Action On Fuel Poverty in Social Housing - 2007

Dossier
Action on Fuel Poverty

in Social Housing
September 2007
Best practice Action on Fuel Poverty in the Community and Social Housing 2007
2
Contents
I - SUMMARY 5
II - FUEL POVERTY AND WHY TAKE ACTION 6

II.1 - What is fuel poverty? 6
II.2 - Motivations for defining fuel poverty 7
II.3 - Evaluation of the main justifications for action on fuel poverty and the assumptions that underlie them 9
III - POLICY RESPONSES TO FUEL POVERTY 11

III.1 - Financial support 11
III.2 - Reducing fuel costs by competitive purchase 11
III.3 - Subsidising improvements to the energy behaviour of the building fabric 12
III.4 - Encouraging improvements in the energy behaviour of the occupiers 13
III.5 - Mechanisms for channelling the aid to the fuel poor 13
III.6 - Barriers to tackling fuel poverty at local level 14
IV - ADMINISTRATION OF FUEL POVERTY PROGRAMMES IN EUROPE AND THE US

17
IV.1 - Affordable Warmth in the United Kingdom 18
IV.2 - Affordable Warmth in Ireland 28
IV.3 - Affordable Warmth in the United States 31
IV. 4 - Conclusions regarding fuel poverty strategies 37
V - ENERGY EFFICIENT SOCIAL HOUSING 39

V.1 - Austria 39
V.2 - Germany 41
V.3 - Sweden 43
V.4 - United Kingdom 46
VI - POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING 49
VII - TEN KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRANCE 50
3
4
I - Summary
The study examines the definitions of fuel poverty and the justifications for taking
action. The classic definition of fuel poverty as those who spend more than 10% of their
income on energy is difficult to sustain. However there is a real problem of poverty and
this expresses itself both in maintaining comfort for impoverished citizens and in
preventing avoidable excess mortality in winter, particularly in those countries with
relatively mild winters. Policy programmes centred on supplying affordable warmth to
poorer citizens therefore seem to have many advantages.
Policy responses to this problem are centred on three main avenues. Firstly there is the
possibility of improving the contract conditions for energy supply, which can be the most
cost effective way of reducing energy costs. Secondly a programme can provide direct
financial aid with fuel costs for those affected which is a very expensive proposition, as
evidenced by the programmes that are administered in the US. Finally the energy
performance of the homes of the citizens affected can be improved.
This last avenue has been the subject of a number of programmes in the UK, Ireland
and US which are described in the report and have generally been successful in
reducing energy costs and improving the energy performance of houses, particularly
those in the private sector, occupied by low-income citizens. They represent an action
area approach concentrating help on areas where it is most needed. The most
successful programmes have used financial and performance obligations imposed on
the energy utilities to finance help for priority social groups and to improve the energy
performance of homes generally. It has proved a cost effective way of helping the fuel
poor.
A proportion of those affected by fuel poverty will always be housed in specially

designed or managed social housing. Such housing generally has a higher
performance that private sector housing, but can still be improved further. One policy
response to fuel poverty is to provide social housing that uses little or no energy. A
number of authorities have done just this and there are a number of examples of
passive housing across Europe. An examination of examples in Austria, Germany,
Sweden and the UK demonstrates that the concept is viable and cost effective when
new housing is concerned, however it economic viability seems yet to be proved with
the refurbishment of existing housing. All the successful designs have been based on
the use of heavy insulation and the use of heat pumps drawing heat out of the outgoing
air and using it to heat the ingoing air. This is clearly the most cost effective method
under current market conditions. Since such buildings can be within the cost limits
imposed for conventional buildings. The development of a suitable system for
classifying dwelling sustainability can be a stimulus to such improvements, both for the
resale and the rental sector.
5
II - Fuel poverty and why take action
II.1 - What is fuel poverty?
The concept of fuel poverty was developed in Britain in the late 1970s. It derives from
the observation that many people have difficulty in paying their energy bills due to their
low income, and it was concluded that for such people, the high cost of energy, which is
an essential service in a cool climate, throws such people into poverty. It is broadly
defined as not being able to afford to keep warm at a reasonable cost.
The concept was not used in the same fashion in most other countries but has been
adopted in some others, for instance Ireland. In France the term prcarit nergetique
is used, but much policy and aid is more frequently directed to the impays, a much
broader concept of those who are not able, for social reasons, to pay their energy bills.
In Britain there was need for a more precise definition. The definition that has been
adopted is that fuel poverty is:-
the situation where a household needs to spend more than 10% of its household
income (including housing benefit payments and support for mortgage interest) on all
household energy (except for energy used outside the home such as transport and
mowing the lawn) in order to adequately heat its main home.
The definition has been refined to make it more consistent, but debate still rages as to
whether, for instance, all benefit payments should be included. In Northern Ireland the
definition only includes the cost of heating the home. In the Republic of Ireland the
definition is much more flexible. The definition of adequately heating ones home has
also been defined as follows:
Regime Definition of Temperature in Temperature in No hours

regime living room other occupied heated
rooms
Standard At work or in full 21 18 9
time education
Full Occupants at 21 18 16
home all day
Partial Under-occupied 21 18 16 but for half
houses where the house only
only part of the
house need be
heated
An estimate of an acceptable heating cost is made according to regional climatic

conditions and the Standard Assessment Procedure for houses.
The use of the definition based on 10% of income has been based on estimates in the
UK that the 30% of households with the lowest incomes generally spend about 10% of
their income on energy and so therefore this level can be assumed to be a reasonable
amount. However this is a very arbitrary basis and the definition falls down as income
rises. A family which spends 10% of a small income is in a far worse position than a
family with a larger income but a home that is extravagantly expensive to heat. The
expenditure of 10% of their income may well not leave them in poverty. Real poverty is
determined by the amount available after obligatory commitments such as energy and
rent. A number of commentators have commented on this, and have suggested other
ways of assessing the concept. Even greater problems arise if one is trying to compare
the situation in different countries. Apart from the difficulties of comparing different
6
detfinitions of income, a figure of 10% of income spent on energy means very different
things in Portugal and Siberia, and would probably be excessive in the former country
and wildly optimistic in the latter region.
II.2 - Motivations for defining fuel poverty
There are a number of policy reasons why the authorities wish to tackle fuel poverty.
They are to a certain extent conflicting and the policy responses may be different. To
the extent that this is the case, there are political decisions to be made on which of
these are priorities.
One prime concern is with comfort. Many households cannot afford to adequately heat
their home, and as a result do not do so. The objective here is to maintain warmth in
poor households and this can be done by two alternative approaches:
i) Reducing expenditure:
> Improving the energy performance of the house itself, reducing energy
demand both by improved insulation and by using more efficient equipment.
> Reducing the rate paid for energy by purchasing more competitively
ii) Increasing income
> Improving the income of the household so they have the resources to pay for
heating.
Each of these solutions has its own problems.
Spending money on energy efficiency improvements may well not be cost effective,
even though it may resolve the comfort problem. Many programmes are evaluated by
measuring cost-effectiveness, but the individual householder, when estimating
investment costs, would not just evaluate the value of the investment on the basis of the
payback, but also on the basis of the improved comfort that he or she experiences.
Many poorer households pay high rates for their energy. They have little leverage since
they are small consumers, and often have low creditworthiness. If the purchase contract
can be renegotiated, they may have more funds free to spend on other necessities.
This can either be done through special rebate schemes or through special energy
purchasing programmes for the poor. Some schemes propose a fixed price for access
to the energy, with no limit thereafter to the amount of energy consumed. However as
for the second solution, there is no guarantee that even with lower costs the
householder will heat his or her home effectively.
However giving more money to the householder creates the problem that such assets
are liquid. There is no guarantee that extra money will be spent on improved space
heating. A proportion of householders in fuel poverty are there because they have
difficulty in managing their finances, and some will inevitably spend any extra income
on other desired products or services. In effect, a household need not be in defined fuel
poverty to be living in an uncomfortably cold home.
A second prime concern is to alleviate poverty. If energy costs are high, then a
household may not be able to live an acceptable lifestyle within its means, and thus will
be in poverty. The costs of energy in effect form part of the households costs that are
excessive in regard to their income.
The two alternative solutions cited for improving comfort also apply to the objective of
reducing poverty. One can either increase income or reduce expenditure. Increasing
available income makes it easier for the household to manage its money wisely but
there is no guarantee that it will do as one desires, as is always the case when
alleviating poverty. For those in fuel poverty, the marginal increase in income needed is
about 9 times larger on a proportionate basis than the decrease in energy costs.
7
A third major concern is to improve health. Indeed this has been one of the major
justifications for action on fuel poverty and has high political impact. It is noted in the UK
and Ireland that these countries have higher levels of excess winter mortality than other
countries in Europe and this is a major political issue. (see data below)
Country Proportionate Persistent Fuel Proportion of social

EWM Poverty ( source: housing in total housing
Healy from ECHP stock (%)
results) % (source: CECODHAS)
Various years 2000-
2003
Austria 0.14 6 20
Belgium 0.13 9 7
Denmark 0.12 4 19
Finland 0.10 5 16
France 0.13 10 16
Germany 0.11 5 6
Greece 0.18 32 0
Ireland 0.21 9 9
Italy 0.16 15 6
Luxembourg 0.12 5 2
The 0.11 7 35
Netherlands
Portugal 0.28 50 N.D.
Spain 0.21 31 N.D.
UK 0.18 9 21
Czech ND ND 17
Republic
Estonia ND ND 0.02
Slovakia ND ND 3.7
Poland ND ND 40*
Sweden ND ND 39*
*Includes housing cooperatives, municipal housing and low cost housing associations
ND = No data
It is argued that since exposure to lower temperatures increases susceptibility to

various illnesses (infections, heart disease, strokes), the inability of the poor to properly
heat their homes must be the cause of the higher levels of excess winter mortality.
Therefore action to ensure that the poor live in warmth is anticipated to reduce this
excess winter mortality.
The responses to improving health are the same as for the first two concerns, always
assuming that poorly heated homes are responsible for EWM (see below). The
objective is to improve comfort as a means to improving health.
A final major concern is to reduce the environmental impact of energy use. Space
heating is a major source of greenhouse emissions, responsible for around 40% of
energy use in Europe. Such an objective can only be achieved by investments and
improved energy management and so only the second of the solutions identified above
is practical to invest in energy saving or renewable technology to reduce emissions
and energy revenue costs. However reduced greenhouse emissions cannot be
guaranteed since if comfort is achieved, the increased energy needed to maintain a
level of comfort may offset the improvements in the efficiency of energy use.
8
II.3 - Evaluation of the main justifications for action on fuel poverty and
the assumptions that underlie them
The most powerful argument used in favour of justifying action on fuel poverty is its
impact on health. This is the argument with most emotional appeal who can resist the
argument that people are dying because we dont take action??
However one can pose the question whether this is a valid argument. There is, to say
the least, a considerable doubt and many argue that other factors are as important, or
more important, in explaining winter excess mortality.
Winter excess mortality is greatest in those regions of Europe with the mildest climates
the UK, Ireland, Portugal. Spain, Italy and Greece, which is the inverse of what one
would expect if cold was to blame. Furthermore, a study by Healy et. al. also shows that
the incidence of winter excess deaths is not generally well correlated with low socio-
economic status, again a finding not consistent with the idea that lack of money is the
main cause of poor heating which thus causes illness, the hypothesized causal chain
for fuel poverty. Countries which are poorer than Britain but with a severer climate, e.g.
Eastern Europe, also have lower winter excess deaths.
Why should this be the case?
Firstly it may be that in mild climates generally there is less concern about heating and
housing is less well heated. In a severe climate one makes sure that the heating is
working, and indeed in countries with district heating, typical of more severe climates,
the heating of the poor is generally protected whereas the more affluent, with larger
houses and individual heating, are perhaps more likely to have problems maintaining
warmth.
Secondly, it may be, and this is an argument put by many, that the key factor is
exposure to outdoor cold and not indoor cold. Cold stress from exposure to a cold
outdoor temperature without adequate clothing is a known health risk factor, and
western and southern countries are generally less careful about dressing warmly when
going out than those with very severe winters. This exposes their citizens to an
enhanced risk of infectious respiratory ailments and shock to the cardiac system. In
severe climates one simply does not go out lightly dressed in winter.
This discussion has not been resolved, but the general consensus now is that poorly
heated dwellings have an impact on winter excess mortality, but that it is less severe
than claimed in the past and not restricted to the poor. This is important from a policy
point of view since it affects whom one targets.
The motivation of tackling the environmental impact of energy use also has some
weak links. To reduce the environmental impact one has to reduce carbon dioxide or
particulate emissions. The problem of particulate emissions has largely been solved in
the more developed European countries but is still a problem in the former communist
bloc due to the use of solid fuel in inefficient heating systems.
However if the householder is restricting his energy use due to lack of money, they may
not actually use any less energy if they are heating a more efficient building to a proper
level. There may be an impact, but it is not assured, it all depends on the degree to
which heating was operating below the optimum level before treatment and the level of
energy efficiency improvements introduced. In general some improvement can be
expected, especially where communal heating systems are improved since in this case
there is effectively a heating system in operation that maintains heat and any
improvement in performance should produce carbon savings. However, in general,
there is no guarantee that if fuel poverty is eradicated, less energy will be used and a
9
policy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may or may not help fuel poverty.
Indeed, one can expect that the greatest greenhouse gas savings can be made in those
dwellings where energy consumption is highest, i.e. those of the highest socio-
economic groups.
Nevertheless reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the main justifications of

programmes fighting fuel poverty in the UK. It is certain that if a satisfactory standard of
heating is to be achieved, then if this is done without energy efficiency improvements it
will have a cost in carbon emissions. It is also certain that if a building performs better
and is cheaper to heat (either through insulation or a more efficient boiler), there is
more likelihood that an adequate level of heating will be maintained. But there is the
danger that the carbon savings proposed for fuel poverty programmes may be illusory.
The third major justification for tackling fuel poverty is to reduce excessive costs for the
fuel poor. Improving the performance of a building should indeed produce a reduction in
costs to the consumer and in the case of the poor, a reduction in outgoings releases
money for other purposes. However the poor lack capital for investment and if they
have to borrow at high interest rates they will have difficulty paying back the sums
concerned. If the Government takes on the responsibility of funding investment, either
via grants or direct payment, in order to solve this problem, then it may prove to be
economically more efficient to pay the higher bills of the fuel poor if the period required
to recover the investment carried out in a building is too long. The danger of course is
that funds would then be given in the form of increased benefits, and there is no
assurance that the money given in benefits to the recipients will be spent on better
heating.
The final justification for taking action on fuel poverty is to improve comfort. This has
strong arguments to recommend it. It is an affront to a civilized society that there should
be people who do not live in warmth and comfort. This could be from a variety of
reasons, poverty being one of them. But it could also be lack of awareness, a poor
credit rating despite adequate income, an inability to manage budgets effectively, or
poorly managed communal heating systems. Improving the performance of a building
will make it easier to maintain an acceptable temperature in that building and thus
should help ensure comfort. It always seems to be the comfort element that is most
commented on by the recipients of aid for fuel poverty. But action on comfort does not
only affect those falling under the official definition of fuel poverty and also includes
many with inefficient heating systems.
10
III - Policy responses to fuel poverty

There are several types of policy response to fuel poverty.
III.1 - Financial support
One could simply say these people are poor. This then implies that if they have more
funds they will be taken out of fuel poverty. So the authorities can give a grant to the
fuel poor to lift them out of fuel poverty.
There is one simple arithmetical problem if one uses the standard definition of fuel
poverty. Since fuel costs by definition constitute 10% or more of the income of the fuel
poor, to lift them out of fuel poverty by giving them more income and not affecting fuel
costs requires a grant of approximately nine times the amount by which fuel costs
exceed the fuel poverty threshold. In this case it would be much cheaper to subsidise
the supplier by paying part of the fuel bills directly to him. This way one would only need
to pay the amount by which the bill exceeds the fuel poverty threshold.
This comparison is, of course, an absurdity, but shows some of the very real political
problems engendered by a fuel poverty definition based on a percentage of income. If
the politician wishes to quote the headline rate of fuel poverty based on this definition,
he can be helped or hindered by external factors. In the late 1990s fuel poverty declined
rapidly in Britain but this was due to falling fuel prices as much as improved insulation.
Then in the period 2003-6 it tripled, again because of fuel price changes but this time in
the reverse direction.
It may well be that financial support to the fuel poor is the best solution in some
circumstances. If a building is too expensive to upgrade fully, or is protected for reasons
of historic value, and the intention is to maintain comfort for an occupier who will never
have a reasonable income, then of course the best solution may be a balance of limited
and not too expensive improvement and subsidy to cover those excess costs that still
arise. The skill is to find that balance!
III.2 - Reducing fuel costs by competitive purchase
Surveys in the United Kingdom have shown that many fuel poor and other less well off
consumers do not take advantage of the competitive purchasing arrangements that are
now in place. They may not have a bank account and most cheaper tariffs require
payment by regular bank transfer rather than cash or cheque. They may not have the
funding to pay quarterly or six-monthly bills and so choose the more expensive coin
meter arrangements. They may not be aware of the potential savings the sales
techniques of energy companies are often described as confusion marketing and even
those educated to higher degree level have difficulty understanding the balance of
tariffs and quantities.
There are savings to be made by better purchase, or group purchase. One method that
is of interest here is the US system of aggregation introduced in Cape Cod where the
local authority does the purchasing on behalf of local clients and gets the advantage of
lower prices and higher environmental quality of power. They also provide special
assistance to those with problems of paying fuel bills due to low income using the state
taxes that are usually disbursed by the utility itself. In the UK there are some schemes
promoted by utilities whereby elderly people pay a fixed sum and get whatever heat
they need. This ensures comfort within a fixed sum, but does not necessarily reduce
11
energy demand, indeed such a system actively discourages energy saving. And the
rates the occupier has to pay are not necessarily cheap.
Another approach is to advise the occupier on his opportunities for improved purchase.
This needs an individual appraisal according to individual circumstances and the rates
available in a given area. Much can now be done to select the optimum rates by on-line
computer programs, but the poor dont usually have PCs. So there is scope for offering
support in the choice of supplier. There is one competitive supplier in the UK, an
ethical non-profit organisation called EBICO, which charges the same price to coin
meter and credit clients of both gas and electricity.*
III.3 - Subsidising improvements to the energy behaviour of the building

fabric
The authorities can operate a programme which either carries out or subsidises energy
improvements in property to reduce energy use. Such improvements can either be to
improve the efficiency of the heating system or equipment or to reduce the loss of
energy through the building fabric. The objective behind the action on fuel poverty has a
significant impact here. If the objective is reducing emissions or fuel use there is
obviously an economic criterion to be considered what is the most economic means
of reducing emissions. If the prime objective is to improve comfort, the question is how
to ensure effective comfort at the optimal (not necessarily minimum) cost. If the
objective is to reduce the outgoings of the occupier, then there is a balance between
expenditure and the economic savings produced.
The value of an investment in reducing emissions or saving energy costs varies and
some investments are not profitable. Simple investments may have the most rapid
return and merit priority for instance loft insulation or cavity wall insulation. Others are
much more expensive and have a longer time of return, but may be very effective in
improving comfort (e.g. external wall insulation in solid walled houses). Each situation
needs to be considered on its individual merits.
One advantage of improvements to the energy efficiency of the building fabric is that
they are difficult to circumvent. An occupier cannot use the money for other purposes
than improving the efficiency of his dwelling, as is the case with direct subsidies for
energy costs, so that there is almost certainly some improvement in comfort and there
should be a reduction in emissions. In addition the improvements should last a
significant time, producing a prolonged impact, although this does depend on the nature
of the improvement. For instance cavity wall insulation is pretty permanent,
draughtproofing of windows and replacement of light bulbs can be relatively ephemeral.
The targets of improvements to the building stock can be of different types. They can
consist of social housing managed by institutions such as local authorities, housing
associations etc. Such a situation offers the advantages of scale in that the social
housing landlord can carry out works on a large number of properties at the same time
even if the properties are individual (for instance on estates of individual or terraced
housing), the work can be carried out en bloc.
They can consist of housing owned by private non-social landlords. Here again there
may be some savings in carrying out improvements resulting from scale if the landlord
has many properties, but it is more likely that the number of properties owned will be
relatively small and the properties may well be dispersed. Furthermore there is little
incentive for private non-social landlords to carry out such improvements since it is the
tenant that receives the benefit.
12
Finally they can consist of private owner occupied properties. Here the properties are
dispersed, in individual ownership, and the transaction costs of carrying out work can
be a considerable handicap.
III.4 - Encouraging improvements in the energy behaviour of the

occupiers
Even without improvements to the building fabric, a significant amount can be saved by
energy aware behaviour by the occupiers of dwellings often with the assistance of
automatic control systems designed to coordinate the operation of the buildings energy
systems with its use pattern. It is estimated that such savings can in general amount to
10-15% of a dwellings energy use, however in situations where a building is
unoccupied for significant periods, the introduction of time controls to regulate the
operation of heating and equipment can make more significant savings. Such action
can adapt the operational behaviour of the building to the demands of the occupiers.
III.5 - Mechanisms for channelling the aid to the fuel poor
Aid to the fuel poor can be channelled via the public or the private sector there is a
wide variety of approaches used in Europe.
The most direct method is to pay aid direct from Government. There are various ways
that this can be done for instance by a grant from a central government agency such
as Ademe or by grants from regional government offices to fund energy efficiency
improvements. The responsibility for delivering this aid may be delegated to a private
organisation, such as National Energy Action in the UK. This is unlikely to be effective if
the targets are individuals living in housing dispersed at local level, but may be an
appropriate delivery channel for large organizations such as national housing
associations. This may also be an appropriate means for delivering funding to raise
incomes if that is the solution chosen. Many national governments pay benefits directly
and it is usually sensible to coordinate the payment of different benefits.
A second channel is to pay via utilities. In many administrations there is a levy on

utility bills to pay for social benefits linked to energy. This covers a wide variety of
services energy efficiency, fuel poverty or those who cannot pay their bills, renewable
energy, education etc. Utilities have fought to retain control of how this money is used
and so some funding is often channelled via them to deserving projects. Depending on
the legislative context, the utility may be interested in maximizing carbon savings,
maximizing reductions in poverty, avoiding disconnections or maximizing market share.
One thing is clear is that the legislative context for using utilities to deliver the support is
vital, and that the utilities, like all private enterprises, will try to achieve the solutions to
their best advantage. Utilities have one great advantage that they already have contact
with householders as energy clients. But in a competitive market that contact also has a
disadvantage in that it is not a disinterested contact, and insofar as householders are
potentially profitable clients, utilities will want to serve them and maintain their custom.
In some countries utilities are also arms of the local authority and so this provides a
further complication. In a few areas of the US the utility is still private, but the energy
trader is a consortium of local authorities with a right to provide the default service and
supply energy efficiency etc. services.
The third channel is via local authorities. This has the advantage that they have
contact with all householders at local level and have a good local knowledge. They
have a responsibility for improving the standard of living of their populations and so
13
have an interest, both administrative and political, in having satisfied residents. Most
local governments have targets for the reduction of environmental impacts and poverty
and a fuel poverty strategy can form part of this. Aid can be dispensed either from local
resources, or using government resources or via fuel levies transferred to the local
authority. It can be dispensed directly from a local authority department, especially in
larger local authorities. Or it can be dispensed via an intermediary such as an energy
agency or local authority funded ngo or via a municipally owned energy company.
Finally aid can be channelled via the voluntary sector. All the other three channels
make copious use of ngos and private organizations to deliver their responsibilities.
These can be at national level or at local level, and can be straightforward ngos run by
citizens, or cooperatives of local authorities, or independent government agencies, or
consortia of government agencies and utility companies or ; the opportunities for
different structures and combinations are limitless and open-ended.
A formula supported by the European Commission is the establishment of an energy

agency at the local or regional level, usually in the form of a non-profit making structure
controlled by local authorities and local interests. But this is not the only potential
structure the one chosen depends on a number of factors including the history of the
area, the existing organizations present on the ground etc. etc.
National level ngos include organizations like the Energy Saving Trust in the UK which
helps guide the use of public benefit charges collected by the utilities (e.g. the Energy
Efficiency Commitment). These are formed by Government collaborating with other
interests such as industry and the unions as well as representatives of the general
public.
III.6 - Barriers to tackling fuel poverty at local level
One of the major problems in trying to reduce fuel poverty is the problem of privately
rented accommodation. If property is privately rented, then the tenant pays the energy
bill but the landlord pays for capital improvements and gets little benefit (perhaps only
making the property easier to let). This produces a situation where the landlord has no
real interest in improvements to reduce the energy consumption of the building and as a
result private rented accommodation includes some of the worst performing property
from an energy point of view. The situation is worse where poor tenants are concerned
since there tends to be a shortage of private sector accommodation available so there
is often limited or no pressure of competition in the rental market stimulating landlords
to install energy efficiency improvements.
There is a further problem that arises which belongs in the realm of politics. It is
politically difficult for the authorities to assist the landlord in improving the capital value
of his property out of public funds since this gives too much of the impression that
Government is helping the rich to get richer. But the tenant does not have the resources
(nor often the long term security) for it to be possible for them to carry out capital
improvements and neither do many individual private landlords who are revenue poor
but capital rich.
The second barrier to reducing fuel poverty is the dispersed nature of the target
group. When running fuel efficiency campaigns in private industry, the targets are large
individual units and each contact can produce significant savings. Furthermore private
industry is used to taking decisions and wading through the bureaucracy needed for
any investment. When dealing with multi-family housing in apartment blocks or large
social housing estates of individual houses, there are also many tenants to deal with,
but even when an apartment building is privately owned by the occupiers, there is
14
usually some collective body managing the building or some management company
that is used to bureaucracy.
However when one is dealing with individual houses of private landlords or owner
occupied property one is dealing with many, many thousands of individual properties, in
some cases tens or hundreds of thousands. Contacting all these people, getting their
agreement and the necessary legal permissions, and then actually carrying them out is
a major organizational task, and the transaction costs are very significant. The
organization of effective programmes for this target audience is therefore a major
challenge.
However even in those countries where there is a tradition of living in communal

buildings, there is a problem in approaching householders. Action within individual
properties, such as draught-proofing, promoting energy efficient lighting or trying to
change peoples behaviour inevitably has to be carried out by contacting individuals and
so involves multiple time consuming contacts.
A third problem when undertaking energy saving improvements is that action has to be
maintained. The degree of continuing support needed to maintain such programmes is
considerable. After installing new equipment this needs to be maintained. The trouble is
that this interacts with the issue of dispersion. One individual householder will generally
see to it that his boiler is actually operating otherwise he is sitting in the cold and that
tends to draw his attention, however he may not check if it is operating efficiently. He
will not be an expert and he probably will not know. The smaller the management unit,
the greater is the difficulty in maintaining efficiency. A large company should have a
specialist energy efficiency officer since energy efficiency means money, and on the
bottom line, profits, whereas only a small proportion of householders will be competent
enough to maximize their buildings efficiency.
So programmes to attack fuel poverty need to be maintained with follow up support.

This is most critical when it relates to educational programmes to engender energy
efficient behaviour. The programmes require constant awareness raising if the benefits
are not to founder in the quagmire of indifference.
Finally there is the barrier of considering cost effectiveness. It is almost a sine qua
non of government that they state publicly, and loudly, that they will consider cost
effective programmes to reduce fuel poverty.
Cost effectiveness is very valuable in assessing the efficiency of using funds to meet
one particular objective. In the case of energy efficiency, the objective is usually taken
to be the direct saving of energy costs, but it could also be the reduction of greenhouse
emissions or achieving different levels of comfort or simply the taking of people out of
the definition of fuel poverty. Therein lies the problem. As we have seen there are
several objectives involved when dealing with energy efficiency in fuel poor households.
Many factors may be involved for instance a programme of many millions of pounds
to reduce fuel poverty may in fact be followed by an increase in fuel poverty since
external factors such as rising fuel prices may nullify the benefit of the programme in
terms of the 10% of income definition.
The application of rigid cost effectiveness criteria can therefore be a major problem in
promoting some solutions. If the objective is comfort, the solution chosen will not
necessarily be cost effective in terms of saving energy. One of the most widespread
investments actually carried out is the installation of pvc double glazing. This is
definitely not cost effective in saving energy the investment cost is too great in relation
to the small but real reduction in energy use. But the improvement in comfort and the
convenience to the householder of not having to repaint the windows, means that he is
willing to invest his own money to obtain these multiple benefits. So it is essential when
15
considering cost effectiveness to look at all of the objectives and benefits and assess
whether the project is beneficial for a wide range of reasons. This is again a political
problem. At any one time in history most administrations tend to be dominated by one
concept that rules the roost. If it is saving energy then this is the objective that will
dominate and a proposal may not be cost effective on these grounds but still be
desirable.
16
IV - Administration of fuel poverty programmes in

Europe and the US
The incidence of fuel poverty across Europe varies dramatically between countries.
Comparison is difficult since the 10% of income definition is difficult to compare within
different cultural and administrative systems. For this reason a model based on
perceived problems is perhaps a better tool with which to compare countries. It is
apparent from a model of fuel poverty based on perceived fuel poverty which was
derived from ECHP data collected from a balanced sample of 60 000 households
across Europe, that the incidence of persistent fuel poverty, i.e. a persistent difficulty in
heating ones home to an acceptable level, varies greatly across Europe. Like the
winter deaths, perceived fuel poverty is GREATEST in those countries of the EU 15
with the mildest climates and the problem is worst in the mildest country of old
Europe, Portugal. This is counter intuitive but is confirmed by many studies.
It is often cited that fuel poverty is a British problem not found in Europe. This method of
evaluating the problem tends to disprove this contention. Levels of persistent fuel
poverty are, interestingly, not particularly severe in the UK and Ireland, which score
badly for excess winter deaths. Persistent fuel poverty can be classified into three
blocks of countries Scandinavia and Central Europe (D, A, L, DK, S, FIN) where the
level is under 6%, the North West seaboard (NL, B, IRL, F, UK) where the level is 7-
10%, and the Southern countries(P, E, I and EL) where the level is 15-50%.
One of the big problems in considering policies on this issue however is that the
concept of fuel poverty is a very British concept and a very British way of looking at the
problem of space heating in winter. Policies in other European countries, with the
exception of Ireland, do not tend to refer to fuel poverty. They refer to unpaid bills,
heating social housing effectively, avoiding disconnections, etc. etc. Poverty is
considered as poverty and derives from a lack of adequate resources.
Fuel poverty as currently formally defined on the basis on a mathematical relationship

between income and the costs of heating to achieve acceptable comfort levels
confounds two different issues lack of money and heating comfort. There is a strong
link between the two, they are undoubtedly not independent, but they are not the same.
In this context it is difficult to ascribe policies to different countries and it is actually very
sensible to avoid comparing fuel poverty policies as fuel poverty policies.
The factors leading people to live in poorly heated homes are varied. They include low
income, high fuel costs, poor insulation, inefficient heating equipment, inability to
manage budgets, personal choice of priorities, dependency on others and living in
inappropriate or out of scale accommodation.
A good individual example of the conceptual contortions necessary is provided by the

authors grandmother, the widow of a university professor and a diminutive woman
weighing only 40kg, who for 20 years of her widowhood lived a frugal life alone in the
former family home, a beautiful, protected fifteenth century house with 17 rooms heated
by individual fires, a cooking range and electric storage heaters. The house suffered all
the insulation and heating problems that one could possibly imagine; it was an energy
efficiency experts nightmare. It was impossible to heat the whole house properly for
any money. But the problem wasnt financial she wasnt poor and could and did heat
the kitchen where she lived most of the time comfortably, and she was not mean, she
periodically went on foreign holidays with money that she had not spent from her
pension. The problem was related to her personal choice of priorities and her
preference for a very simple lifestyle in what others would consider totally unsuitable
accommodation. She wanted to live in the family home with memories as long as she
17
could and had no concept of a different way of living than that she had lived for the
previous forty years.
Each of these factors requires their own policies, in the hope that the broad palette of
policies proposed will ultimately lead to a reduction of the condition commonly referred
to as fuel poverty and thereby a reduction in the number people who live in potentially
unhealthy discomfort.
There is therefore one key factor linking them, however, which is comfort. Government
policy in each country has to consider how to provide comfortable housing for all, and
an essential element of comfortable housing is effective heating.
This is effectively what is happening in the UK. The original headline grabbing term fuel
poverty has in practice been supplemented by more approachable terms such as
affordable warmth, and no fuel poverty programme uses the term fuel poverty to sell
their programme to the public, they all use other images : Warm Front, Warm and
Well, Warm Wales Cymru etc. This is a very telling fact.
Affordable warmth is thus a much better concept to use for describing policy than fuel
poverty. It is clear that the British schemes applying fuel poverty policy have come to
just such a conclusion it is better to look at the target you are trying to achieve rather
than trying to contort yourself to achieve an acceptable definition of the problem. Using
the term fuel poverty in this context is a bit like trying to help an archery team win a
match by saying lets find out how to avoid straying arrows rather than saying lets try to
have more bulls eyes!
Many local authority policies on affordable warmth in European local authorities are
centred on social housing or on district heating systems. Social housing and district
heating tend to be the responsibility of local authorities or local authority sponsored
organizations such as municipal companies, housing associations etc., and so tend to
be a focus of local authority attention. The proportion of households in social housing
varies greatly across Europe. (Table 1). However the problem of affordable warmth
does not stop there. Indeed the performance of social housing tends to be as good if
not better than the rental or owner occupied stock and the most pressing needs are in
these latter sectors.
IV.1 - Affordable Warmth in the United Kingdom
Programmes to tackle cold homes have a significant history in the United Kingdom and
their introduction has been coupled with steadily more stringent building standards.
The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 provides the current basis for a
programme to eliminate fuel poverty (as defined ) within 15 years. As an interim
commitment it was agreed to ensure that vulnerable households are removed from fuel
poverty by 2010 and that by this date all vulnerable households live in Decent
accommodation.
Action on energy efficiency in housing in the United Kingdom was really launched by
one particular piece of legislation, the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 which
imposed on local authorities the obligation to prepare a report on how to make a
significant reduction in energy use in the residential sector. The Minister required that
this reduction target be a 30% reduction over a ten year period. This apparently
innocuous legislation with no teeth (it only required the preparation of a report there
was no obligation to deliver results) was introduced by a private member of Parliament
but has had a profound effect on local authorities who have taken up this responsibility
enthusiastically. Government provided no resources within the legislation to implement
18
this obligation but with time the existence of the law created pressure on Government to
make funds available.
Initially funding was provided through existing programmes to improve housing. This
applied both to the social sector with funding for housing owned by local authorities and
housing associations. Housing in the private sector has been eligible for intermittent
grant aid programmes designed to install loft insulation and lagging jackets for hot water
cylinders.
With the liberalization of British energy markets, a wider range of support has become
available financed by the energy distribution companies who have to pay levies on their
income for energy efficiency purposes. These are tied to carbon saving objectives
which energy distribution companies have to achieve via programmes that save carbon
emissions (either by energy efficiency or renewables). A proportion of the funds must
be targeted to priority groups (basically those on low incomes). Energy distribution
companies that do not achieve their targets have to pay a fine.
A series of programmes have been developed to use these sources of support with
Government support channelled through the semi independent non-profit making
agency, the Energy Saving Trust. The Government scheme was originally called the
Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (and it is still called this in Wales). This was replaced
in England by Warm Front in 2000. This scheme is directed to families in receipt of
benefits, those retired and those who are chronically sick and provides grants of up to
5000 towards new central heating systems and/or insulation. However a problem was
noted in actually getting take up of this generous grant package.
IV.1.1 - The Energy Saving Commitment

Since 2002 all energy distribution companies with more than 50000 clients have been
required to recover a levy per household and per fuel supplied, the Energy Efficiency
Commitment, which is used to improve efficiency in housing, both public and private.
The obligation is on the energy supplier to provide a fixed amount of energy savings,
and they can do this in the most cost effective manner they can devise with the cost
recovered from their customers. At least half of this funding is intended to be directed at
priority groups. These consist of those families in receipt of certain state benefits
including aid for rent and local taxes (housing and council tax benefit), low income
(income support, low income child tax credit, low income working tax credit, state
pension credit, income based job seekers allowance), and disability (attendance
allowance, various disability allowances and benefits). Thus it is clear that the intention
is to target those for whom energy costs are a major financial burden, i.e. the fuel poor.
The first phase of EEC (2002-5) achieved carbon savings of about 360 000 tonnes
annually and the second phase, 2005-8), is expected to achieve carbon savings of
about 620 000 tons annually. A third phase (2008-11) is expected to deliver about 0.9-
1.2M tonnes of carbon savings per annum.
Energy companies are therefore obliged to try to achieve two things at once energy
savings, and action among the priority groups which are basically the poorer members
of society. In addition Government has a target of eliminating fuel poverty, as they
define it (needing to spend more than 10% of net income on energy to effectively heat
ones home) by 2015.
Energy companies are expected to work in cooperation with social housing associations
and local authorities to deliver their savings. They have run a series of calls to provide
services in specific areas using EEC funding and local authorities have been actively
involved in proposing programmes to the companies designed to deliver the desired
energy savings and targeting of priority groups. Areas with large numbers of residents
19
in the priority groups are attractive to those energy companies wanting to meet their
targets.
There are different potential targets for action and the choice of target is affected by
various considerations:
It is easier to work with owners of large stocks of housing, such as local councils or
housing associations, since they offer the advantages of scale and the associated
transaction costs are much reduced. Therefore there are programmes for improving
efficiency in social housing which often target the two most cost effective investments in
terms of energy reduction per GBP invested, loft insulation (to the current standard of
270mm) and cavity wall insulation.
Owners of social housing are obliged by Government to achieve Decent Homes

standard by 2010. In 2000 over 1.5 million social homes did not meet this standard, and
one of the main problems was failure to meet the requirement to provide a reasonable
degree of thermal comfort. This should be a programmable central heating system and
appropriate levels of insulation.
However tenants of social housing tend to be in housing that is already relatively

efficient from an energy performance point of view since, being easier to tackle, these
houses have generally already been upgraded. The most serious problems arise in the
private rented and owner occupier sectors.
Owner occupiers may be rich in capital but poor in revenue. Therefore it is not always
easy to persuade them to invest hard earned cash into undertaking improvements.
They also now represent the majority of householders in the UK (currently over 65%),
so it is impossible to imagine an effective programme without involving them.
Finally there is the private rented sector. The landlords have little incentive to invest in
these houses since they get no return themselves on improvements, the energy
efficiency benefits accruing to the tenants. The only real attraction is improved
rentability with little impact on actual rental yields. But a significant number of poor
people living on benefits occupy private rented housing so they represent a real priority
group.
Previous programmes to tackle housing energy efficiency in these houses have always
run into the problem that it is difficult to generate interest among householders. The
target population is dispersed in many, many thousands of homes and there is no
simple method of gaining attention. It has been found that the most effective technique
is to go directly to all the target householders in a region in a mass survey which
assesses properties for the ease by which insulation measures could be installed and
offers free or cut price insulation improvements to those interested. This approach was
piloted in the Warm Zone programme which is now found in many areas nationally and
is also found under another guise in Wales as Warm Wales.
IV.1.2 Examples in United Kingdom

IV.1.2.1 - Warm Zones
Despite longstanding awareness of the problems of fuel poverty and the large number
of people living in cold poorly heated homes, uptake of the available grant schemes
was not good and many homes remained unimproved. In particular there were areas of
concentrated poor energy performance often coupled with areas of general deprivation.
Warm Zones were a concept designed to get over this problem. The idea was to get all
the interested parties in a given area working together to deliver a package of measures
to improve domestic energy efficiency. An intensive campaign was proposed in which
20
each house in the target area would be visited and assessed and the occupants
informed of the measures available to improve their homes energy efficiency. Those on
various social security benefits would be able to get certain measures installed free of
charge. A range of financing sources would be used from among the consortium of
partners, but the lions share of the funding came from local authorities in the target
areas and from the energy distribution companies that sponsor the programmes and
are obliged to meet certain carbon emissions savings targets. The first Warm Zones
were established in 2001 and operated until 2004 in the municipalities of Stockton,
Newham, Sandwell, Northumberland and Hull. A sixth Warm Zone, Redcar and
Cleveland, commenced during the programme and finished in 2005.
These pilots were really a quite exceptional example of Government trying to get policy
delivery right. Each of the zones adopted a different management structure and at the
end of the project the management of the different zones and their achievements were
assessed in a government funded evaluation by an independent specialist in delivering
energy efficiency at local level1. Following on from this assessment conclusions were
drawn about the best management model to be adopted so that future Zones could be
managed in the light of known best practice.
What was really admirable about the assessment was that real criticism was made of
those management structures that performed less well and an attempt was made to
understand why so that the pitfalls could be avoided in future projects. We all know of
the tendency to present each project with rose coloured spectacles for political reasons
(after all no politician wants to show that his pet project didnt actually work well in
practice).
The basic service provided in the programme is as follows
Element What it involved

Set up Setting up structures and management systems
Finding resources
Developing the assessment process
Developing marketing
Partnership Each project had a local partnership between local authorities, service
Working providers (e.g energy efficiency and benefits advice centres), health
authorities, insulation installers and energy distribution companies.
Assessment The key element of the approach. Door to door visits are made to the
homes in the target area to estimate income and fuel costs and thereby
fuel poverty. Potential insulation improvements and entitlement to
additional benefits and grants are considered on the basis of this
information.
Referral Refers householders to various forms of help available.
Hard Help is provided to install energy efficiency measures, either by doing the
measures work directly or by directing the people to other organizations who do the
work for them.
Soft Advice is provided to householders to ensure that they were receiving all
measures the benefits to which they are entitled.
Integration This mostly consists of extending the number of beneficiaries by
of hard and including aid to those fuel poor not eligible under existing schemes or
soft those who are not fuel poor.
measures
1 Warm Zones external Evaluation Report Centre for Sustainable Energy/National Energy Action
21
In the pilot programme the service was supplied by several different management
arrangements.
Approach Zones using What it involved

this approach
Full control Stockton Direct management of the different elements and direct
delivery of the energy efficiency improvements.
Facilitation Sandwell, The Zone staff help households get access to the existing
Northumberland programmes each of which continues to be managed as
previously. Sandwell used installers of energy efficiency
improvements to carry out the assessments,
Northumberland primarily used its own staff with a little
help from the installers.
Service Hull, Key Zone functions are contracted out to other providers.
management
Area Newham Two area managers delivered the programme in different
Management parts of the target area. Installers were used to provide
free assessments. As the Zone was part of the local
authority it could use benefit information in the local
authority records and they were thus able to develop a
desktop assessment model which identified non fuel poor
households who could therefore be eliminated from the
assessment work.
The evaluation was quite emphatic. The objective was to remove 50% of those in fuel
poverty from fuel poverty. This proved much more of a challenge than had been
anticipated. On average the Zones removed about 7% of the households in fuel poverty
from the official definition. But this varied dramatically from 2% in Hull where everything
was delegated to outside service deliverers, to 23% in Stockton where everything was
done in house. The full control approach used by Stockton was by far the most cost
effective, but it should be noted that the measures were being applied to a smaller stock
of fuel poor households than in the other Zones.
Households removed
from fuel poverty Hull Newham N'land Sandwell Stockton All WZs
Households in fuel
poverty 21,340 24,869 20,097 29,637 13,110 109,053
Households removed
from fuel poverty 447 1,120 872 2,345 2,998 7,782
% fuel poor removed
from fuel poverty 2.1% 4.5% 4.3% 7.9% 22.9% 7.1%
Households removed
from severe FP 119 271 155 563 809 1,917
% severe fuel poor
removed from severe
FP 2.7% 5.9% 5.4% 9.9% 37.4% 9.7%
A number of factors prevented the Zones from achieving their 50% target. The chief
among these were:
> not completing all the assessment programme in the time available
> a substantial number of households identified as fuel poor by Zones did not
meet the eligibility criteria of the mainstream energy efficiency schemes and if
there was no other funding for ineligible households, these could not be
helped further at the next referral stage
> large Zone variations in the level of resources available for hard and soft
measures
> the measure packages delivered did not have sufficient impact to remove
many households from fuel poverty.
22
It was estimated that Warm Zones removed about three times as many people from fuel
poverty as would have been the case in a business as usual scenario (BAU). The
additional impact achieved by the Stockton and Sandwell Warm Zones was the most
significant, delivering respectively more than 7 and 2.5 times the BAU amount.
However, in addition to their effectiveness in removing households from the emotively

termed fuel poverty, the Zones were effective in launching a programme of energy
efficiency activity in the whole of the target area, including those households that were
not eligible for free help. In effect the process of making home visits had a big impact on
the take-up of improvements generally.
The conclusion of the study was that the direct management approach employed by
Stockton, where they delivered the grant aided works themselves, was the most
effective, but that a facilitating approach as used in Sandwell and Northumberland was
also cost effective (the lower performance in Northumberland was probably in part
related to the difficulties of dealing with a wide rural area). The factors that contributed
to this were not simply the management structure, but also a number of other things.
The Zones depended on being able to ensure that there was a good follow on from the
assessment of need, to referral for installation and then the effective reduction of
energy costs below fuel poverty level by the measures installed.
One vital need was to carefully

plan the establishment of the zone
before it started i.e. an initial
strong commitment to the zone by
the host local authority. Some
Zones spent a full year getting the
assessment procedure in place.
A second important factor was the
availability of funds. Stockton had
obtained the funds from the
Energy Efficiency Commitment
and the local authority at the start
of its activities it only had to get
on and deliver the goods.
Sandwell could tap into local
regeneration funding. The other
Zones had to fight all the way to
get funding, and needed to
demonstrate success to get the
funds that they needed to get
success a classic no-win
situation.
The next phase of the Warm Zone Programme

When the Warm Zones programmes were complete activity continued in the Warm
Zone areas. The Zones in Stockton and Redcar and Cleveland were then redefined
Comfort Zones and a high level of activity was maintained. Further Zones were
established in Newcastle and Neath Port Talbot which will shortly reach the end of their
programme and more recently further Zones have been established in Wrexham, East
London, Birmingham, Gateshead and Kirklees.
23
IV.1.2.2 - Warm Wales - Neath Port Talbot and Wrexham

Warm Wales is Wales first Warm Zone and it is planned to be the first of a continuing
programme of Zones in Wales.
National Grid Transco wished to develop a larger affordable Warmth programme to

meet its commitments. It had already set up the Stockton, Redcar and Cleveland and
Newcastle Zones and was keen to transfer its successful experience to Wales. A new
non profit company, Warm Wales Cymru Gynnes Ltd was established to get the
programme running. A considerable amount of negotiation was necessary to get the
scheme set up, but by the time of the launch in June 2004 all the financing and
management structures were in place.
A consortium was established with the Neath Port Talbot Borough Council, Warm
Wales Ltd., Eaga Partnership2, the Welsh Assembly Government and the utility npower
to tackle a concentration of fuel poverty in the Neath Port Talbot area. Neath Port
Talbot has a population of about 150 000 and 62000 households.
The local authority area covers the industrial towns of Neath and Port Talbot (noted for
its steelworks) and deep valleys noted for their coal mining history. Much of the housing
was contructed to meet the demand of the coal and steel industries for labour and
comprises terraced housing with poor energy efficiency. The area has a number of
centres of deprivation, in particular in the Upper Afan Valley and the Upper Swansea
Valley. Approximately 53% of the households in the area belong to categories which
are considered priority households by the Government.
The consortium had as its objectives to:

> Reduce cold related death and illness in the area
> Assess the energy efficiency needs of 80% of the housing stock of the
borough.
> Create 50 local jobs lasting for at least 5 years.
> Raise energy efficiency in housing to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard
> Encourage additional claims for benefits from those households that are
eligible
> Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fuel use
> Work with the voluntary sector
Funding for a three year programme was obtained from npower, a UK utility that is a
subsidiary of the German multi-national, RWE, and from the National Grid Transco,
which runs the national gas and electricity transport grids. An office was set up on a
new industrial estate in the area. It is anticipated that in total around 10M (15M) will
be spent by npower over the three year period as part of their contribution to their
Energy Efficiency Commitment.
The main programme involves an assessment programme. This is organized in an

agreed order, with those areas with the poorest districts being tackled first and the most
prosperous last. In the initial contact a prepaid reply card is left with the householder
asking them to specify a time when they are available and three attempts are then
made to contact the householder, or a self assessment form is left with them.
There were problems once the programme was announced in that local ward
councillors lobbied to get their areas brought forward in the programme. However such
pressures were resisted to ensure that the priority areas of deprivation got treated early
on in the process, so permitting the most thorough treatment of those areas.
2 An employee owned company which specializes in managing schemes to bring help to low income households.
24
As the programme proceeded it was decided to speed up the assessments so that all
the districts could be visited well before the end of the funding period. This was
completed in October 2006 and the final 8 months of the project were then available to
fill in the gaps and visit people who were missed out or difficult to contact in the initial
rounds.
An appraisal is made of the house being visited and the help that may be available. A
scheme run by the Welsh Assembly, HEES, will provide help of up to 2700 (5000)
towards the installation of insulation or gas central heating (or oil where gas is not
available) in those households receiving certain specified benefits. If householders are
eligible for such grants, they are directed towards Eaga which is responsible for this
scheme. Householders who are not eligible for help as a priority household and living in
suitable accommodation are offered loft insulation and/or cavity wall insulation at a
special subsidised price (149 (225) per measure).
If the householder is eligible for help or wishes to participate in the able to pay
scheme, a surveyor is sent out to assess the work required and arrange installation.
There is special cooperation between the scheme and the local authority which is itself
responsible for a large social housing stock. The Council is putting in its own funds in
collaboration with the scheme to upgrade all its housing to a national comfort and
efficiency decent homes standard and similar arrangements are made with housing
associations.
Warm Wales has also carried out a number of other

projects to improve conditions for residents. One
objective has been to widen gas supplies since this
is the most flexible heating fuel with the lowest
carbon emissions/kWh. A number of gaps were left
in the gas supply network when gas mains were
brought in, and these have been filled in at a much
lower cost to the resident being connected than is
normally the case (600/client instead of 900-
1500). Another trial was made of an air source heat
pump in a difficult to treat house in a remote
community.
One problem that has been raised as a result of this

massive insulation campaign is the widespread
problem of corroded wall ties in cavity walls. This
problem, which costs about 2000 per house to
treat, can make it impossible to install cavity wall
Photo rt. Assessment form completed by insulation, but at the same time the remedial work
one of the contractors involved in itself is not eligible for grant aid.
carrying out assessments
Warm Wales has expanded the action they are carrying out in Neath Port Talbot to a
new area, Wrexham in North Wales where a similar project, also financed by npower,
started in September 2006. This area is richer than Neath Port Talbot and only 40% of
the households fall into the priority groups, so it will provide an interesting comparison.
Approaches to other large urban areas have proved more difficult but are continuing.
One concern for the future is that the utilities are becoming reticent in funding more
projects since the savings per spent are becoming smaller as all the easier targets
have been treated.
25
Contact details
Jeremy Nesbitt
Warm Wales - Cymru Gynnes
BEP HQ
Baglan Energy Park
Seaway Parade
Port Talbot
SA12 7AZ
Tel. +44 1639 825960
Fax. +44 1639 825971
Steve.adams@wwnpt.com
IV.1.2.3 - Kirklees Warm Zone

Kirklees is one of the latest round of Warm Zones which started operation in February
2007. Kirklees is an urban authority in the North of England. The area is typified by
dispersed urban settlements in a hilly area with three main towns, Huddersfield, Batley
and Dewsbury and a total population of 395 000 living in 159 000 households of whom
it is estimated 45 000 are in fuel poverty.
The three year Warm Zone programme is funded with money from several utilities
Scottish Power, National Grid, and British Gas in order to help meet their Energy
Efficiency Commitment and it broadly follows the same model as the other Warm
Zones, with a central Warm Zone office carrying out assessments of households. The
objective is to ensure that all homes in the borough meet the national decent homes
standard, and like Neath Port Talbot they have set a high target of assessing 80% of
the homes. The procedure is identical with three attempts to contact the householders,
after which the assessors leave a self assessment form. However, in contrast to Neath
Port Talbot, where many assessments are carried out by the contractors themselves,
the doorstep assessments are all carried out by the Warm Zone staff which then refers
the house to a contractor.
The programme is different in one other important respect. Like in Neath Port Talbot,
the local authority has topped up the budget with its own money. However in Kirklees
the amount provided is sufficient so that the basic services provided cavity wall
insulation and loft insulation, can be provided free of charge for every private sector
household in the borough (i.e. about 82% of the households in the borough). In addition
each household will be provided with free low energy light bulbs.
Like other Warm Zones, there will be a benefits advice service to ensure people are
claiming all the benefits to which they are entitled. Those eligible for help with
improvements to their heating systems under the Governments Warm Front scheme
will also be identified and helped to steer their way through the application process. The
provision of benefits advice has been organised via a partnership of four organisations
the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB - a national ngo providing free advice to citizens in
difficulty), the Government Dept of Work and Pensions and two local authority
departments, - social services and housing. The CAB acts as the clearing house
through which advice is channelled and referred to other benefit providers. The
organisation has used its participation in the Warm Zone to enable it to apply for grants
for more staff to fulfil this function.
Kirklees are taking the opportunity provided by the fact that they are contacting all the
private sector households in the borough to offer competitively priced heating systems
and renewable energy systems to able to pay residents. The Warm Zone also hopes
in due course to be able to find Council funding to provide grants and/or a loan scheme
for new renewable energy investments.
26
In addition Kirklees Warm Zone is cooperating with the Fire Service to carry out a fire
safety check, with the water utility to provide water conservation advice, with the local
Police to carry out a home safety check and with an organisation called Carers
Gateway to provide help to those caring for others. The Warm Zone is taking the
opportunity to visit the local authoritys own social housing owned by an in-house
organisation Kirklees Neighbourhood Homes, of which 95% are believed to already be
at the decent homes standard. Homes which dont meet the standard will be assessed
to ensure that the necessary work is carried out. Kirklees has already been active in
installing solar systems on social housing. It is a partner in a project funded under the
EUs Fifth Framework Programme that has installed solar PV on social housing in the
borough, both owned by the municipality (at Fernside, Orchard View, Moorlands and
Castle Granges and Primrose Hill (this last also includes solar thermal)) and also by a
housing association (Sackville Street). These are retrofit installations and the amount of
energy supplied varies according to the houses concerned. The average installation is
about 1kW per property and the energy supplied represents a relatively small proportion
of an average demand (about 750kW/kWp).
Contact
Sally Kelling
Kirklees Warm Zone,
Kirklees Council
Environment Unit
23 Estate Buildings
Railway Street
Huddersfield HD1 1JY
Tel. +44 1484 223568
sally.kelling@kirklees.gov.uk
IV.1.2.4 - SHARE
(www.socialhousingaction.com)
This European Union funded project started in 2006 and is designed to improve
exchanges between bodies involved in social housing in 8 different European countries
with the objective of reducing domestic energy consumption in social housing. It is led
by the Severn and Wye Energy Agency in Gloucestershire, UK.
A key idea behind the project is that it would be easier to improve energy efficiency in
social housing if there was better coordination between the key players and better
information among the social housing tenants and housing managers. Quarterly forums
are being held in each country including all the main players involved in social housing
from both the tenant and property owner side.
In addition each country is promoting an awareness raising programme directed at

tenants and housing managers. This is delivered by each country in the manner that
seems most appropriate in the UK for instance stress is being put on distributing
leaflets and flyers, printing beer mats promoting the programme, and writing articles in
tenants magazines. In the UK three themes have been chosen:
> Waste your money on something else showing that there are various ways
of wasting money and using excessive energy is something that you could
avoid.
> What do you spend you money on? suggesting that it is better to waste
money on enjoying yourself than paying for unneeded energy,
> Dear Vera an agony aunt column in the tenants newspaper.
27
Other partners are trying other original ideas for instance the French partner
(Prioriterre, Haute Savoie) plans theatre performances in social housing areas.
A third element in the programme is the promotion of training for residents and housing
managers. This can emphasise the value of selecting the best value energy supply
contract from among the many on offer or how energy aware behaviour and product
selection can reduce energy use and costs.
Contact
Kaye Welfare
Severn and Wye Energy Agency
Unit 6/15 The Mews
Brook St.,
Mitcheldean GL17 0SL
Glos., United Kingdom
Tel +44 1594 545360
IV.2 - Affordable Warmth in Ireland
Ireland has followed the United Kingdoms lead in giving considerable attention to fuel
poverty in its policy making. Excess winter mortality in Ireland is even higher than in
Great Britain, and the level of fuel poverty has been estimated by Healy at Trinity
College, Dublin as 17.9% in 2001. This amounts to about 227,000 households out of
1.2 million of whom about 62000 households experience persistent fuel poverty. Fuel
poverty is more loosely defined in Ireland as an inability to heat ones home effectively
and at affordable cost. Ireland does not apply a strict definition regarding a need to
spend more than 10% of household income although this measure is used as an
indicator.
Ireland is remarkable in its housing tenure structure in that 81% of housing is owner
occupied, with only 9% of households living in social housing. However some of the
groups most likely to fall in fuel poverty are overwhelmingly found in social housing. For
instance, lone parents are nearly two and a half times more likely to be in fuel poverty
than families with two parents, with over one quarter of lone parent families being
affected, and 72% of lone parents living in local authority housing. There is a significant
proportion of the population, 13.6% in 2002, that still dont have central heating and
these are mainly found in the owner occupied and private rented sectors, and among
the elderly who are a group particularly at risk of fuel poverty.
Policy on fuel poverty has followed that of the UK, but is much less well funded. It has
taken some time and a lot of lobbying to get fuel poverty considered as an issue. Part of
the problem is the approach to heating in Ireland.
A voluntary body, Energy Action Ireland, was set up 18 years ago to lobby on energy
and poverty issues and has fought to promote improvements in this field. As a result
fuel poverty is now considered an important political issue and is included in all policy
documents. The association has run its own fuel poverty alleviation programmes
promoting a range of insulation measures for affected households.
Action on fuel poverty in Ireland has concentrated on the social housing stock which
only represents less than 10% of the Irish housing stock. There are however critical
problems in the private rented and owner occupied housing sector. Many houses are
solid walled with no scope for cavity wall insulation and a large proportion of houses do
28
not have central heating installed, being heated by individual room heaters or open
fires.
Action on fuel poverty is led by the national energy agency, Sustainable Energy Ireland
(SEI). Responding to concern about fuel poverty, SEI started a Low Income Housing
Programme to install energy efficiency measures which has operated over the perod
2000 2006 and which has an overall gross budget of 7.7 M euros. This has run the
Warmer Homes Scheme following a call for tender in 2003, and this programme is
currently in operation.
The Warmer Homes scheme currently has 10 community based organisations being
funded to deliver the Scheme at local level in Ireland. Each organization is being
offered up to 150,000 euro annually to carry out programmes in their area (together with
a one-off start up grant of 25000 euros). The objective of the first phases of the scheme
was to deliver energy efficiency improvements to 18000 homes throughout Ireland by
2006. Individual organisations will improve around 200-500 homes annually depending
on size and population density of the target area.
The organisations delivering this service are required to identify the target households;
in the private rented and owner occupied sectors, survey them and arrange for the
installation of loft insulation, draught-proofing, hot water cylinder lagging, low energy
lamps and, in some areas, cavity wall insulation as part of the programme. They also
provide an energy advice service and collect data on the energy efficiency of the
housing stock.
Grant aid itself is delivered directly by the community organisation involved. However
the management of the delivery by the community organisations is being mentored by
Eaga partnerships of the UK, an organisation which has long experience of delivering
similar schemes in the UK and which has a contract to provide advice and monitor
delivery.
However other initiatives managed by other arms of Government tackle the problem
from a different viewpoint. Additional help is available from the Irish Health Board which
is designed to improve the houses of elderly residents to ensure good community
health. In addition local authorities run schemes which provide grants for disabled
people and for essential repairs to homes, the objective being to maintain a reasonable
quality housing stock for the future.
There is help provided via the benefit system specifically designed alleviate poverty
caused by high energy costs. The Government provides a fuel benefit for 259,000
social security recipients. This is worth 9/week to the recipient (total cost 80M p.a.).
In addition there is a scheme to provide a free standing charge and 1800 kWh of
electricity annually to needy citizens.
There is a separate aid scheme designed to upgrade the performance of social housing
called NAPS. This comes in two phases, the first of which is intended to deliver central
heating to all elderly residents in social housing by a target date of 2007 and the second
which is designed to deliver central heating to all social housing by 2010.
IV.2.1 - The Dublin Metropolitan Region

One third of the population of the Irish Republic lives in the Dublin metropolitan area
which is governed by four separate county authorities, the City of Dublin, South Dublin,
Fingal and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. Action in Dublin has concentrated on the local
authority owned social housing sector. When the City investigated its stock in the early
1990s it found that about 70% of its tenants had difficulty in paying fuel bills, and so
were in fuel poverty. Pressure on the Government resulted in the introduction of a
29
scheme to aid those in need by fuel subsidies, but this alleviated the symptoms at high
recurrent cost and didnt treat the cause.
Even though insulation levels are often rather poor, the main problem turned out to be
the heating equipment used. Over 50% of houses had an open coal fire with a back
boiler which was a very inefficient heating system. So the most important investment
needed to improve the situation is to install new central heating, with a preference for
gas central heating. Programmes to upgrade local authority owned housing have
proceeded rapidly and, for instance, South Dublin plans to have installed gas central
heating into all 7600 dwellings in its ownership by 2008, making use of central
government housing refurbishment and regeneration funding programmes.
As far as the Warmer Homes Scheme was involved, two organisations were chosen to
manage the scheme. In the City itself the majority of houses either have solid walls or
are constructed with a hollow block containing an individual cavity. It is impossible to
install cavity wall insulation in such properties and so the programme, managed directly
by Energy Action, concentrates on loft insulation and draught proofing. In the outer
suburbs however many homes are constructed with traditional cavity walls and so
cavity wall insulation is also offered by the contractor, Clondalkin Heat and Insulation
Partnership (CHIP), a local community enterprise which specialises in training the
unemployed to install insulation in buildings. .
Contact
Charles Roarty
General Manager
Energy Action Ireland
IDA Unit 14,
Newmarket
Dublin 8, Ireland.
Tel: +353 1 454 5464
E-Mail: info@energyaction.ie
30
IV.3 - Affordable Warmth in the United States

The Federal Government introduced two main programmes to fight fuel poverty in the
1970s. The term weatherization is used in the United States to cover the improvement
of the energy performance and comfort of buildings by improving insulation, ventilation
and air-tightness and updating equipment.
The Weatherization Assistance Programme (WAP) has been in place since 1976 and
provides assistance to low income families in improving the energy efficiency of their
homes.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programme (LIHEAP) has been in place
since 1981 and provides assistance to low income families to enable them to pay their
utility bills. Together these provide the most widespread and significant help to low
income families in the US. WAP has aided 5.5 million homes over its 30 year existence
and LIHEAP delivers income benefits of about $1700M annually across the US.
IV.3.1 - Affordable Warmth in Massachusetts

Individual states can supplement these Federal programmes with their own resources
and Massachusetts has been one of the most generous States in this regard. Most
States only meet the minimum eligibility criterion imposed by the Federal Government
applicants must have an income below 150% of the poverty threshold. In
Massachusetts applicants can have an income below 200% of the poverty threshold
and grants supply between 22% and 42% of the fuel costs of the eligible applicants,
one of the highest proportions in the US. An example of this is the Fuel Assistance
service provided by Keyspan Energy.
In addition individual utilities deliver their own programmes under the liberalization
legislation in force in each state using funding recovered from the customers through a
charge on the utility bill, and in other areas local government can aid their citizens. For
instance, the City of Boston runs its own special programme for those outside the usual
eligibility criteria.
The City of Bostons Heatworks Programme

http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/hos/A_HeatWorks.asp
This programme is designed to help elderly households to prevent them getting into
difficulties heating their home in winter. It is sponsored by the Citys Department of
Neighbourhood Development in conjunction with a utility, Keyspan Energy and an ngo,
Action for Boston Community Development. The services are provided to home owners
(including owners of multi-family buildings with up to three dwellings in addition their
own) whose income is below 80% of the median family income (i.e. about $53000), so it
applies to a wider income range than most other programmes. In addition to replacing
broken down heating with a modern, more efficient system, it will undertake home
insulation and draught-proofing, (weatherization in US parlance), energy audits and
technical assistance..
However in general municipal utilities in the state are very small and have less
comprehensive DSM programmes than the investor owned utilities. Many such utilities
offer a reduction in the electricity bill to people on certain welfare programmes. Other
State programmes include a programme, RAFT, to help people avoid homelessness
which, among other benefits, pays off utility arrears.
The WAP and local level programmes funded by the utilities or State or local authorities
are delivered on their behalf via local community action agencies. These community
action agencies were set up in 1964 as a result of an initiative by President Lyndon
31
Johnson to create a War on Poverty and are Federally funded by a Community

Services Block Grant from the US Federal Department of Health and Human Services.
They are therefore specifically targeted at helping low income residents, in particular
families and to preventing homelessness. They are based in local communities and can
deliver action at a much more local level than the large utility and State structures.
The State of Massachusetts also delivers the Heating Emergency Assistance Retrofit
Task Weatherisation Assistance Programme (HEARTWAP) which is a programme
designed to help low income clients (also defined as below 200% of the poverty level
income) to carry out emergency repairs when their heating breaks down. The level of
assistance varies from simple repairs to a boiler replacement. An additional fund is
provided for clients who are not eligible under the above programmes. It is called the
Good Neighbour Energy Fund and is funded by the local utilities, both municipal and
investor owned. The fund, administered on the utilities behalf by the Salvation Army, is
not large and has provided an average of about $0.5M since its foundation in 1985.
IV.3.2 - The Cape Cod Compact

However a number of local authorities in the Cape Cod area felt that this was not
enough and they have gone further. Massachusetts has been one of the pioneering
States in the US that has introduced the possibility of aggregation of the demand of
small customers by local authorities in the area. This process helps all customers by
obtaining competitive prices for energy supply and therefore providing attractive retail
prices for electricity for small customers in their area, but also allows them to help low
income customers as, like any other utility, they are able to run their own energy
efficiency programmes, including low income programmes.
The basic problem seen by the advocates of aggregation is as follows. Small customers
are market followers, and individual small customers are unable to make the extremely
complex calculations necessary to evaluate the different offers of the energy utilities.
Utilities understand this and have adopted confusion marketing making the evaluation
even more complicated. As a result the vast majority of small customers in the US take
no action and stay with the incumbent utility.
Local authorities in areas where aggregation is in operation can set up a non-profit

structure to which all customers in their area are allocated unless they opt out. The new
structure can then act as a utility purchasing current on the open market, using its own
selection criteria (including the environmental quality of the current) and reselling it to
their customers. Since the structure is non-profit and is bidding for a significant supply
(in Cape Cod there are just under 200 000 customers), it can usually undercut the
commercial rates on offer by its rivals, so saving its customers money. It can also adopt
its own charging scheme, so for instance offering poor customers an equitable price for
the current they consume. In this sense it has much in common with the non profut
utility Ebico in the UK, although the latter was set up to meet a religious commitment to
social justice rather than as a public sector initiative.
To establish an aggregation scheme, the local authorities have to approve and vote to
participate, and may have to have a local referendum (although this does not appear to
have been needed in the Cape Light Compact area where the proposal was presented
to open meetings of residents of the towns concerned). In the Cape Cod/Marthas
Vineyard area 15 local authorities initially agreed to set up the Compact in anticipation
of the States deregulation legislation passed in December 1997; they were particularly
concerned that their customers paid some of the highest rates in the State and country
for their power which was supplied by the incumbent utility, Nstar. The authorities
established the Compact by an Intergovernmental agreement signed in May 1998. Six
further authorities agreed to participate in the scheme the following month.
32
The Compact succeeded in obtaining favourable rates for the supply of power, and
although to date they have not been able to include renewable energy in the general
supply, they have developed a premium product CLC Green for those wanting to
purchase renewable electricity. This is used by 1.88% of the client base, the highest
rate for any supply area in Massachusetts.
The Cape Light Compact has run its own energy efficiency programme in conjunction
with local ngos such as the Housing Assistance Corporation which supports the
provision of affordable housing. The programme spent $1.69M in 2006 of which
$313000 was on its Low Income programme. The general energy efficiency programme
offers free comprehensive home energy audits for both homeowners and tenants in
single family and multi family accommodation. As a result of the audit CLC
may replace light bulbs and install water saving devices, or replace an inefficient
refrigerator with a new highly efficient one or a waterbed mattress with a regular one.
They will also look for opportunities in conjunction with state and federal agencies to
insulate the home.
The Low Income new construction programme also helps social housing organizations
building new affordable housing or carry out major refurbishment to existing units. The
aid provided includes both design advice and financial support for new investment. In
particular the programme provides grants to support the installation of Energy Star
rated appliances including refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioning and
dehumidifying equipment, lighting fixtures and washing machines. The programme also
commissions and tests new air conditioning systems to ensure that they are suitably
efficient, and if the home meets the minimum Home Efficiency Rating of 86, the
programme will provide a free energy certificate so that the development can be funded
by a favourable rate energy efficient mortgage.
A number of projects have carried out in social housing funded by the CLC. One of
these was carried out in Sea Street Extension Apartments in Hyannis. This housing
complex for elderly residents is owned by the Barnstable Housing Authority. An
investment of $175 000 will produce savings of about $20 000 per year, a payback of
just under 9 years.
The Housing Assistance Corporation carried out the improvements and met individually
with each of the 72 residents, making recommendations for improvements on a room-
by-room basis depending on the actual lifestyle and requirements of each of the
residents. The improvements included new sliders and windows, more efficient lighting,
improved thermostats and air conditioners, new energy efficient washing machines and
improved water conservation.
Contact
Margaret Downey
Cape Light Compact
Barnstable Superior Court House
P.O. Box 427
3195 Main Street (Route 6A)
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630
Tel. +1 508-375-6636
mags@cape.com
www.capelightcompact.org
33
IV.3.3 - Affordable Warmth in Vermont

Vermont (pop 621,000) is a small, sparsely populated mountain state in New England
which has warm summers and severe winters. It is a rural state of small settlements
and a pioneer of liberal, forward-thinking ideas it was the first state to abolish slavery
in 1777 (before it joined the Union). It has a fine natural environment and has a
traditionally high environmental awareness. Like many other States, energy
consumption is high both in winter due to the high heating demand and in summer due
to the demand for air conditioning, considered an essential facility by everyday
Americans.
The Vermont Weatherisation programme is unusual in that the majority of the

resources, 81%, comes from the States own resources with the remaining 19% from
the US Federal Department of Energy. This was not always the case.
The programme started in 1976 as part of the Federal Weatherization Assistance

Programme (WAP) and all the funding came from Federal sources. Initially it had a
weak support infrastructure and made use of unskilled labour as an employment
creation resource. From 1980 onwards it became managed by the Office of Economic
Opportunity, an umbrella department in the State whose purpose is to work with
voluntary and public bodies to promote self sufficiency among the States residents.
Part of its role therefore is to help residents escape from poverty. The Federal WAP
programme plodded on, but Vermont is small and the resources available were also
small. In 1990 the situation changed.
The State legislature passed an Act in 1990 that established the Vermont
Weatherization Trust Fund which was financed by a levy of 0.5% on all fuels, apart from
transport fuels, sold in the State. This fund allowed the Vermont Weatherisation
Programme to be established with a full-time coordinator, and allowed the programme
to treat more dwellings and invest more in each of them.
The programme started using blower doors to test the properties being treated. This is
designed to assess the airtightness of the property and the rate of air infiltration. This
permits the surveyor to recommend action to reduce draughts and air infiltration. They
are now recommended by the Federal authorities and are used widely in the US as a
test of air infiltration.
In 1996 the Federal support for weatherization was cut by 50% but the Trust Fund
isolated Vermont from the impact of these cuts. Meanwhile the Vermont State
legislature continuously reviewed the cost effectiveness of the programme. This has
been continuously rising. Straight cost effectiveness (energy expenditure saved divided
by investment cost) has risen from 1.33 in 1991 to 1.83 in 2001. However the review
has also assessed the non-energy benefits of the investment in the VWP. These are
greater than the straight return on investment and amounted to 4.12:1 in 2001.
The programme operates through 8 field offices in the State operated by 5 different
organisations. In total they employ 21 energy auditors to assess properties. In addition
the programme directly employs 45 staff on improvement works plus a number of
subcontractors, in particular on electrical works.
34
The 10-point Weatherization Process in Vermont
1)The client applies for assistance.
2)The clients income is checked for eligibility and if they are eligible the client is placed on the waiting list.
3)An Energy Auditor gathers and reviews fuel consumption history.
4) The Energy Auditor then visits and interviews the clients in their home to get an understanding of how they
use their home, their lifestyle patterns, energy/comfort problems.
5) Health & safety checks are performed on all combustion appliances.
6) The "thermal envelope" or shell of the home is assessed. A blower door test is performed to determine the
air leakage rate of the building. An infrared scan is done to determine voids in wall insulation. A thorough
inspection is done to determine attic insulation levels and to pinpoint major air leakage problems.
7) Data collected onsite (floor area, air leakage rate, insulation levels, etc.) along with estimated costs for
energy retrofits is entered into a computerized energy audit tool to develop a detailed work specification
which will save the maximum amount of energy for any given investment.
8) A highly trained crew is dispatched to the home. Typical work specifications involve some health & safety
work, heating and distribution system efficiency improvements, air sealing and insulation work.
9) Throughout the process the auditor and crew advise the client on the optimum behavioural and
management strategy for saving energy in their home.
10) Upon completion, a quality control inspection is performed by the local agency. In total 10% of all
completed jobs are checked to ensure workmanship of the highest quality.
Source: Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity
IV.3.3.1 - Appraisal of the Vermont Weatherisation Programme

The most recent evaluation prepared in 2001 showed a most effective return on
investment, particularly if the non-energy benefits were included. The survey was
carefully conducted and a sample was chosen in which accurate and comparable
before and after measurements of use could be made. Interestingly the energy savings
in practice were somewhat less than standard calculations. This was believed to relate
to three factors:
> Changes in energy prices over the study period which also have an impact on
energy use
> Low income households already economise energy before the measures are
introduced and so the energy use prior to treatment is lower than the optimum
figures used in pre-improvement estimates
> When people are very careful with their energy expenses because they have
a low income, if one improves the efficiency of the home they may continue to
spend an amount they can afford on energy, heating or cooling their home
more than previously, and take some or all of the savings in improved
comfort.
However by the same context the comfort improvements should have greater impact
than anticipated. On average fuel savings of 21.6% were achieved. Over the whole
35
period of the programme from 1980 to 2001 over 33000 homes had been treated, about
1 in 7 of those in the State. The current rate is about 1400 homes per year.
IV.3.3.2 - Fuel Assistance

As in all states in the US, assistance is available to poor households to pay their
electricity bills. In effect it is an addition to their social security payments and is primarily
funded by the Federal Government (with some supplements from State funding) and
delivered at State level. There are two criteria for help. Families must have less than
$3000 in resources ($2000 if everyone is under age 60), and an income below the
threshold. ($11076 p.a. for a single person, $14928 p.a. for a couple in 2003
equivalent to 125% of the national poverty threshold.) The total funds available from
LIHEAP (the Federal Government Programme) for Vermont in 2007 are $11 612 664
and the average support given varied between $5 and $1565 with an average of $1364.
About 20500 households were helped in 2005-6 and of these just under three quarters
were subsidised by a payment direct to their energy supplier and about one sixth were
in subsidised social housing and received the minimum $5 payment.
IV.3.3.3 - Energy efficiency operators working in an integrated programme.

The Residential Energy Efficiency Programme was run as a partnership between the
stake holders (VWP, utilities, and owners or managers of multi family housing). It was
piloted in 1997 with support from the Rebuild America programme. It targeted multi
family dwellings intended for low income householders, i.e. social housing. About 500
homes per year were treated and these generally obtained relatively simple
improvements (average cost about $1300 per household) which saved $225,000 of
annual energy savings and 1042 tonnes of carbon per year for an outlay of $1,275,000
over the first two years of the programme (of which $400 000 was provided by four local
utilities (Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, Green Mountain Power, Citizens
Utility Corporation and Vermont Gas Systems).
Based on this experience, a new energy efficiency utility, Efficiency Vermont, was
established by the State Legislature and Public Service Board in 2000 to promote
reductions in electricity use. It is supported by 22 electricity utilities in the State. Energy
Efficiency Vermont works together with Vermont Weatherisation Programme to provide
comprehensive cost-effective efficiency services to low-income multifamily housing. The
REEP programme has now changed into the Low Income Multi-Family Programme
which addresses buildings housing 5 or more separate dwellings.
Efficiency Vermont also runs the Low Income Single Family Programme. This provides
energy efficiency improvements to the electrical systems of eligible customers of
Vermonts electric utilities (except in Burlington) who are already enrolled in the State
Weatherization Assistance Program. Despite its name, the programme the single family
programme tackles properties with 1-4 families. Measures include energy efficient
lighting, refrigerator replacement, and improving water heater efficiency.
Contact
Elizabeth Chant
Weatherization Director
Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity
PO Box 441, Hinesburg, VT 05461
+1 802-482-4180
echant@cvoeo.org
36
IV. 4 - Conclusions regarding fuel poverty strategies
The programmes in Britain, Ireland and the United States are centred on operating a
programme of support to improve the performance of dwellings housing those in fuel
poverty. An alternative approach is to subsidise the actual fuel costs of those in need
i.e. to tackle the poverty directly by giving the poor money and this approach is also
followed in parallel in the USA. A similar approach is followed in Germany where the
rent and fuel costs of those on social benefit tend to be paid directly to the utility by the
social welfare funds. Such an approach is very expensive and as fuel costs rise, so do
social welfare costs, but this also puts greater pressure on the authorities to subsidise
or promote energy efficiency improvements in the dwellings of those in fuel poverty as
is the case in Germany. In addition if this simply constitutes an increased social security
payment, the receiver may continue to be in fuel poverty when looked at from the point
of view of total income.
The great advantage of subsidising energy efficiency improvements is that the

reduction in fuel costs in the building is permanent for the life of the improvements
carried out thus for loft insulation and cavity wall insulation it is effectively the life of
the roof and walls of the building, for energy efficient glazing it is about 25 years, for
draft proofing and installing energy efficient light bulbs it is much shorter. However the
occupier of the building may change and the succeeding occupier may not be in fuel
poverty, so one cannot guarantee that the improvements will continue to help reduce
poverty.
The formula used by the successful programmes is remarkably similar in all three
countries. A special organisation is set up to carry out energy efficiency improvements
funded using a combination of utility, local authority, state/regional government and
central government sources. An intensive programme is established to blitzkreig
action in an area which may be an area where the poor are concentrated. Programmes
generally concentrate on improving wall and loft insulation as these have the most rapid
payback time and produce the largest savings per euro invested. The opportunity is
usually taken to advise on eligibility for social security benefits which can have a direct
and immediate effect in reducing poverty.
In addition the programme may take the opportunity to offer support, subsidised or on
preferential rates, to those who are not in fuel poverty and are able to pay, or in the
case of Kirklees offer free help to all residents regardless of income using the local
authoritys own funds.
The British experience is particularly interesting since it compared different delivery

methods to find out which was most effective. Experience shows that these
programmes work best where the organisation handles all the funding itself and simply
delivers the goods by concentrating on a programme of knocking on doors and
selling the service. Where the client is redirected to the various sources of funding and
left to retrieve it himself, uptake of improvements is drastically reduced. However even
the most effective campaigns cannot expect to deliver to all the target properties. Take
up was limited and in the most effective of the trial zones only 23% of the households in
fuel poverty were removed from it under the programme.
There are a number of reasons for this. They include the difficulty of contacting the
residents, the wariness of authorities, the fact that many of those in fuel poverty are in
private rented accommodation and need to get the approval of their landlord (a
bureaucratic rigmarole that acts as a dissuasion) etc.
This model has much to commend it and could be applied in other European countries
were there to be the willingness. It has the particular advantage that it targets those in
37
private accommodation, both owner occupied and rented, and surveys demonstrate
that these generally have the lowest uptake of energy efficiency improvements. Social
housing, with access to public funding for upgrading, generally performs better. The
model used in Britain also has the advantage that the utilities are competing to deliver
energy savings at the lowest investment cost, but at the same time delivering a
minimum amount of improvements in social priority groups. This should, one hopes
produce the maximum returns in terms of energy saving per euro invested. Using the
utility funds also provides the significant scale of investment resources that are
necessary for this work.
38
V - Energy Efficient Social Housing

One approach which can be included in any programme for tackling fuel poverty is to
build new social housing that needs no or negligible heating. This may sound idealistic,
but it is quite practicable even in the more extreme European climates such as those
found in Scandinavia. A number of examples demonstrate the common features found
in such houses. One key point that comes out is that, for new development at least, this
is a cost effective approach and the extra cost of the investment, if any, is later
recovered from the savings in heating costs.
This can only be one element in a programme since new social housing will, for some
while to come, only form a small proportion of the total stock of social housing. But if
action is not taken to ensure that all new housing is of high environmental performance,
then the same problems found in the existing stock will also be found in the new stock
as well.
Some examples are given below and some conclusions are drawn about the likely
paths leading to success at the current state of technology.
V.1 - Austria
V.1.1 - Utendorfgasse 7 - Vienna

This development of 39 flats was completed for a housing company for rent. The total
effective floor area of the flats is 2985m2, i.e. an average flat size of 75 m2. The flats
were designed to be economical and the construction cost worked out at 1055/m2.
All the flats were built to passive house insulation standards as follows:
> Max heating energy demand 15kWh/(m2yr)
> Heating load 10W/m2
> Max primary energy demand (all uses) 120 kWh/(m2yr)
> Air tightness n50 0,6/h
> Max noise level of ventilation system in bedrooms: LP 23dB(A)SPL
Each of the three buildings is

supplied with a central ventilation
system accompanied by heat
exchangers to save energy from
exhaust air. The residents can warm
the residential air further using a
water based heater in the ventilation
system of each flat supplied by the
boiler producing the warm water for
each house. The building is very
highly insulated and heating demand
is 14.5kWh/(m2yr) .
P
photo : Bruno Klomfar
39
Avoidance of Heating
+ 2,42 Euro/m Roof
-34,80 Euro/m + 5,95 Euro/m
Avoidance of the need for

2 chimneys Windows
-2,92 Euro/m + 8,16 Euro/m
Ventilation system
+49,83 Euro/m Exterior wall
-15,00 Euro/m +14,76 Euro/m
Air Tightness
+ 0,46 Euro/m Entrance portal
+ 0,28 Euro/m
Thermal bridge reduction
+ 1,80 Euro/m
Additional Costs
Garage ceiling Garage Entrance to Stairway + 41,31 Euro/m
+ 6,21 Euro/m + 4,16 Euro/m
The net extra cost of sustainability features works out at 41.30/m2, or approximately
4.5% of the final cost. The diagram above (Schoeberl & Poell) indicates the main
elements in the additional costs and also where savings are made in heating equipment
costs.
Contact
DI Jan Kircher
Schoeberl & Poell OEG
A-1020 Wien, Ybbsstrae 6/30
Tel. +43/1/726 45 66-0
Fax: +43/1/726 45 66/18
jan.kircher@schoeberlpoell.at
V.1.2 - Makartrasse, Linz

This demonstration project is designed to show that Passive house standard can be
achieved during the renovation of existing dwellings. The large apartment block which
was upgraded has 50 units and was originally built in 1957/8. In the process the energy
demand was reduced by 90%.
The project has achieved ancillary aims, in addition to reduced energy use. The comfort
of the inhabitants has been improved by improving the air quality and reducing road
noise while the materials used have all been of high environmental quality. In addition
the work was carried out with a minimum of disturbance to the residents.
The renovation included:

> The installation of a prefabricated solar comb faade with ventilated gap.
> Increased insulation on the roof and basement
> Enlargement and insulation of existing balconies (increasing floorspace by
about 13%)
> Reglazing with high quality windows
> Installation of a ventilation system which supplies individual rooms
40
The extension of the flats onto the balconies made use of previously wasted space
the noise levels from the adjoining street made this area unusable.
This saved about 447 MWh of

energy (147 tonnes/CO2/yr) but
added 27% to the cost of renovation
which totalled 2.45M euros. Total
energy cost savings were 12876
euros/annum.
The heating costs of a single

apartment were reduced from just
over 40 euros to just under 5 euros
per month and the buildings heating
demand improved from 179kWh/m2
to 14.4 kWh/ m2.
However these improvements could not be economically justified purely on their

savings in energy costs the simple payback time for the energy improvement
elements exceeds 52 years. Justification for this degree of renovation and its
associated expenditure must be made purely on improvements in comfort and
environmental performance, which is indeed the approach adopted by the developers.
Contact
GIWOG Gemeinntzige Industrie-Wohnungs-AG
Bmst. Ing. Alfred Willensdorfer
Welser Strae 41, A-4060 Leonding
Tel.: +43 (50) 8888 0
Fax: +43 (50) 8888 197
E-Mail: a.willensdorfer@giwog.at
V.2 - Germany
V.2.1 - Houses on Grimmelfinger Weg - Neu Ulm

NUWOG, the municipal housing company of Ulm, decided to build a demonstration
estate of semi detached houses which meet very high energy performance standards.
These are large three bedroom houses of 178m2 floor area including the basement
(156m2 net). The 6 houses were constructed cheaply the construction cost at
929/m2 did not exceed the Bavarian cost limit for social housing in 2003 1050/m2
for on site costs (excluding the carport and internal decoration).
41
The objective was to design so-called 3 litre houses i.e. houses which use less
energy than the equivalent of 3l of fuel oil per m2 for heating and hot water. These
buildings use a total of 39kWh/m2 per year for heating, ventilation and domestic hot
water. The buildings are oriented in a south east direction for effective solar gain.
The heating system consists of a VITOTRES 343 compact unit situated in the
bathroom (see photo). The key to the heating installation (see left) is the use of a warm
air heating system with air to air heat pumps to heat incoming air from the extracted air.
In addition plate heat exchangers recover 80% of the energy in the exhaust air (in
particular from the moist air in the kitchen and bathroom)
before it leaves the building. In addition the heat pump heats
up the domestic hot water supported by the use of 5 m2 of
solar collectors and, if necessary, an electric immersion
heater.
The efficient heating system only works because the

buildings are extremely well insulated. They have solid 42.5
cm thick brick walls with a U-value of 0.2 W/m2K. They have
triple glazed windows (U-value 0.8 W/m2K), mineral wool roof
insulation (0.08 W/m2K) and foam insulation on the basement
ceiling (i.e. floor of the ground floor)with a performance of
0.11 W/m2K. Special care was given to building air-tightness
and draught sealing and to reducing thermal bridging in the
walls.
Contact:
Johann Reiss, NUWOG
Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Bauphysik Neu-Ulmer Wohnungsbaugesellschaft mbH,
Nobelstrasse 12, D-70569 Stuttgart Johannisstrasse 12, D-89231 Neu-Ulm.
Johann.reiss@ibp.fhg.de Info@nuwog.de
42
V.3 - Sweden
V.3.1 - Sustainable Housing in Landskrona and Goteborg

These two developments adopt a broadly similar approach, building typical terrace
houses which are highly insulated and which used the heat from the occupants plus
appliances to heat the property plus a very small supplementary heating load in the
depth of winter.
Landskrona
The municipal housing company in Landskrona organized an architectural competition
to build sustainable social housing. The development of 35 units with a floor area from
70 -110 m2 takes the form of traditional one and two storey houses which are rented for
a maximum of 100 euros/m2 usable floor area. The
buildings are of very highly insulated construction
designed to eliminate the need for conventional
heating.
This is achieved by a floor with 350mm of polystyrene
sandwiched between concrete layers (U-value 0.1
W/m2K). The lightweight external walls consist of
450mm of polystyrene and mineral wool between
external and internal panels supported on a timber
frame, (U-value 0.1W/m2K). The roof is insulated
with 550mm mineral wool. (U-value 0.08 W/ m2K).
Windows, which in total are about 20% of the floor
area, are triple glazed and have a U-value of approx 1
W/ m2k.
The problems with the windows are more from
overheating in spring and autumn so that a large roof
overhang and low g-value windows have been included
in the design to reduce direct solar gain in summer.
Little solar gain is provided when needed for heating in
the Swedish winter and most of the savings are made by Photos Prime project.
effective heat recovery in the ventilation system. There
is no special orientation of the buildings since the buildings are designed to minimize
their thermal capacity (heat sink effect). This is to prevent overheating in summer
simply opening the windows rapidly reduces the temperature.
Air-tightness is a particularly important element

in the design and an airtight plastic sheet has
been incorporated into the wall at a sufficient
depth to ensure that it is not damaged by the
occupants.
The buildings are all electric. They have warm

air heating with electric resistance heating
(900W) and 85% heat recovery from the
exhaust air. The total space heating demand is a maximum of 5-10 kWh/ m2. The hot
water is also heated by electricity. This is a low carbon solution in Swedish conditions
where most electricity comes from hydro, biomass or nuclear sources. Total energy use
including appliances and dhw is 50-80kWh/m2.
43
These buildings cost the same as conventional houses the extra insulation cost being
balanced by the savings in heating equipment. However the savings in running costs
mean that the total cost of renting these properties is 25% cheaper than comparable
conventional houses.
Contact
Pirin Werner Strolz Prime Project ab
Agricolastrasse 5 Jrnkrav. 3
10555 Berlin 222 25 LUND
Germany Sweden
Tel +49 303 974 1603 Tel. +46 46 18 95 80
Mobile +49 16096750247 Werner.strolz@primeproject.se
Goteborg
Unlike Landskrona, the Goteborg houses were aligned to maximize solar gain but also
make use of large eaves and balconies to minimize solar gain in summer. The energy
supply is approx 5400 kWh per year including household electricity, pumps and fans
and domestic hot water.
The houses are of terrace construction and ll m deep, so there are limited external
walls. This necessitates a special roof window to light the centre of the house, in
particular the staircase. This window is also sufficient for ventilation especially during
hot days.
The buildings are of insulated timber framed construction as follows:
Insulation thickness(mm) U-value (W/m2K)

Walls: 430: 0.1
Roof 480 0.08
Floor 250 0.11
Windows 0.85
Doors 0.80
The houses, like in Landskrona, are

all electric and have a warm air
heating and ventilation system with
85% heat recovery. A
supplementary electric heating
system is provided with a power of
900W for use in cold spells.
The houses have 5 m2 of solar

thermal panels to provide a third of
the hot water demand and the
total external energy demand for Foto: Hans Eek
these houses has been
68kWh/m2/yr, with a further
9kWh/m2/yr from the solar thermal panels. This is approx. 12 kWh/m2 above design
expectations. However the load varies dramatically between houses according to user
behaviour between 45 kWh/m2/yr and 97 kWh/m2/yr. This still represents between 50
and 70% less than the average Swedish energy demand. At the initial concept stage it
had been hoped to keep the peak load to 5 Wm2 but the design requirements were
relaxed during the development stage to allow more air infiltration, slightly reduced heat
44
recovery and finally a higher indoor design temperature, resulting in a higher energy
demand (8.5 W/m2 peak and 12.3 kWh/m2/yr for heating).
The buildings are comparable in cost to normal houses with the savings in heating
equipment being balanced by the costs of the extra insulation and heat recovery
equipment. The demand is 60% lower than from other comparable houses in the
vicinity.
Contact and information

Hans Eek
Passivhuscentrum
Tel: +46 708 - 23 77 66
architect@hanseek.se
www.passivhuscentrum.se
V.3.2 - Exporting Scandinavian passive housing

The Scandinavian design concept has been exported to Ireland where designs for
prefabricated section built passive houses have been prepared using the same basic
principles as the developments in Goteborg and Landskrona. A 220 m2 passive house
was erected in County Galway in 2005 but in this climate it was also possible to
envisage the solar thermal heating of 6.5m2 supplementing the space heating by way of
an underfloor heating loop. About 15 houses have been sold to private clients in Ireland
so far, but now negotiations are in hand to sell larger numbers of simple designs to
British housing associations.
This demonstrates the possibility for mass production and wider marketing of such
passive house developments using off the shelf designs.
Contact
Lars Pettersson,
Scandinavian Homes,
Moycullen, Co. Galway
Tel. +353 91 555 808
info@scanhome.ie.
45
V.4 - United Kingdom
V.4.1 - Housing in South Wales: Gwalia Housing Association

Ty Tom Jones, Alexandra Rd., Swansea, Ty Caitlin, Northampton Lane,
Swansea, Plas y Mor , Burry Port
Gwalia Housing Association in South Wales is a social housing provider with a tradition
of environmentally sound housing development. It is a founder member of the European
Housing Ecology Network. The following three developments are characteristic of its
many environmentally pioneering schemes.
The Swansea Foyer, Ty Tom Jones, is modelled on the French Foyers des Jeunes
Travailleurs. It houses 34 young single homeless people in the centre of the city of
Swansea together with offices and training and recreation facilities. A former Working
Mens social club was rebuilt retaining the faade and introducing many environmental
features.
The building includes a covered street which acts as the internal circulation space
behind the historic South-facing faade. This street flanked by individual terraced units
for 4-5 residents each. The street provides natural light and passive solar gain.
The timber frame building has a high insulation standards

(Wall = U-value 0.263 W/m2K, low emissivity double glazing).
About 60% of the hot water requirements are met by solar
thermal panels. The pumps for the water and natural
ventilation systems are powered by PV panels on the roof and
provide a back-up electrical system. Card access systems are
used to control the low energy lights. In addition the use of
dynamic thermal modeling at the design stage ensured the
success of the natural ventilation system and prevented
potentially energy inefficient overheating.
Photo Gwalia HA
The building cost an average of approx 60 000 per resident in 1997 (including the
communal facilities and offices).
Ty Caitlin is an innovative scheme sited in the very centre of the city, and it occupies a
tight site. There are 9 flats of an average size of 44m2 which were constructed in 1999
using a prefabricated steel frame which meant that the shell was erected and watertight
in 10 days. However the internal finishing took much longer.
The building is constructed to very high insulation standards for a mild

oceanic climate. (Avge degree days 2274). The external shell was made
as lightweight as possible to reduce the need for heavy foundations, and
a high standard of insulation was installedMineral wool insulation and
insulation board (total 175mm) was used and was covered with an epoxy
exterior finish while the roof has a 200mm layer of mineral wool. Both
these components have a U-value of 0.15 W/m2K. The mineral wool
insulated ground floor has a slightly higher U-value of 0.18 W/m2K, while
the wooden framed windows have a performance of 3.0 W/m2K.
All rooms had a southerly orientation to maximize passive solar gain,

and this produced low overall energy consumption. An electric boiler
system was used and the heating system has proved efficient. The
average electricity consumption, which in this case covers all energy use
Photo Andrzej Ogorzalek
46
including appliances and lighting, was measured and proved to be 63kWh/m2 for the
first 12 months. The annual electricity bill per flat was around 275 (410). Due to the
high overall energy efficiency of the envelope, it was decided not to use any
supplementary technology such as solar panels. The total construction cost was very
reasonable an average of 781/m2 (1171/m2).
This has been a successful development, but the long time to complete the internal
finishes caused concern. The architect, PCKO, has since adopted more comprehensive
prefabrication methods in which virtually all the finishes are prepared off-site and
erection times are reduced to 2-10 days.
Plas y Mor is a sheltered housing scheme for old people incorporating 38 flats with on
site support when required. It lies near the centre of the town so that there is a low
demand for travel. There is an old persons day centre for the surrounding community
and a communal kitchen. The
development is a showpiece
environmental scheme. There is a
glass winter garden for residents
and the warm air from this is
ventilated into other communal areas
when beneficial so reducing heating
costs, or evacuated to the exterior
when necessary.
The building was constructed of Photo Gwalia HA

sustainably grown timber with 200 mm of cellulose insulation
from recycled newspaper.
Heating is by a biomass boiler and there are 30 m2 of solar thermal panels for domestic
hot water which is integrated into the biomass heating system.
Total energy costs for the scheme in its first year was 16,475.08. This includes all
flats, circulation areas, external lighting, day centre and all other facilities. Total energy
costs for a two-bedroomed flat are about 5.25 per week for heating, hot water, cooking
and all electricity.
A further development of 106 affordable homes for low-income first time buyers is
currently planned at Gwynfryn, Ammanford and also designed by PCKO. These will be
entirely fabricated off site in Poland using the BUMA system and transported to the site
by lorry. These should achieve the EcoHomes Very good or Excellent rating and
retail for about 100 000 130 000 per unit.
Contact
Phil Roberts
Deputy Chief Executive & Development Director
Grp Gwalia Cyf, T Gwalia ,
7-13 The Kingsway, Swansea SA1 5JN
Tel: +44 1792 460609
Fax: +44 1792 466198
E-mail: phil.roberts@gwalia.com or haf.roberts@gwalia.com
47
V.4.2 - Greenoak Housing Association Greenhomes programme

Developments at Woking, Normandy and Storrington
This social housing provider has been awarded the Housing Corporations Gold Award
2007 for environmental sustainability. Its best practice new build programme includes
two eco developments in management and a third in development.
They have been designed to exceed the UKs Eco Homes Excellent
standard, and approach Passivhaus standards with the latest scheme
aiming at Code for Sustainable Homes level 4. The holistic design covers
many environmental factors, including energy, water management, low
embodied energy and environmental acceptability of the materials used.
Photo: Greenoak HA
The traditional semi detached houses were constructed using highly
insulated prefabricated timber frame panels, triple glazed windows, and
exceptional airtightness. and only emit 0.9 tonnes of Carbon per house per
year (13 kg/m2/yr). This is less than a quarter the minimum standard specified in the
UK Building Regulations. They are very cheap to run with an energy cost of under 3
per week. In addition they used 25% less water than traditional homes and all rainwater
is discharged on site, using a more sustainable urban drainage system than traditional
homes. The homes are all built to full Lifetime Homes standard which facilitates flexible
use by all households and easy adaptation for special needs. The houses are designed
so that the existing gas boilers can be replaced by newer technologies in the future if
these become economic. These follow up a continuing trend of designing in good
overall environmental performance in their social housing. The average SAP rating of
all their properties is 92. The average for all UK housing is 51.
A number of improvements are planned in future developments including developing

homes without back up central heating, the introduction of heat recovery into the
existing very efficient ventilation system and the introduction of renewables such as
solar hot water and wind.
Contact
Adrian Buffery,
Director of Development,
Greenoak Housing Association
155 Goldsworth Road,
Woking, Surrey, GU21 6LS
Tel: 01483 747 900
Fax: 01483 757 654
Email: adrian.buffery@greenoakha.org
48
VI - Policy implications for Social Housing

All the successful projects have based their success on
> very high levels of insulation which retain the heat provided by the occupants
and domestic equipment combined with
> heat recovery from the ventilation system.
In effect this was the strategy used in the first solar building, St Georges School,
Wallasey erected in the early 1960s so this strategy has an honourable pedigree.
Unlike St Georges however, most developments now use warm air heating systems in
which heat recovery is possible. Several of the examples are based on prefabricated
technology and so mass production is possible to reduce costs.
There are other advantages of warm air. It adapts well to the use of ground sources for
cooling in summer, and with climatic warming this is likely to be a major source of
energy demand in the future. With a ground source loop, there is no need for a heat
pump (refrigeration unit) for cooling, and the air is cooled by contact with the cold soil in
the ground loop. This is likely to be a popular solution in Mediterranean climates such
as southern France where cooling is a major consideration. In North America, where
ground source heat pumps have become quite popular, it is the savings in cooling costs
that have driven the economics rather than the savings in heating costs.
Most of these developments have succeeded in building social housing within the cost
limits for social housing or with only a small increased cost which is recovered from the
energy savings made. This enables the provider to develop social housing at an
affordable rent. Since fuel poverty is basically a problem of poverty this is an important
consideration it is no use reducing the energy cost if it is only replaced by increased
rent. The tenant doesnt even have the option of reducing the ambient temperature to
save heating costs if they get into financial difficulties.
However the cost of renovating existing housing to passive standard solely for energy
reasons does not appear to be cost effective as demonstrated by the Makarstrasse
development in Linz. The extra payment may well exceed the life of the measures
introduced (this can be considered to be the case for any payback over 15-20 years).
Energy improvements introduced under the fuel poverty programmes in the UK do not
attempt to do this and usually save of the order of 20-30% of the heating costs.
The United Kingdom has introduced a standard rating system for the environmental
performance of homes including energy performance. This was originally developed
by the Government building research laboratory BRE - from its environmental
performance framework for larger buildings, BREEAM. The Eco-Homes rating covered
many environmental factors, including a number of optional issues, and applies to both
new and renovated homes. This was replaced by the Code for Sustainab le Homes in
April 2007 which applied to new build homes in England. This has a 1-6 star system for
new homes with 3 being equivalent to the former Eco-Homes Very Good rating. The
UK Government is now consulting on the possibility of making the Code rating system
mandatory for all new development.
This policy framework in the UK might represent a good model to follow. The basic
premise is that passive housing will become the norm for all new housing in the next
10-15 years. New social housing can therefore not only help combat problems of fuel
poverty, but also, by their example, blaze a trail for the private sector as well.
49
VII - Ten Key Recommendations for France

1. Provide support to specialized programmes designed to help the fuel poor by upgrading
private sector housing in target areas. This can be funded by levies on utility sales.
2. Set higher minimum standards for new social housing which promote high environmental
performance. Existing examples demonstrate that the energy demand for space heating in
new housing can be exceptionally low without significant increases in building costs
3. Consider the use of prefabricated energy efficient housing for new projects
4. Investigate the possibility of paying the fuel bills of the fuel poor directly.
5. Promote the concept of affordable warmth or affordable cooling (i.e. affordable comfort)
rather than fuel poverty.
6. Promote the use of specialized ngos or non-profit companies to deliver programmes to

combat fuel poverty.
7. In Southern France cooling costs will be a significant element as yet largely ignored in
affordable comfort programmes, and improved insulation may provide significant benefits
even in hot climates.
8. In the existing stock, concentrate programmes on the most critical elements in buildings
where the cost effectiveness is greatest. These are generally walls and roofs.
9. Remember that there is little incentive for private landlords to upgrade tenanted buildings
and consider what incentives might promote the energy upgrading of dwellings by private
landlords. Regulation of minimum standards in tenanted properties may have an important
role here.
10. Try to supply cheaper energy to poorer consumers. This could, for instance, be by
promoting small scale CHP with private wire schemes in social housing, or by promoting the
development of energy retailers whose conditions of sale are designed to be equitable to
poorer or non-credit consumers.
50
This report was prepared for Energie-Cites by Martin Cahn

Energie-Cits - Secrtariat Energie-Cits - Bureau Bruxelles
2, Chemin de Palente 157 rue Brugmann
F - 25000 Besanon BE-1190 BRUXELLES
Tel + 33(0)3 81 65 36 80 Tel + 32(0)2 544 09 21
Fax + 33(0)3 81 50 73 51 Fax + 32(0)2 544 15 81
info@energie-cites.org
51

Action On Fuel Poverty in Social Housing - 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action On Fuel Poverty in Social Housing - 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dossier

Action on Fuel Poverty

II - FUEL POVERTY AND WHY TAKE ACTION 6

III - POLICY RESPONSES TO FUEL POVERTY 11

IV - ADMINISTRATION OF FUEL POVERTY PROGRAMMES IN EUROPE AND THE US

V - ENERGY EFFICIENT SOCIAL HOUSING 39

VI - POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING 49

VII - TEN KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRANCE 50

A proportion of those affected by fuel poverty will always be housed in specially

II - Fuel poverty and why take action

II.1 - What is fuel poverty?

Regime Definition of Temperature in Temperature in No hours

An estimate of an acceptable heating cost is made according to regional climatic

II.2 - Motivations for defining fuel poverty

Country Proportionate Persistent Fuel Proportion of social

It is argued that since exposure to lower temperatures increases susceptibility to

Why should this be the case?

Nevertheless reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the main justifications of

III - Policy responses to fuel poverty

III.1 - Financial support

III.2 - Reducing fuel costs by competitive purchase

III.3 - Subsidising improvements to the energy behaviour of the building

III.4 - Encouraging improvements in the energy behaviour of the

III.5 - Mechanisms for channelling the aid to the fuel poor

A second channel is to pay via utilities. In many administrations there is a levy on

A formula supported by the European Commission is the establishment of an energy

III.6 - Barriers to tackling fuel poverty at local level

However even in those countries where there is a tradition of living in communal

So programmes to attack fuel poverty need to be maintained with follow up support.

IV - Administration of fuel poverty programmes in

Fuel poverty as currently formally defined on the basis on a mathematical relationship

A good individual example of the conceptual contortions necessary is provided by the

IV.1 - Affordable Warmth in the United Kingdom

IV.1.1 - The Energy Saving Commitment

Owners of social housing are obliged by Government to achieve Decent Homes

However tenants of social housing tend to be in housing that is already relatively

IV.1.2 Examples in United Kingdom

The basic service provided in the programme is as follows

Element What it involved

Approach Zones using What it involved

However, in addition to their effectiveness in removing households from the emotively

One vital need was to carefully

The next phase of the Warm Zone Programme

IV.1.2.2 - Warm Wales - Neath Port Talbot and Wrexham

National Grid Transco wished to develop a larger affordable Warmth programme to

The consortium had as its objectives to:

The main programme involves an assessment programme. This is organized in an

Warm Wales has also carried out a number of other

One problem that has been raised as a result of this

IV.1.2.3 - Kirklees Warm Zone

In addition each country is promoting an awareness raising programme directed at

IV.2 - Affordable Warmth in Ireland

IV.2.1 - The Dublin Metropolitan Region

IV.3 - Affordable Warmth in the United States

IV.3.1 - Affordable Warmth in Massachusetts

The City of Bostons Heatworks Programme

Johnson to create a War on Poverty and are Federally funded by a Community

IV.3.2 - The Cape Cod Compact

Local authorities in areas where aggregation is in operation can set up a non-profit

IV.3.3 - Affordable Warmth in Vermont

The Vermont Weatherisation programme is unusual in that the majority of the

The programme started in 1976 as part of the Federal Weatherization Assistance

The 10-point Weatherization Process in Vermont