The Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel consultation response to the Review of England's Fuel Poverty Strategy

The Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel has responded the the UK Government’s consultation on its review of England’s Fuel Poverty Strategy. The Panel has chosen to do this because the proposals for England's new strategy include a foundational pillar of energy affordability, which will, or certainly has the potential, to have benefits for Scottish households too.

SFPAP response to UK Gov. consultation on Fuel Poverty Strategy [England].docx

Download docx (83.69 KB)

This document may not be fully accessible.

3. Principles and Recommendations on Fuel Poverty Funding

Our work to look at funding to support those in fuel poverty crisis, through short-term relief or longer-term energy efficiency measures, show that there is much that could be done to improve the effectiveness of funding models. Some of the funds we looked at are Scotland-specific but there are several which are UK-wide, either funded or administered by the UK Government, Ofgem, DWP or energy companies. We concluded, among other things, that there is a need for better targeting of fuel poverty funding across crisis funding, energy efficiency funds, and winter support schemes, and that the scope certainly exists to do this. We made ten recommendations to the Scottish Government on fuel poverty funding, some of which intersect with policy changes we have already recommended. Our findings and principles are relevant across GB, and we share them here:

Specific points we made, included:

Findings

  1. The funding landscape is overly complex and can be difficult to access – eligibility for schemes is not always clear.
  2. Crisis funding has deep value and is a lifeline to people when they need it most. There is a need for better targeting of fuel poverty funding across crisis funding, energy efficiency funds, and winter support schemes.
  3. Energy efficiency schemes often operate in isolation. Previously, Area Based Schemes (ABS) [Scotland] and Energy Company Obligation [GB] funding could be blended. This is no longer the case, and there is a lack of flexibility to combine and share funding across energy efficiency schemes. This can lead to schemes competing with each other which undermines value for money and optimal impact.
  4. Funding windows for organisations are too short and do not allow for sufficient and sustainable services or securing best value for money and may restrict expenditure, impacting supply chain alignment with the funding windows.
  5. Consumer protections are often linked to customer contributions, meaning that if a customer receives energy efficiency measures through a grant, they may not receive consumer protections. This can leave them vulnerable if interventions fail or are not provided to an adequate standard.

Funding Principles and Recommendations

  1. Funding to tackle fuel poverty should work flexibly and holistically to best meet household and area needs, avoiding a one-size-fits-all or fixed approach.
  2. Non-crisis funding should be structured to tackle fuel poverty in the long term with clear targets and milestones set.
  3. It is critical that funding interventions should be available to tackle the immediate impacts of fuel poverty.
  4. Consolidation and alignment of funding streams would improve outcomes and achieve better value for money.
  5. Funding to individual households for energy efficiency improvements and financial support should be as progressive as possible, target the most vulnerable households, and incentivise uptake.
  6. Application design should encourage access to funding and be informed by the lived experience of users and the experience of organisations.
  7. Public funds should be robustly evaluated using a common monitoring and evaluation framework, proportionate to spending on delivery, and with a published output.
Back to top