City Communication Manager

Table of Contents

Abstract..3
1. Background.4
2. Research Context..5
3. Energy Attitudes and Behaviours..6
4. Community Engagement Strategy.9
5. Communication Strategy10
6. Program Description.12
7. Comparative Demographic Data.14
8. Household Appliances.21
9. Energy Efficiency Measures..24
10. Barriers to Behavioural Change .26
11. Analysis of Electricity Consumption Data .27
12. Program Enhancements 28
13. Outcomes.29
14. Recommendations.30

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Energy Efficiency Advisor - Community Services (Uniting
Communities) for providing valuable insights on her interaction with participants of the Home Energy
Assistance program.

Our thanks also to the households who have taken part in this program and who took the time to complete
questionnaires and provide information which has made completing this report possible.

The Home Energy Assistance program is supported by funding from Origin through the Adelaide Solar City
program.

2
Abstract
The Home Energy Assistance program is an important component of the Adelaide Solar City program and
aims to assist low-income households experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, energy poverty manage their
future energy use.

The Home Energy Assistance program is a free service available to 450 low-income households within the
Adelaide Solar City catchment area. Initial take-up of the program is very positive, with more than 200
visits conducted as at December 2012.

The program targets refugees and new arrivals to Australia with assistance in understanding and managing
their energy use. These communities often face additional challenges to understand or manage their
energy bills due to language and cultural barriers, unemployment and difficulties in finding suitable
housing.

The initiative includes an in-home assessment of energy use, identification of opportunities for reducing
consumption and the retrofit of low-cost energy saving devices. Participants also receive referrals to
financial and social support services if required.

This report documents the energy attitudes and behaviours that impact on the ability of low-income
households to manage their energy use and the approach adopted in engaging with refugee and new arrival
communities to obtain their participation in the program.

The report also provides a comparison of demographics, household characteristics and the adoption of
energy saving measures between program participants and the Adelaide Solar City control group. An
analysis of the energy consumption data of a small number of program participants was also undertaken.

The barriers to behavioural change are also documented and a number of recommendations provided to
assist low-income households nationally, in particular refugee and new arrival communities, to adopt
energy-efficiency measures so that they can manage their future energy use.

3
 1. Background
The Solar Cities program is a $94 million Australian Government initiative implementing innovative products
and technologies to engage consumers and encourage them to better manage their long term energy use.

The Adelaide Solar City program which commenced in October 2007 and will conclude on 30 June 2013, is
one of seven Solar Cities across the nation. It includes a market trial of commercial and residential solar
photovoltaic (PV) systems, cost reflective pricing, smart metering solutions, energy efficiency products and
community engagement initiatives. Metering data and census-type information collected from program
participants is being used to measure the impact of these solutions on energy use behaviours.

The trial area incorporates more than 130,000 households across four councils including the CBD and the
northern suburbs of Adelaide. The trial area features consumers with a wide range of socio-demographic
profiles from low-income through to highly affluent households.

A component of the Adelaide Solar City program is to deliver a range of energy-efficiency trials to
consumers and the business community including the adoption of energy-efficiency technologies and the
promotion of energy conservation practices.

In October 2007, the Adelaide Solar City Consortium launched energy-efficiency audits for residential and
business trial participants. In February 2009, an existing free energy-efficiency service available to Origin
residential customers who were experiencing financial difficulties in paying their energy bills was also
included in the Adelaide Solar City program.

In April 2011, the Adelaide Solar City councils indicated that refugee and new arrival communities within
the trial area were in urgent need of assistance in understanding and managing their energy use.

To meet this need, the Consortium developed the Home Energy Assistance program which was launched in
October 2011.

The Hon Mark Dreyfus, QC MP Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, launched
the Home Energy Assistance program (the program) at a community event in Salisbury on the 24 October
2011.

4
 2. Research Context

The purpose of undertaking this research is twofold, the first is to explore the characteristics of low income
households and how the characteristics impact on energy consumption, energy attitudes and behaviours.
Second, the research aims to identify opportunities for assisting low income households to improve
household energy efficiency and lower energy bills.

The analysis focuses on:

the program offered and outcomes achieved to date

the socio-demographic characteristics of program participants (N=116) in comparison to a control

group (N=260) recruited from within the Adelaide Solar City trial area

the community engagement and communication strategy utilised to promote the program and
encourage participation

recommendations on how to assist low income households (in particular refugee and new arrival
communities) nationally to adopt energy efficiency measures.

The information included in this report is derived from the following sources:
written questionnaires completed by program participants at the time of their energy audit - this
includes demographic and other key household characteristics

reports provided by the auditors on completion of the energy audit

an interview with the primary Uniting Communities energy auditor

case studies developed with four program participants following face-to-face interviews conducted
post audit

electricity consumption data obtained from the participants electricity distributor.

The above information has been compared to a control group consisting of 260 participants who were
recruited from within the trial area.

Households taking part in the control group completed a questionnaire over the phone, and then received
an interval meter to measure their half hourly electricity consumption. Control group participants had no
further interventions as part of the Adelaide Solar City program.

Home Energy Assistance program participants have provided information to enable segmentation into three
subgroups: refugees, new arrivals and low income households.

A refugee is defined as per the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol;
while a new arrival is defined as a person who is an Australian resident for six or less years. In addition, a
household must be eligible for, or hold a Low Income Health Care card in order to meet the definition of a
low income household.

The segmentation of the sub groups is shown in Figure 2.1. However, due to the limited sample size,
analysis of the program participants was not conducted at the sub group segment level.

5
Figure 2.1: Respondent Categories

Respondent Categories (N=116)

Refugees
Low Income 17%
29%

New Arrivals
54%

3. Energy Attitudes and Behaviours

The following section outlines the program participants understanding of energy consumption and their
attitudes and behaviours towards their energy bills, reduced energy use and the environment.

3.1 Understanding of Energy Consumption

A consistent observation made by the energy auditors is that many program participants do not have a basic
understanding of their energy use.

In particular, there is a lack of understanding on how to use appliances, their running cost and the impact
of appliance use on their energy bills.

The lack of understanding can lead to two diverse potential outcomes, the first of which is energy overuse
that results in subsequent high energy bills which households may be unable to pay and could result in
disconnection.

The second outcome is energy underuse which is caused by limiting appliance use because the householder
is concerned about the cost of using the appliance or how to operate it (e.g. air conditioners and heating
appliances) resulting in personal discomfort.

An additional inhibiting factor in understanding energy use is English proficiency. Many refugees and new
arrivals report low levels of proficiency in English with 41 per cent of program respondents reporting that
they cannot speak English well or at all. This makes it more difficult for them to read and understand their
electricity bills, obtain information on energy efficiency, or seek assistance regarding appliance use.

Case Study:

Participant X: refugee from Nepal.

(Participant X) is from Nepal and was unaware that some windows need to be opened when they run the
evaporative cooler, so the appliance has not been working efficiently. I also advised that since the client
owns the home that they are responsible for servicing the air conditioning unit, which needs maintenance
once a year. Energy Auditor, Uniting Communities

6
Due to the language barrier, the presence of an interpreter is considered a necessary requirement for the
participant to obtain the maximum value from the auditors visit. Approximately two thirds of audits
conducted with program participants required assistance from either an interpreter or relative/family
friend.

The energy auditors have also reported that energy use appears to be influenced by cultural attitudes, with
some communities more conservative in their approach to using energy than others. Attitudes towards
energy use are often consistent with the communitys broader attitudes towards conservation and
sustainability.

3.2 Attitudes to Energy Consumption

The energy consumption attitudes of both program participants (N=116) and the control group (N=260) were
surveyed by asking respondents to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements
related to their energy bills and behaviours to reduce energy use and their impact on the environment. The
scale of responses ranged from strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree,
strongly agree, and unknown.

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed that their energy bills were not large
enough for them to care about them. Only 10.4 per cent of program respondents (n=12) and 16.4 per cent
of control group respondents (n=37) either agree or strongly agree with the statement.

In addition, only 22.6 per cent of program respondents (n=26) and 32.4 per cent of the control group (n=73)
disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that they did not know how much money they could
save by using less energy.

This indicates that while both groups are sensitive to energy bills, neither group perceived themselves to be
knowledgeable of the relationship between energy use and the cost of energy.

Also with energy use, 26.2 per cent of the control group agreed that convenience and comfort was more
important than saving energy, compared to 40 per cent of program respondents. This response from
program respondents may be influenced by several factors including a lower level of awareness of energy
use and energy costs, or lower tolerance levels for the climate that they find themselves in.

3.3 Energy Consumption Behaviours

Respondents were requested to indicate how often they undertook a range of behaviours to reduce their
energy consumption. Households were able to select from responses of never, rarely, sometimes,
usually, and always.

Respondents from both groups were also asked to indicate the frequency which they undertook energy
efficiency behaviours. The results indicate that while households may report they dont know what
measures they should be taking to reduce their impact on the environment; many are actually undertaking
a range of simple actions to conserve energy.

From the responses provided in Figure 3.3, it appears that program respondents are more likely to adopt
relatively easy measures to reduce their energy use compared to the control group.

However, program respondents are less likely to select energy efficient appliances (46.1 per cent)
compared to the control group (71.1 per cent). This may be due to the higher upfront costs of purchasing
energy efficient appliances, lower levels of English proficiency impacting on the program respondents
ability to understand the information or to seek assistance from sales staff, and/or lack of awareness of the
energy star rating system.

7
Figure 3.3: Undertaking energy efficient behaviours (Always / Usually response)

Question Home Energy Assistance program Control Group

(n=116) (n=225)
(%) (%)
Turn off appliances at the wall 70.5 38.4
Minimise use of heating and cooling appliances in 74.3 50.9
the home to save energy
Use a clothes line instead of a clothes dryer 96.5 83.0
Choosing energy efficient appliances 46.1 71.1
Washing in cold water 77.9 81.1

3.4 Attitudes Towards the Environment

To explore participant attitudes towards the environment, respondents were asked to indicate the extent
to which they agreed with the statement that climate change is a threat to our way of life. The responses
are shown in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Responses to statement: Is climate change a threat to our way of life.

Responses to statement:"Is climate change a threat to our way of life"

N 119 HEAP (n=115) Control Group (n=225)
u
m
b
e
r

o
f
57
r 48
e
s
32
p
26
o
n 16 17
12
d
3 2 4 4
e
n
t Control Home Control Home Control Home Control Home Control Home Control Home
s Group energy Group energy Group energy Group energy Group energy Group energy
assistance assistance assistance assistance assistance assistance
program program program program program program
Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor Disagree Strongly disagree Unknown
agree

The proportion of participants in each group who disagree or strongly disagree with this statement was
similar (9 per cent of the control group, and 6 per cent of program respondents).

However, the proportion of respondents who either strongly agree or agree with the statement varied
considerably (78.2 per cent of the control group compared to 55.7 per cent of program respondents). There
were also a significant number of program respondents (28 per cent) who answered unknown to this
question in comparison to the control group (2 per cent).

It is important to consider the influence that pre-arrival experiences (e.g. the level of education and
climate change awareness) may have on participant responses to this question. Feedback from energy
auditors has been that many program participants have had difficulty in answering this question, and often
seek their assistance to explain the question.

8
 4. Community Engagement Strategy

The strategy to engage with low income households within the Adelaide Solar City trial area was developed
to include three key principles. These are to:

promote and deliver the program in an understanding way

develop relationships with householders, community groups and other service organisations

provide advice and devices for program participants to better manage their energy use.

These principles were identified as factors required for the successful engagement of low income
households which often have diverse socio-demographics. The program structure and the way in which it is
promoted and delivered is defined by these principles.

The strategy incorporates activities designed to overcome the barriers often faced by low income
households in managing their energy usage. These barriers include reduced levels of financial and language
literacy, language barriers, new arrival or refugee status, reluctance to trust or engage with government
agencies, and low levels of employment.

These activities predominantly rely on face-to-face interactions through community leaders and community
organisations.

4.1 Engagement through Community Leaders

Identifying and engaging with community leaders is a key strategy in influencing involvement from refugee
and new arrival communities. This was undertaken through extensive liaison with Consortium Councils and
Uniting Communities staff from a multi-cultural background.

Energy auditors have developed a relationship of trust with many community leaders to obtain their support
as ambassadors for the program and to encourage their communities to participate. Households appear
more likely to take part in the program if it is know and recommended by the community leader. This
appears to be especially important in African communities.

In another example, the Bhutanese / Nepalese communities became highly receptive to the program only
after a strong relationship was formed between the energy auditor and several key members of those
communities.

To September 2012, an estimated 60 of the 150 audits conducted by Uniting Communities had eventuated
through community leaders.

In support of this strategy, the program launch event was held at the Northern Area Migrant Resource
Centre in Salisbury with a number of community leaders present. The event was organised as a drop-in
session where community members could find out more about the program, obtain educational information
and sign up for the audit visit.

The Hon. Mark Dreyfus launched the event; also present was the Mayor of Playford and a number of South
Australian Government and senior Australian Government officials.

9
Community members receive information on the Home Energy Assistance program

4.2 Engagement through Community Organisations

In addition to interfacing with community leaders, the program has engaged with potential participants
through community organisations and Consortium Councils.

For example, the Northern Area Migrant Resource Centre has provided about 30 referrals to the program.

Welfare workers and interpreters who are well known and respected in their communities are also an
important source of audit referrals. For example, an interpreter who is also a community leader, posted
information on the program on the community website which subsequently attracted an excellent referral
response. It is a recommendation of this report that representatives of these communities are formally
trained as energy auditors (see Section 14: Recommendations).

The other current sources of referrals are the Consortium Councils as well as Anglicare, Centre Care and
local community centres. In addition, an increased number of referrals are coming from the Home and
Community Care program provided by Adelaide City Council.

An emerging referral source is from financial counsellors referring clients to the program as part of the
Australian Governments Income Management Scheme.

5. Communication Strategy

Apart from interacting with community leaders and social support networks, the communication strategy
adopted for refugee and new arrival communities is primarily based on promoting the program through
channels that have direct links to potential participants, such as participant word-of-mouth and community
information sessions.

5.1 Participant Word-of-Mouth

Word-of-mouth is the most effective channel in obtaining referrals, with 38 per cent of respondents
indicating that this is how they became aware of the program.

10
The auditor also uses Uniting Communities own networks and relationships and Council staff to identify the
appropriate contacts in the communities. About 16 per cent of respondents were approached through this
channel.

Once the contact is made, the auditor arranges an appointment to explain the program. A program
brochure is then provided to the contact person and depending on the level of interest;

an information session is arranged for community members as a group or

the contact may refer individual community members to contact the auditor directly.

5.2 Community Information Sessions

Information sessions provide an opportunity for the energy auditor to explain the program directly to
potential participants. The sessions are arranged through a direct request from the community group or
through promotion by the energy auditors.

The format of the session includes an overview of the program as well as discussions on positive energy
behaviours, appliance use and how the program can benefit households.

It is estimated that about 50 per cent of new arrival groups sign up at information sessions.

5.3 Summary

A summary of the communication channels used to refer participants to the program is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Source of contact

Source of contact (%) (n=110)

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

Source of Contact (%)

In addition, brochures are provided in Council offices and community centres and have been effective in
obtaining appointments, particularly from community centres. An emerging requirement (and report
recommendation) is to have the brochures in the languages of the latest new arrival communities.

11
 6. Program Description

The primary objective of the Home Energy Assistance program is to assist disadvantaged households
experiencing or at risk of experiencing energy poverty manage their future energy use.

This includes providing;

advice on efficient energy use enabling households to reduce future energy bills and to facilitate
behavioural change

low cost energy efficient devices

referrals to financial counsellors and social support services.

The program consists of several components, as discussed below.

6.1 Eligibility

In order to be eligible for the program, participants need to:

live in the cities of Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully, Playford or in the Adelaide City Council area

be the holder of, or be eligible for a Low Income Health Care card.

The program is open to participants from any energy retailer.

6.2 Service Offering

The program provides a one-on-one consultation with the participant, offering the following services:

analysis of the households energy bill and discussion with them on the relationship between
energy consumption, affordability and household energy behaviour and habits

an assessment of how much and where energy is being used in the home

help to explain appliance running costs and suggested ways to use appliances more efficiently

energy saving tips that will help in reducing the households bills while maintaining or increasing
comfort levels within the home

provide a pack of energy efficiency products which currently includes a power saving board and a
shower timer valued at approximately $80

provide low-cost energy efficient devices specific to the householder and their circumstances
(e.g. door and fridge seals, small fans) up to a maximum value of $100

undertake a basic financial assessment of the household with regard to expenditure and income

provide information on existing social support services and refer the householder to the appropriate
service if necessary/requested.

12
The auditors are reporting that they are visiting participants who have requirements for multiple support
services including energy retailer billing/metering issues as well as medical/health and landlord issues.

Consultations can take up to two hours to complete and are conducted in English. However, an interpreter
is arranged for participants from a non-English speaking background if requested.

On completion of the consultation the auditor provides a list of recommendations to the participant which
identifies opportunities for energy conservation.

Subsequently, the auditor undertakes follow up activities including arranging referrals for financial
counselling, energy retailer hardship programs and social security concessions as agreed at the
consultation.

An analysis of the referrals provided to a sample of 61 program participants indicates that 25 per cent of
the referrals were to financial counsellors, 46 per cent to social security concession programs and 29 per
cent to energy retailer hardship programs.

6.3 Monitoring

Each participants data is captured to learn more about how they use energy in the home, as well as the
energy efficiency opportunities identified during the audit.

Historical data, including billing information and energy consumption is captured for the 12 months prior
and post the audit to help determine the audits effectiveness.

Participants also complete a detailed written questionnaire which includes socio-demographic information,
and questions regarding their energy use behaviours and energy attitudes. In most cases, the auditor or a
translator provides assistance to the participant to complete the questionnaire.

In addition, the following information is captured by the energy auditor for each audit:

energy efficiency opportunities and barriers to implementation

number and type of energy saving devices provided to the participant.

Uniting Communities also provides the Consortium with monthly reporting on the number of visits made,
future appointments and cancellations.

6.4 Cancellations

A key barrier to successful program implementation has been the number of cancellations and no shows,
which is currently about 18 per cent of all referrals.

The current process is for the auditor to contact the householder the day before to confirm the
appointment.

If they are not there on the day, the auditor leaves a note at the door or sends a letter asking them to
contact the auditor. If there is no response, the appointment is cancelled within a month.

Presently, there appears to be a correlation between the increase in the number of referrals from financial
counsellors and an increase in cancellations. This may be due to the householder agreeing to follow up on
the recommendations of the financial counsellor and then having second thoughts.
13
Sometimes participants contact the auditor after the appointment is cancelled because their financial
difficulties may have deteriorated or the financial counsellor has again referred them to the program and
they dont want to be seen to be un-cooperative.

7. Comparative Demographic Data

In this section of the report a comparison is made of the key demographic data of program respondents with
the control group.

Language

Data was collected from program participants in two areas related to language: self-reported proficiency in
English and the main language spoken at home.

Figure 7.1 compares the percentage of respondents from both groups who reported they speak English very
well or well to those reporting they speak English not well or not at all.

The data indicates that 41 per cent of program respondents speak English not well or not at all, there
were no control group respondents in either response category.

Figure 7.1: How well is English spoken

How well is English spoken

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very Well Well Not Well Not at All Unknown
HEAP (n=116) Control Group (n=241)

14
Other key languages spoken at home by program respondents (see Figure 7.2) included Nepali (spoken in
Nepal and Bhutan: 49 per cent), Kirundi (spoken in Burundi/Rwanda: 9 per cent) and Dinka (spoken in
Southern Sudan: 4 per cent).

Figure 7.2: Language spoken

Language spoken (n=116) Dinka

Persian / Sinhala Swahili Tagalog 4%
Iranian Rwandan 1% 3% 1%
1% 1%

Persian
1%
English
25%
Swahili /
Bembe
Nepali 1%
Kirundi Hazaragi
49%
9% 2%
Kirundi /
Swahili
2%

Education

With regard to education level achieved (see Figure 7.3), the number of program respondents who reported
attendance at a tertiary institution is 30 per cent compared to 42 per cent for the control group.

While 22 per cent of program respondents (n=23) reported a TAFE qualification compared to 16 per cent of
the control group (n=37), this may be due to program respondents including attendance at Adult Migrant
English Program (AMEP) courses, rather than the completion of a trade qualification.

Figure 7.3: Level of education

Level of education
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Primary School
High School
High
Yr School
10 HighYr School
12 Other
TAFE Tertiary Other

HEAP (n=103) Control Group (n=236)

15
Employment

Figure 7.4 presents the employment status of program respondents compared to the control group.

Only 37 per cent of program respondents (n=42) are employed either in full time, part time or casual
employment, compared to 81 per cent of the control group (n=183). Also, 19 per cent (n=22) are employed
on a casual basis compared to 5 per cent (n=11) for the control group.

There is a significant difference in the number of unemployed between the groups, with 40 per cent of
program respondents (n=46) being unemployed compared to 2 per cent (n=5) for the control group.

This imbalance could be explained by the potential negative impact which lower levels of education and
proficiency in English may have on employment opportunities (see figures 7.1 and 7.3).

Figure 7.4: Employment status

Employment status
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

HEAP (N=116) Control Group (N=224)

Gross Household Income

The survey also asked program respondents to report their gross household income level (Figure 7.5).

Of the 108 program respondents who provided information on household income, 77 per cent (n=83)
reported an annual income of less than $20,000 compared to 6 per cent (n=11) of the control group.

As expected, households on low-incomes are over represented in the program compared to the control
group given the eligibility requirement for program participants is that there is a concession card holder
in the household.

16
Figure 7.5: Gross household income

Gross household income

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

HEAP (n=108) Control Group (n=193)

The significantly lower level of disposable income for program respondents is a major barrier in implementing
energy efficiency measures that require a large financial outlay.

It is a recommendation of this report that financial assistance is provided to some low income communities in
purchasing energy efficient appliances that require a substantial capital outlay.

Housing

The following analysis compares housing demographics including occupant and building characteristics.

Housing tenure

Figure 7.6 (a) indicates that 54 per cent of program respondents (n=63) occupied rental properties or
government housing compared to 3 per cent (n=7) for the control group.

The low level of program respondent housing ownership may also constitute a barrier in the adoption of
higher cost energy efficiency measures (e.g. ceiling insulation) as it requires the agreement of the landlord
before the measures can be implemented as well as having a long term lease at the premises. It is worth
noting however, that home owners were targeted for recruitment to the control group as the installation of
an interval meter required the landlords approval.

Although 44 per cent of program respondents (n=52) reside in their own home, its unlikely that the occupants
will have sufficient discretionary income available to make major energy efficiency upgrades.

17
Figure 7.6(a): Housing tenure

Housing tenure
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

HEAP (n=116) Control Group (n=223)

Household occupants

Figure 7.6(b) shows that there is a significant variance in the number of household occupants, with 45 per
cent of program respondents (n=49) having five or more occupants in the residence compared to 14 per
cent for the control group (n=34).

Figure 7.6(b): Household occupants

Household occupants
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

HEAP (n=110) Control Group (n=237)

Case Study:

Participant Y: single mother of seven children.

(Participant Y) is a new arrival from Burundi who speaks very little English. During the audit a gas leak
from the meter was identified and a gas emergency call was placed to remedy the problem. The hot water
heater is gas instantaneous and new, yet the hot water runs out very quickly. The rental agent has sent
someone to fix the problem, yet it still persists. There is also a power point that continues to work if an
appliance is plugged in, and the power point is left off. The energy auditor has instructed (Participant Y)
not to use that plug and to alert her landlord.

18
House size

With regard to house size, Figure 7.6(c) indicates that 44 per cent of program respondents (n=44) occupy
compact (<100m2) or small sized (100-149m2) housing compared to 26 per cent (n=60) for the control
group.

The high number of program household occupants, in addition to the smaller house size they occupy is
likely to reduce per capita energy consumption and possibly overall household energy usage. However, this
could not be confirmed due to insufficient site energy data being available.

Figure 7.6 (c): House size

House size

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Compact Small 100- Medium 150- Large 250- Spacious
<100m2 149m2 249m2 350m2 >350m2
HEAP (n=101) Control Group (n=232)

Age of house

A key difference between program and control group respondents is in the age of the housing they reside
in. Figure 7.6(d) shows that 60 per cent of program respondents (n=62) live in housing that is older than 30
years (i.e. from before 1950 to 1970s) compared to 47 per cent of control group respondents (n=114).

Based on the assumption that older housing stock is likely to be less energy efficient than newer housing,
implementing upgrades in older housing stock is likely to help reduce the occupants reliance on heating
and cooling appliances and improve comfort levels.

19
Figure 7.6 (d): Age of house

Age of house
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Pre 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's Post
1950 2000
HEAP (n=103) Control Group (n=241)

Case Study:

Participant Z: single mother of three children.

(Participant Z) lives in a house that has many gaps, and is around 60 years old. Her lease ends in August
and the landlord will not make any improvements to the house as it will be demolished and the land sold.
The home is poorly insulated and the participant is forced to use a split system air conditioner for long
periods of time to cool the house. The participants quarterly bill is around $1,000 and she is several
thousand dollars in arrears in electricity bills.

Material type

The majority of respondents from both groups (i.e. program: 71 per cent, control group: 73 per cent) live in
brick veneer housing with most of the balance (i.e. program: 27 per cent, control group: 22 per cent) in
double brick housing as shown in Figure 7.6(e).

Figure 7.6(e): Material type

Material type
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

HEAP (n=114) Control Group (n=230)

20
Gas connection

There is a significant higher level of program respondents (30 per cent) who do not have gas connected to
their properties as shown in Figure 7.6(f) compared to the control group (6 per cent). Program respondents
are therefore more likely to have an increased dependency on electrical heating and cooling appliances and
hot water heaters, which often account for a large proportion of energy bills.

Figure 7.6 (f): Gas connection

Gas connection

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

HEAP (n=114) Control Group (n=230)

8. Household Appliances

The participant survey also compared the availability of household appliances including:

Air conditioners
Refrigerators
Cooking appliances
Hot water systems.

Air conditioners

Due to the high summer temperatures often experienced in Adelaide, it is not surprising that both groups of
respondents have a very high level of penetration (over 90 per cent) of air conditioners.

This is shown in Figure 8.1 with 96 per cent of program respondents having an air conditioner compared to
91 per cent of the control group.

21
Figure 8.1: Air conditioners

Air conditioners

No

Yes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=220) HEAP (n=111)

Anecdotal feedback from the energy auditors is that a significant number of air conditioners used by
program participants are either old, inefficient, or require servicing to maximise their energy efficiency.

Refrigerators

With regard to refrigerators (Figure 8.2), 111 of the 116 program participants responded that they owned at
least one refrigerator, with 16 per cent owning more than one refrigerator compared to 42 per cent of the
control group.

Figure 8.2: Refrigerators

Refrigerators

Three

Two

One

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=241) HEAP (n=116)

Cooking appliances

Figure 8.3 indicates that 60 per cent of program participants have a gas cook top compared to 81 per cent
for the control group.

This could be as a result of only 70 per cent of program participants having a gas connection in comparison
to 94 per cent of the control group.

22
Figure 8.3: Cooking appliances

Cooking appliances
Electric
oven

Electric
cook top

Gas oven

Gas cook
top

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=241) HEAP (n=116)

Hot water systems

There is a moderate difference in the type of hot water systems used by both groups of respondents, with
82 per cent of the control group opting for a gas hot water system compared to 60 per cent for program
respondents (Figure 8.4). As with cooking appliances, this may be due to the lower level of gas connection
in program households.

Of the 40 program respondents who have an electric storage hot water system, 29 do not have a gas
connection which limits their options for installing a more efficient hot water system.

Where replacement of the hot water system is not possible, several energy audits have recommended to
the participant to switch their unit to a control load which is a cheaper electricity rate. However, several
of these sites require the installation of an off peak electricity meter, which is either cost prohibitive for
the occupant of the house, or requires the landlord to cover the costs.

Only 4 per cent of both groups of respondents have a solar hot water system installed.

Figure 8.4: Hot water systems

Hot water systems

Solar Gas
Solar
Electric
Gas Storage

Gas Instant
Electric
Storage
Electric
Instant
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=241) HEAP (n=116)

23
 9. Energy Efficiency Measures

Participants in each group were asked to provide information on the energy efficiency measures they had
undertaken within the home.

These include:

insulation measures
other efficiency measures (including window treatments and draught proofing)
energy efficient lighting
water efficiency measures.

Insulation

Figure 9.1 shows that only 59 per cent of program respondents have ceiling insulation compared to 92 per
cent of the control group. In addition, only 11 per cent of program respondents have wall insulation
(control group: 45 per cent).

Figure 9.1: Insulation

Insulation

Wall

Floor

Ceiling

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=241) HEAP (n=116)

Other energy efficiency measures

Figure 9.2 provides a comparison of a number of other energy efficiency measures implemented by program
and control group respondents.

The comparison indicates that only 6 per cent of program respondents have draught stoppers for doors
compared to 47 per cent for the control group. The auditors are currently providing this type of low cost
equipment free of charge to program participants if its identified during the visit (see Figure 12.1 for
details).

There also appears to be disparity between the two groups in terms of the lower number of program
participants who have window treatments such as window awnings or double glazing compared to the
control group. The number of program participants who have at least one of these window treatment
measures is 46 with 17 living in rental accommodation.

24
Figure 9.2: Other energy efficiency measures

Other energy efficiency measures

Window
Tinting
Window
Awnings
Reflective
Paint
Door
Stoppers
D/Glaze
Windows
Curtains

Skylight

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=241) HEAP (n=116)

Energy efficient lighting

About 17 per cent of program respondents (Figure 9.3) do not have energy efficient lighting compared to 5
per cent for the control group, suggesting that there is scope to continue to provide this type of low cost
equipment to low income communities.

Figure 9.3: Energy efficient lighting

Energy efficient lighting

Some Lights

No Lights

All Lights

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Control Group (n=221) HEAP (n=109)

Water efficiency measures

With regard to water efficiency measures, the survey responses (Figure 9.4) indicate that only 35 per cent
of program respondents have a low flow showerhead installed compared to 67 per cent for the control
group.

Due to factors such as age or type of hot water system and its location, it is not always possible to install a
low flow showerhead which may account for some of the installation differences between the two groups.

However, similar to the provision of energy efficient lighting, low flow showerheads are relatively
inexpensive devices that can be made available to low income communities at no charge.
25
Figure 9.4: Water efficiency measures

Water efficiency measures

Rain Water
Tank

Dual Flush
Toilet

Low Flow
Shower Head

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Control Group (n=225) HEAP (n=116)

In conclusion, the survey results indicate that program participants have significantly less energy efficiency
measures installed in the home compared to the control group.

10. Barriers to Behavioural Change

The perception of the auditors is that recommendations made during the audit that are simple to
implement such as changing thermostat settings on air conditioners and refrigerators are likely to be
continued by program participants. Most participants are also keen to utilise retrofit items such as draught
seals, exterior blinds, light globes, low flow shower heads and energy-saving power boards.

However, the continuation of energy efficient behaviour in the longer term is often dependent on the
program household overcoming in some instances, significant barriers to change. These barriers have been
identified by the auditors in the energy audit reports and are shown in Figure 10.1.

Figure 10.1: Barriers to behavioural change

Barriers to behavioural change (n=108)

Insufficient funds 94%

Faulty appliances 26%

Quality of housing 56%

Rental accommodation 56%

Health/medical issues 28%

Behavioural 53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

26
As Figure 10.1 indicates, 94 per cent of respondents have identified insufficient funds as the key barrier to
implementing energy efficiency measures. In addition, quality of housing, residence in rental
accommodation and behavioural barriers are also identified as key barriers to change.

Behavioural barriers are also significant, and may relate to either lack of awareness/understanding of how
to reduce energy use, or willingness to make changes.

Also participants have no means of monitoring their energy use. On this basis, it is recommended that in
home displays are provided to refugees and new arrival communities as a means of increasing awareness of
energy use and facilitating longer term behavioural change.

11. Analysis of Electricity Consumption Data

An essential requirement of the program is to obtain an understanding of how households have modified
their energy use behavior after participating in the program.

All program participants have signed an agreement allowing the Adelaide Solar City Consortium to access
their electricity consumption data and provide it to the Australian Government.

As the participants did not have interval meters installed, metering information was sought from the South
Australian electricity distributor. The information was requested in September 2012 for the 116 program
respondents. The request was for quarterly electricity consumption data for the previous 12 months to the
end of August 2012, including data for the quarter before and after the respondent signed up to the
program.

Data for 42 respondents which related to the period September 2011 to September 2012 was received in
October 2012.

Due to the following factors, data for 19 respondents was excluded from the survey sample.

Meter reads were not undertaken quarterly (i.e. they were monthly or six monthly reads).
The energy audit was conducted in the first (prior to Dec 2011) or last quarterly billing period (i.e.
after August 2012). Hence, the data could not be compared before and after the audit.
Participants had a three phase meter installed.

The exclusion of this data resulted in 23 respondents remaining in the sample over two three monthly
billing cycles (i.e. January / April / July and February / May / August).

The majority of these respondents (i.e. 14) were billed in the January / April / July cycle.

A comparison was undertaken of the electricity consumption for the 14 respondents during the quarterly
period before the audit was conducted and the period immediately after the audit.

Due to the small sample size and limited data available the result of this comparison was inconclusive.

27
 12. Program Enhancements

In October 2012 the Home Energy Assistance program had been launched for 12 months. Following are
some of the recommendations from the auditors on how the program can be enhanced going forward.

Energy efficiency devices

Response from program respondents is that they see value in the energy efficiency packs provided with the
audit. Households are genuinely very happy to receive the packs. However, they usually require assistance
with installing the devices.

A recommended enhancement for the packs is that they include a thermometer marked with energy
efficient temperatures for cooling and heating for refrigerators, freezers, and hot water appliances. These
are the highest energy consuming appliances in the standard Australian home.

In addition, the provision of low cost energy efficient devices such as light globes, showerheads, and door
and fridge seals (up to a maximum value of $100) was also well received.

The type of devices provided to program respondents is shown in Figure 12.1.

Figure 12.1: Type of energy efficiency devices provided to program respondents

120 Type of energy efficiency devices provided to program

respondents 101
100 (n=116)

80

60

37 37
40
23
16 13
20 11 9
6 5 3 4 3 6 3
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
0

Education on appliance use

Education on efficient appliance use is recommended, given most refugee and new arrival communities do
not have an adequate understanding on how energy is charged.

Follow up visits

The current program consists of a one-off visit by the auditor. Follow up visits / contact is recommended
in order to achieve ongoing behavioural change. Currently, the auditor leaves a contact number on the
recommendation report left with the participant for them to follow up if they have any questions after the
audit visit.

28
 13. Outcomes

An assessment of both the quantitative survey outcomes and the energy auditors qualitative feedback,
indicates that a key issue facing many program respondents is a lack of understanding of how to use
appliances efficiently and how this affects their energy bills.

This lack of knowledge of the relationship between high energy use and the cost of energy is a significant
financial risk for low income community groups, particularly new arrivals and refugee communities.

Whilst program respondents experience lower incomes and higher levels of unemployment than the broader
Adelaide Solar City community, refugees and new arrivals also experience an additional major inhibiting
factor in that they frequently come from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Irrespective of their income and employment status, program respondents have the major electrical
appliances (e.g. refrigerators and air conditioners) in their household. Air conditioners in particular, are
very widely used. However, it is questionable if the appliances are energy efficient.

Also has mentioned in Section 3, the issue appears to be the lack of understanding on how to select the
most energy efficient appliances and how to use them.

Over 90 per cent of respondents have identified insufficient funds as the key barrier to implementing
energy efficiency measures. In addition, quality of housing and residence in rental accommodation are
considered barriers providing little incentive to fund high cost energy efficiency
measures (e.g. insulation) which are not transferable when the occupant vacates the premises.

Over 80 per cent of all respondents agreed that their energy bills were significant enough for them to care
about them. However, program respondents have a considerable lower uptake of energy efficiency
measures than the control group. This may also be explained by the barriers mentioned above (e.g. lower
income and housing tenure).

However, this does not explain the lesser level of low cost measures such as energy efficient lighting and
low flow showerheads installed in the homes of program respondents. This may indicate the potential lack
of awareness of the value of these measures in reducing energy and water bills.

The survey also indicates that program respondents are more likely to apply energy saving measures that
are no cost and straightforward to implement (such as turning off appliances at the wall and using a clothes
line instead of a clothes dryer) than the control group. However, they are less likely than the control group
to choose energy efficient appliances possibly due to their non English speaking background.

Program respondents were satisfied with the energy efficient devices provided by the auditor. However,
some enhancements such as the provision of thermometers marked with energy efficient appliance
temperatures have been recommended by the auditors.

Due to the small sample size and limited data available, the analysis of program respondent electricity
consumption data was inconclusive.

29
 14. Recommendations

The following recommendations are provided to assist low income communities to better understand and
manage their energy use. The recommendations are focussed primarily on the refugee and new arrival
segments of low income households in the knowledge that there are a number of Australian and State
Government programs aimed at low income communities in general.

Each of the recommendations includes a scenario with indicative high level cost estimates (excluding
administration expenses).

The recommendations are for implementation Australia wide.

Recommendation 1: Education on appliance use

Description:

Educating low income communities, in particular refugees and new arrivals on how to select and use energy
efficient appliances is a key recommendation arising from this report.

Potential measures to increase appliance use awareness include the following.

Training courses (delivered through a TAFE or equivalent educational institution) on energy

efficiency offered to representatives of new arrival communities.

This provides the trainee with a qualification, greater ownership of the initiative as the trainee can
be embedded within the individual communities and information sessions can be delivered in the
language of the participants.

Information on energy-efficient appliances, including their energy efficiency rating and typical
appliance energy costs to be included in:
- pamphlets provided through council and community centres
- government and utility industry web sites.

Due to the likely language barrier, it is essential that the information is provided in the key new
arrival languages.

Proposed participants: Refugees and new arrivals

Scenario:

Assuming that the cost of a training course is $4,000 per person (course cost based on Chisholm Institute
TAFE Certificate 111 in Community Services Work: 2013 fees) then to train 100 community representatives
would cost about $0.40m per annum.

Assume that the cost of pamphlets and related publications is $0.25m per annum.

Indicative scenario cost: $ 0.65m

(per annum)

30
Recommendation 2: Provision of low cost energy efficient devices

Description:

The provision of low cost energy efficient devices such as low flow showerheads, CFL light globes, door
seals, draught stoppers and thermometers (marked with energy efficient appliance temperatures) is
recommended as an initiative that can be provided free of charge to low income households.

The initiative could be implemented through a fixed value voucher scheme (maximum of $100 per voucher)
redeemable only on specified energy-efficient devices at authorised suppliers (e.g. Bunnings).

Proposed participants: Low income households

Scenario:

If 50,000 vouchers at $100 per voucher were provided to low income households, the annual cost is of the
order of $5.00m.

Indicative scenario cost: $ 5.00m

(per annum)

Recommendation 3: Increased availability of energy audits

Description:

It is recommended that consideration is given to providing a free energy audit as part of the resettlement
program for refugees when they arrive in Australia.

The energy audit program would be voluntary and information on its availability could be provided to
potential participants when they apply for a low income health care card or as part of the resettlement
program arrangements.

Data on each visit (including a simple questionnaire) should be collected by the energy auditor and provided
to the appropriate authority on completion of the audit.

Proposed participants: Refugees

Scenario:

If this recommendation was to be implemented with 12,000 participants at a cost of $500 per audit, the
total cost would be of the order of $6.00m per annum. The audit cost is based on the Adelaide Solar City
Home Energy Assistance program audit costs.

Indicative scenario cost: $ 6.00m

(per annum)

Recommendation 4: Provision of in home displays

Description:

The provision of in home displays to enable households to monitor their energy use is considered an
important tool in facilitating longer term behavioural change. In home displays can provide timely data
enabling participants to make real time decisions on how to use their energy.

31
About 500 in home displays have been installed with Adelaide Solar City cost reflective pricing and solar
power trial participants. Regretfully, there was a quota of in home displays available under the Adelaide
Solar City program and they could not be made available to Home Energy Assistance program participants.

Proposed participants: Refugees and new arrivals.

Scenario:

The cost of in home displays based on the Deloitte Advanced Metering Infrastructure Customer Impact Study
(prepared in October 2011) is about $150 per unit. If 15,000 in home displays were provided to participants
the cost would be about $2.25m. The cost of a smart meter based on the Adelaide Solar City charges for a
Single Phase interval meter (including installation, data and related charges) is about $350 per meter per
annum. If 15,000 smart meters were provided, the cost would be $5.25m per annum.

Indicative scenario cost: $ 7.50m

(one off cost for in home displays and per annum cost for metering charges)

Recommendation 5: Provision of free energy efficient refrigerators

Description:

It is recommended that consideration is given to providing refugees with access to a grant of $1,000 per
household to purchase an energy efficient refrigerator. The rationale for providing a grant for a refrigerator
only is that it is arguably the most essential household appliance, with the added benefit that the recipient
will be able to take it with them when they change premises.

The provision of new refrigerators could be under the following guidelines.

The one off grant will only be available to refugee households under the resettlement program.

The recipient will be required to have an energy audit conducted at their premises as a
prerequisite.

The energy auditor will need to confirm that a refrigerator is required.

A voucher would then be provided to the recipient to a maximum value of $1,000, redeemable only
for a refrigerator at appliance outlets.

Proposed participants: Refugees

Scenario:

If 10,000 participant households were provided with a $1,000 voucher each year, the overall cost would be
$10.00m.

Indicative scenario cost: $ 10.00m

(per annum)

32
 14.1 Summary

A summary of the recommendations and the scenario analysis is included in Figure 14.1.

Figure 14.1: Recommendations

Scenario analysis
Recommendation No. Participant Participants Indicative
segment (No.) annual cost
($m)
Education on appliance use 1 Refugees & 100 0.65
new arrivals (trainees)

Provision of low cost energy 2 Low income 50,000 5.00

efficient devices households

Increased availability of energy 3 Refugees 12,000 6.00

audits

Provision of in home displays 4 Refugees & 15,000 7.50*

new arrivals

Provision of free energy efficient 5 Refugees 10,000 10.00

refrigerators

Note (*): Includes one off cost of In Home Displays.

33