Top Five ways to tackle fuel poverty - 93

Fuel poverty in the UK is defined as a household having to spend more than 10% of their income on maintaining an adequate level of energy and heating within the home.

This issue affects those households who are struggling to pay bills. As such, fuel poverty affects those people with the least resources available in order to take action. The capital cost involved in improvements is often beyond their means and the cycle of fuel poverty is worsened.

When looking at this issue we will look at five ways and consequences of tackling this social issue.

One – Do nothing.

The issue of fuel poverty is not a vote winner for politicians as heating the home is often below the other list of priorities for financially stretched families. However, to do nothing leaves the household struggling to pay bills and risks the health and well-being of the occupants, especially in severe winter weather. The homes, which are normally very badly insulated will continue to burn excess fossil fuel, adding to the issue of both fuel poverty and global warming.

Two – Do Minimum

The easiest way to alleviate fuel poverty for the household is to provide more funding, ‘cash’ to buy energy. The government recognises this issue and provides a ‘winter allowance’ to pensioners and this subsidy is designed to see elderly and perhaps vulnerable people through the winter period. This is a laudable policy and in effect goes some way to solving fuel poverty as a short-term approach. The downside of this policy is that the household will continue to burn fuel and the issue will resume with each winter period. The environment is also suffering unnecessary fossil fuel burning as additional resources are depleted keeping households at a liveable temperature.

Three – Shallow retrofit of existing housing

The next level of investment in the issue of fuel poverty is to look at the energy efficiency of the property. This approach targets items that can be addressed to improve the energy efficiency and as a result, lower the amount of fuel needed to heat the home.

This is a more strategic approach to the problem. Energy-efficient measures should, if carried out correctly, make the home a more comfortable and ‘cosy’ place to live. The easy wins for energy efficiency, which are also cost-effective are such measures as:

●       additional loft insulation.

●       draft proofing of windows and doors.

●       installing a more efficient heating system.

●       Installing low energy lighting and appliances

Most houses today have double glazing as standard so this option may not be available as a method of energy reduction.

These items if carried out well may have a 20-30% increase in energy efficiency which would result in a corresponding decrease in energy bills. This increase in energy efficiency would also have a reduction in fossil fuel emissions with a direct positive effect on the environment.

The main disadvantage of this type of approach is that the works carried out often have a substantial cost involved and the benefits create homes which, although better, still have very poor energy efficiency targets. As a result, the homes continue to require a large quantity of energy to maintain comfort and fuel poverty is not eliminated.

Four – Deep retrofit of existing housing

Deep retrofit, as the name suggests, requires a substantial change in energy efficiency and is defined by refurbishment and works which create savings on energy costs running at over 70% in comparison to the original figures.

Deep retrofit is expensive and in order to be successful requires a holistic and expert approach to the issue of making buildings energy efficient. The large capital cost associated with this type of procedure means that the payback, in terms of energy efficiency, maybe 25 years or more. This capital investment makes long term planning and finance essential to the project. This finance is typically not going to be affordable to a household already in fuel poverty.

This type of investment is usually the preserve of enlightened landlords or housing associations where the investment is seen as a long-term project with a vision for the future and the benefits of such works.

The downside of this type of work is the capital cost and this can be substantial in relation to the cost of constructing new houses.

The upside is the ‘product’ or dwelling that is available after the work has been completed. Firstly, the issue of fuel poverty for the occupants is usually solved as the heating costs of the dwelling are normally below 10% of the income threshold. Secondly, the dwelling, as a result of the works, is more comfortable to live in and there are proven health benefits for the occupants in terms of fresh air ventilation and a warmer home. Lastly, the dwelling is now extremely energy efficient and complies with modern energy targets. These targets are necessary for all housing if the climate change goal to create a carbon-neutral society by 2050 is to be achieved.

The deep retrofit model is futureproofed in the sense that the house should not need to be modified again in its lifetime for energy efficiency. This is the opposite of the ‘sticking plaster’ approach and is one that ends fuel poverty and secures the required carbon reduction for the remaining lifetime of the property.

Five – New build Ultra-Energy Efficient Housing

Fuel poverty can be easily solved with new housing design. The principles of the German Passivhaus system for energy efficiency are tried and tested and are now being adopted throughout Europe the UK and Ireland as a method of building high-quality homes with exceptional energy efficiency. These homes have a minimum space heating requirement and are warm and comfortable to live in. The quality of the internal environment of the home has a range of health benefits and these, along with the low energy cost make these types of homes an excellent investment for a private individual or enlightened landlord.

The quality of the home design does require a small additional cost, typically 3-8% of the capital cost of the home.  This is the only disadvantage albeit a stumbling block for many funders.

As a percentage of the build cost, this represents a small additional cost and it seems implausible that more homes to this standard are not being built today. This energy efficiency model suits high-density multiple units and would be ideal for housing associations or developers who want to create high-density homes which are also environmentally friendly.

Of all of the solutions to the ending of fuel poverty, this solution is the most cost-effective from a lifecycle approach and ensures the carbon reduction from buildings that the government will need in order to reach their sustainability targets in the future.