Peter Smith, National Energy Action

1. Peter Smith
External Affairs Manager
National Energy Action

2. The basics
 NEA is a national charity working to ensure
affordable energy for disadvantaged energy
consumers.
 NEA seeks to promote this objective through a
wide range of activities including policy
analysis, rational and constructive dialogue
with decision-makers, practical initiatives and
training and educational initiatives
 From our practical experience and evidence
working on this area for over 30 years we believe
fuel poverty is damaging the health of millions of
households across the UK.

3. Fuel
Poverty
Energy
inefficient
homes
Low
incomes
Under /over
occupancy
Don’t heat
the home
Ill health
Housing
Disrepair
Heat
the home
Fuel
Debt
High fuel
costs
The factors that contribute to the
problem…

4. How bad is it?
‘It’s horrible. It’s got
black stuff on the
walls and bathroom
and when my
Mum paints it, it all
goes black again.’
Ben, 8, lives in an
overcrowded flat with a
severe damp and mould
problem.

5. A new approach
 Recent announcements by the UK Government set out a
radical departure from the existing approach to
addressing fuel poverty in England.
 The result is that the Government propose to not only
extend and modify the timetable to address fuel
poverty but have also confirmed that they will modify the
current definition of fuel poverty.
 The low income high cost measure (LIHC), proposed by
John Hills and supported by the Government has a new
method for defining fuel poverty in England, consisting of
two parts; the number of households that have both low
incomes and high fuel costs and the depth of fuel
poverty amongst these households.

6. How useful is a new approach?

7. Changes in distribution of who is most
effected
 The historic fuel poverty methodology takes account of the
vulnerability status of households by applying a more generous heating
regime to people who are likely to spend more time in the home (e.g.
households containing pensioners, families with young children and
long term sick or disabled).
 This means that these types of household tend to have high energy
requirements and are more likely to be classified as fuel poor.
 However, the LIHC indicator does not capture the fact that these types
of vulnerable fuel poor households are more likely to suffer negative
health impacts as a result of their fuel poverty.
 The fact that certain types of people are more vulnerable to the
negative impacts of fuel poverty is an important consideration for fuel
poverty policies.
 In order to help us better reflect the impact of cold homes in policy
development, DECC have been working with experts to develop a
methodology to estimate and monetise the health impacts of fuel
poverty policies

8. What doesn’t change is the evidence
 Below 16oC ~ increased risk of respiratory
disorders (Collins 1986, 1993)
 “Acute respiratory infectious diseases cause the
highest mortality when they affect a vulnerable
section of the population, such as elderly people
already suffering from chronic disabling
respiratory illness” (Collins 2000)
 Below 12oC ~ cardiovascular stress occurs (Collins
1993; Lan Chang et al 2004; Howieson and Hogan
2005)

9. Health effects of low indoor temperatures
Comfortable and healthy
Possible discomfort. No risk except for the
vulnerable (eg, elderly)
Cardiovascular risk
Beyond 2 hours, risk of hypothermia
Uncomfortable. Risk of respiratory
conditions, and to mental health
6 ºC
12 ºC
16 ºC
18 ºC
21 ºC
24 ºC

10. Nor does the approach for coping with
Fuel Poverty
 Decrease energy consumption by using less energy than
really needed for heating, cooking, lighting, etc.
 Use other means for heating, cooking and lighting

11. with different consequences….
Direct
 Insufficient appropriate energy for heating
(space and water), lighting, food storage
(refrigeration), and cooking
Indirect
 Inappropriate forms of ~
 heating (flueless gas or oil heaters)
 lighting (candles, oil lamps)
 Inadequate or no ventilation (blocking
ventilators…)
 No hot water
 Food spoilage and contamination
 Low quality meals (avoiding cooking…)

12. ….and the effects on health and safety
 Low indoor temperature
 Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases
 Poor mental health, low self esteem, and social isolation
• Poor indoor air quality
 Dampness, mould growth
 Asthma and allergies
 CO poisoning (acute and chronic)
 Fire (and burn injuries)
 Accidental injury (falls, collisions…)
 Poor personal and domestic hygiene
 Food poisoning
 Unbalanced diet (poor nutrition/obesity)

13. These negative health outcomes result in…
 Suffering for the individual and household
 Loss to the individual, and household ~
 Working days lost
 School days lost (under-achievement)
 Cost to society, including ~
 increased demand on the health sector and care
costs

14. Nor how we work in partnership to
assist the most vulnerable – some
examples
Health Through Warmth

16. Gaps and challenges (1/2)
 Existing initiatives which seek to exploit the synergy between positive
health outcomes and local or national attempts to reduce carbon
emissions and fuel poverty have not yet been adopted at scale and there
is a need to reflect on what approaches work and don’t and why.
 Whilst some Primary Care Trusts, local authorities and/or suppliers
have developed innovative roles for local GPs to refer vulnerable
patients into energy efficiency assistance programmes, on the whole
GPs and other health practitioners are not fully aware of how this form
of intervention could complement their attempts to improve public
health or be embedded into their day to day responsibilities or
practices.
 At the same time, the aforementioned groups have not yet fully
explored the extent to which mutual (or differing) avoided (or reduced)
costs can present a compelling business case to enhance initiatives of
this type.

17. Gaps and challenges (2/2)
• Methodological limits and understanding and
categorisation of the bottom up costs
• Health impacts could take many years to emerge
• Extent of intervention delivered vary
• Fundamental issue of adequate funding needs to be
addressed.
• Instead of being a major refurbishment programme the
obligations on energy suppliers are currently regressive and
under current restrictions will assist a small proportion of
the fuel poor in England.
• Many factors cannot be controlled, eg, behaviour (reduced
energy use rather than extra warmth; whole house heated
rather than reduced energy use)

18. Why do we continue campaigning?
 It is vital that a range of actors understand the importance
of helping poorer households keep safe, well and warm and
those households themselves know where they can go for
help.
 It is also critical that there is a broader understanding that
by tackling fuel poverty it is not only possible to improve
people’s lives, it can improve local areas and enhance
streetscapes, put money back into the economy and make a
sizeable contribution to efforts to reduce carbon emissions
within the UK housing stock.
 Without this work, the risk is that poorer households
continue to benefit least from energy policies whilst paying
a higher share of the costs despite emitting the least
emissions (as well as more EWDs, increased health costs
and growing health inequalities).

19. “Tackling fuel poverty offers a multiple payoff:
better living standards and conditions for
people with low incomes, an improved and
more energy efficient housing stock, fewer
winter deaths and reduced costs for the NHS”.
If we do act…..

20. Thank you.
www.nea.org.uk