Stoking the Fuel Poverty Fire

It’s been on the back burner for over a year now, but in the last week the heat has been turned up on proposals to redefine fuel poverty. The change would see the official tally for households currently in the category fall from 3.2 million to 2.4 million, almost a third of the original figure, and there have been accusations of goalpost shifting in the name of favourable statistics. Currently a home is classified as being in fuel poverty if it has to spend 10% or more of its total income on maintaining a ‘satisfactory’ level of heat. The new definition, however, proposes a more abstract perspective: if a household has above average fuel costs that leave them with a ‘residual income below the official poverty line’ they will be put in the bracket.

The trouble is that many of the households struggling to stay warm every winter do not have ‘above average’ requirements, indeed some of them may live in houses that are far smaller than those that require an ‘above average’ level of fuel. What this new definition forgets is that keeping a small house warm can be just as challenging as a large one if you’ve not got the resources to do so. It also ignores the effect of initiatives such as two-tier fuel rates, which mean that those who use less energy in total are paying up to a third more for it because they never use enough to tip themselves into the cheaper tariff.

The official party line is that the new method of determining fuel poverty will give a more accurate picture of those really in need. I would argue however that, although there were loopholes in the previous classification, it is dangerous to simply write off huge swathes of those affected by fuel poverty just because they have below average total consumption. It doesn’t matter if you live in a big house, an old house, a house that leaks heat from every window or the most insulated and energy efficient house in the United Kingdom: if you can’t keep warm, there’s a problem.

A sceptic may at this point also cast a sideways glance to the now seldom-mentioned legislative target written in 2002 that states: ‘by 22 November 2016 no person in England should have to live in fuel poverty.’ As we hurtle towards that date it is clear to everyone, Government officials included, that there is no hope of achieving such an ambitious goal. Indeed in his foreword to this July’s Fuel Poverty Framework, Ed Davey MP wrote plainly that ‘it is not a problem that can be eradicated in any meaningful way, certainly not by 2016, and not in any short time horizon.’ It would take a real leap of faith, however, to unquestioningly accept that there is no vested interest at play here in tweaking the official figures to look a little more heartening.  

What can’t be denied is that, year on year, the number of cold-related deaths is going up. Whatever the definition, these are the only figures that matter. Initiatives such as the Green Deal and ECO come under fire from all directions but the truth at the centre of it all is that they are absolutely necessary in the fight against fuel poverty, and ultimately unnecessary death. Government can do what they like with the figures when they are discussed around the table, but it is the situation out in the UK’s homes, and those are homes of every size, that really counts.

Previous articleListen Up: Solar for Your New or Remodeled Home
Next articleSolar-aided Power Generation vs Concentrating Solar Power: A South African Case Study
Avatar
As Chairman of the Rolton Group, Peter provides high-level strategic advice to a range of governmental, public sector and commercial clients. He is an acknowledged specialist in the renewable energy sector, and there is good reason for this: when it comes to energy, Peter is clear about the issues we face and the need for a cohesive strategy to tackle them. He is a passionate advocate of informed debate, and has consistently brought clarity to this complex situation."If the UK is united on one thing about energy it is that, on an individual basis, the public knows what it’s not in favour of. When it comes to offering up solutions, it’s not that confident. Pointing at single solutions like wind farms and saying that they are too expensive is missing the point. Carbon-based forms of energy like oil and gas are running out. Energy is going to be more expensive and a portfolio of renewable energies will necessarily be part of our solution in the future." Peter holds particular expertise in the areas of site-wide energy planning, zero carbon power generation, low carbon design, carbon offsetting and the application of renewable technology. He has acted as a Government advisor on numerous consultations and white papers, presenting to the Secretary of State on a number of occasions on the subject of renewable planning and public sector engagement. He has worked as a strategic partner with some of the world’s largest and most successful blue-chip companies, and is a Director of Renewables East, the renewable energy agency for the east of England.Peter is both a chartered building services engineer and a chartered member of the Institute of Energy, and has gained accreditation under the Carbon Trust Consultant Accreditation Scheme for solution development, with particular expertise in the establishment of energy strategies. He founded his first business, Rolton Services Consultants Limited, in 1989, and founded Cool Planet Technologies, a specialist renewable energy delivery partner which was sold to British Gas in 2010. He has been the architect of the path through which Rolton Group has addressed the challenges of renewables, carbon and the built environment."We need to see the bigger picture and not become hung up on individual technologies and individual costs. We need a completely different technology mix and not a reliance on one form of energy supply. We need all forms of technology to be applied – and we need it to happen quickly."

No posts to display