epee project european fuel poverty and en- ergy efficiency · 2014-08-11 · epee project: european...

EPEE project

European Fuel Poverty and En-ergy Eff iciency

EPEE project:European fuel Poverty and Ener-gy Eff iciency

Basic information

Co-ordinator: Alphéeis (FRANCE)

Budget: 989,533 €

Subsidy from the Commission: 492,611 €

Redactor: Pierre Nolay (Alphéeis)

Executive summary

The EPEE project led to the following main results:

An analysis of fuel poverty situations in the different partners’ Country. Three statements has

been shown by these first phases of the project:

• The causes and consequences are quite the same in the different Countries:

• Increase of energy prices and bad quality of housing stock for the main causes;

• Impact on physical and psychological health, quality of housing stock, over-

indebtedness and Climate Change for the consequences.

• The situations are quite different from a country to another concerning the awareness of

public actors and the maturity of instruments set to reduce fuel poverty

• At least, it is quite difficult to define common indicators and to find relevant quantitative

data to characterise on a same basis the situation in the different countries.

on 6

EPEE project Publishable Result-oriented report

An analysis of the current policies to address fuel poverty and to identify best practices; The

work done has allowed us to collect during the 16 National workshops organised in Belgium

(3), France (3), Italy (3), Spain (3) and United Kingdom (4) a lot of information concerning best

practices and ideas for new mechanisms to tackle fuel poverty. These actions can be

gathered in three main categories:

• Limiting energy prices impact

• Improving quality of housing stock

• Increasing revenues of households

Some recommendations to the decision makers have been elaborated on legal, economic

and administrative aspects to contribute to a better understanding of fuel poverty at the

national and European level; two guides have been realised:

• One dedicated to stakeholders at the European level to define from our point of view

what could be done at the European level?

• Five others for local authorities and their local partners has been written for each part-

ners’ Country to take into account the specificity of each Country.

on 6


Experimentations of local actions plan have been implemented in the different Countries to

test and evaluate some tools produced in the framework of the project. The territories chosen

are the following:

• Belgium: Courcelles and Mons, two cities of the Walloon Region

• France: a part of district of Paris named “Flandres”

• Italy: South part of the Province of Bergamo (Lombardy Region)

• Spain: Ciutat Meridiana near Barcelona

• UK: Calderdale (West Yorkshire)

Then, EPEE project led to organise events in each country to present the main outcomes,

promote best practices implemented at the National level, but also to understand and assess

conditions for implementation of initiatives conducted by our foreign partners.

At the end of the EPEE project, an European conference in Paris brought together 160

participants from Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Poland. In four thematic

sessions, speakers and audience reviewed the stages of the project, its findings and

recommendations and the points still under discussion. This meeting was a key moment to

share findings of EPEE project.

on 6


Forewords

A glance back at these three years shows how far we have come since the project began.

Energy poverty, a concept that was almost unknown in 2006 except in the United Kingdom

and to a lesser extent in France, is now set to be taken into account and acknowledged as

an major issue by public authorities in all the partner countries and beyond their borders.

European authorities have also addressed this problem by including measures to protect

vulnerable clients in their directives on gas and electricity in view of the liberalisation of energy

markets. A number of actions have been initiated, including awareness campaigns and

market experiments.

The work carried out has enabled partners to compare and share the experiences in each

country in order to propose new lines of work, as described in particular in the concrete local

guides which are to be followed up by the partners.

The recommendations drawn up on the basis of analyses and summaries produced by many

workshops ought to be taken up and developed at a wider scale, to include the greatest

possible number of countries, in order to step up the fight against energy poverty in the

whole of Europe.

The European guide (described in this newsletter) in particular urges the European authorities

to recognise the need for a better identification of energy poverty on the basis of a common

definition, and to pool our knowledge and experiences using an energy poverty observatory

The EPEE project has made it possible to lay the foundations stones; its partners are now

involved beyond the project in ambitious and no doubt richly informative experiments to

extend the work and build sustainable policies for combating energy poverty at the European

scale and in all member countries of the European Union.

on 6


All the results of the EPEE project, including national guides, the Newsletter, European guide,

summaries of workshops, local experiments, etc. Are available on the project’s website:

http://www.fuel-poverty.eu

on 6




Table of content

What is fuel Poverty? 3

There is no universal understanding of the issue. 3

It affects mainly vulnerable households 3

Common indicators of fuel poverty 4

A significant risk of increase in Europe 4

Fuel poverty: Causes and consequences 5

Fuel-poverty: Multiple causes, but some similarities between the studied countries 5

Fuel Poverty: The consequences 10

Synthesis 13

Fuel poverty in Europe 14

An analysis of three variables from the EU-SILC survey 2005 shows that: 15

The situation in the five partner countries: policies and social support 15

How to tackle fuel poverty: Some good practices 17

The meaning of a “good practice” on fuel poverty 17

General results 20

Specific results 23

Recommendations Guides for local stakeholders 31

Page 1 on 44


The Belgium Guide 32

The English Guide 32

The French Guide 32

The Italian Guide 33

The spanish guide 33

Recommendations for European and National Actors 34

EU legislation of relevance to fuel poverty 34

Recommendations identified in the EPEE program 35

The importance of a consistent diagnosis 39

The Case for further fuel poverty research and analysis 41

EPEE’s Partners 42

Five countries represented, several partners 42

Epee’s Team 44

Page 2 on 44


What is fuel Poverty?

There is no universal understanding of the issue.

General poverty can be defined as living with the uncertainty of being able to maintain or

recover a secure financial status. The concept of fuel poverty, however, has not yet been

clearly defined within the countries taking part in the study with the exception of the United

Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is the only country to have come up with an official definition: “a

household is in a situation of fuel poverty when it has to spend more than 10% of its

income on all domestic fuel use, including appliances, to heat the home to a level

sufficient for health and comfort.” However, given differences in climate, methods of

heating, and assessment of income, this definition is not readily applicable to other countries.

Therefore, the EPEE consortium proposes a less precise definition of fuel poverty – in effect

where a household finds it difficult or impossible to ensure adequate heating in the

dwelling at an affordable price. Each country may then adapt this definition to reflect

national characteristics and criteria, while retaining a common view of the problem.

The first study carried out by EPEE focuses on the causes and consequences of fuel poverty,

with particular reference to vulnerable households.

It affects mainly vulnerable households

Fuel poverty affects a wide range of families and individuals. However, households most

susceptible to fuel poverty combine low income with an additional degree of vulnerability

such as the elderly, the disabled and single-parent families.

Moreover, those disadvantaged households are also likely to occupy cold damp properties

with inadequate heating systems and poor insulation. The poor quality of such dwellings

increases the difficulty of keep-ing them sufficiently warm.

Page 3 on 44


Common indicators of fuel poverty

Fuel poverty is not a term that households will readily apply to themselves. Rather, they can

be identified through a number of relevant indicators including:

• inability to pay energy bills and/or debts to energy supplier(s)

• disconnection or threat of disconnection

• disconnection as a result of perception of the need to ration consumption

• health problems linked to poor housing conditions and cold related illness

• housing with poor energy efficiency performance (leading to disproportionately high con-

sumption and expenditure)

• diseases

• cold, damp living conditions

• inability to heat the whole house (may be a consequence of under-occupancy)

• receipt of means-tested benefits.

A significant risk of increase in Europe

Fuel poverty is already a major social problem and is likely to increase because:

• currently 1 household in 7 in Europe is in poverty or on the margins of fuel poverty

• between 2005 and 2007 the price of domestic gas rose by an average of 18%

• between 2005 and 2007 the price of domestic electricity rose by an average of 14%

• more than 60% of housing units in the five countries studied were built prior to any regu-

lations requiring thermal insulation;

• This situation requires urgent action across a range of policy issues at all levels.

Page 4 on 44


Fuel poverty: Causes and con-sequences

Fuel-poverty: Multiple causes, but some similarities between the stud-

ied countries

Five partner countries were involved: Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

A lot of similarities were found in the factors affecting fuel poverty. It would not be surprising if

we found out that the same causes produce the same effects in a wider range of countries.

Nevertheless, we cannot consider the five partner countries to be representative of the EU:

there is no Scandinavian nor eastern European country involved where climate conditions are

more extreme in the winter. It would be useful to continue this work in those countries, in

order to complement the present and following results.

1st cause: Low incomes

According to our study, being on a low income is the factor that gives the highest probability

for a person to live in fuel-poverty.

Having a low-income forces people to consume less and live more modestly. But there are

essential needs, and energy is one of them. The need to reduce overall energy consumption

in order to fight climate change is not disputed, but the fact that energy is essential for all,

poor and less poor, in everyday life should be recognised.

In most cases the profile of fuel poor people are those who receive social security payments,

work part time and/or are in debt. The deep-rooted unemployment rates in some countries,

growing job insecurity (part time employment, short-term jobs) lead a lot of people to live

below the poverty threshold (data per country are given later).

Page 5 on 44


The countries studied do not use the same method to calculate the poverty threshold. The

levels in each country are indicated below. In the following chart, made from Eurostat data,

the threshold value is based on 60% of the median income, for all countries.

Poverty thresholds:

• Belgium: 9864 €/ (year. person) (calculated at 60% from the median)

• Spain: 6278 € / (year. person) (calculated at 50% from the median)

• Italy: 6743 € / (year. person) (calculated at 50% from the median)

• U.K: 7200 €/ (year. person) (available incomes, calculated at 60% from the median)

• France: 7740 € / (year. person) (calculated at 50% from the median)1

02468101214161820

Spain France Belgium Italy UK

% People living below poverty-threshold (60% of median income)

Source Eurostat sept 2005

Page 6 on 44


1 Web site ‘Observatoire des inégalités’

Moreover the rising standard of living, and especially the increase in rents (in France average

6.2% per year over the last 20 years; in Italy 100% between 1999 and today; and in Belgium

10.6% average value between 1996 and 2001) have affected the quality and comfort of life of

those on low incomes. They are frequently forced, by lack of means, to rent “low energy

performances” dwellings.

Their incomes don’t allow them to live in “decent” dwellings, and in most cases they end up

in dwellings requiring significant refurbishment and energy efficiency improvements.

2nd cause: The dwellings

Thermal efficiency regulations were established in different periods in all the five studied coun-

tries:

• Spain: 1980

• France: 1974

• Italy: 1973

• UK: 1965 (but really effective since 1974)

• Belgium:

• Flanders: 1992

• Brussels: 1999

• Walloon: 1984

The chart below shows the large amount of dwellings constructed before the thermal regula-

tions were introduced, and therefore believed to be heavy energy consumers.

Page 7 on 44


Usual characteristics of low performances dwellings inhabited by low income households are:

• No central heating systems

• Defective insulation (Windows, roof, walls)

• Humidity

A dwelling badly insulated with no central heating system, like an old electric heating appli-

ance, cannot easily or cheaply be made ‘decent’. The heat produced by the heating system

is immediately lost if there is no insulation.

In those circumstances fuel poor households make two distinct choices of life:

• They try to heat their dwelling anyway, using extra heating like an oil-burning stoves, and

run the risk of not being able to pay the bills and end in debt.

• They decide not to heat their dwellings (or heat it just a little), even if it means living in a

cold dwelling.

0

1020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Spain France Flanders Brussels Walloon Italy UK

Belgium

Percent of housings built before thermal regulations in each country

Page 8 on 44


Source : Eurostat

3rd cause: the energy price

As the oil crisis of the 1970s receded, states began to abandon their energy saving policies

which had begun and

which would have been

tools to both fight against

climate change (widely

unrecognised at the time)

and fue l pove r t y. I n

France, a strong commit-

ment to use electricity to

fulfil thermal needs lead to

a situation where electric-

ity is now one of the main

systems to heat a home,

yet electricity remains the most expensive means to do so.

Over the past ten years, and in each of the studied countries, gas prices have strongly in-

creased. Electricity prices were stable for the last ten years but slightly increased during the

last two years.

Mechanisms to pay en-

ergy bill arrears are very

different from one country

to another. These kinds of

mechanisms are almost

non-existent in Italy and

Spain. In France, the

mechanism is precisely

defined since it became

compulsory with the last

“decentralisation law”.

Page 9 on 44


In the UK, because of the pre-payment systems, the problem of arrears is not as great as in

other countries although it is still estimated that around £1 billion of debt is owed to energy

suppliers by consumers.

New mechanisms to tackle fuel poverty need to be set up including financial support directly

addressed to help those who need it according to age and health criteria.

The following table allows us to compare gas and electricity prices in the different partner

countries. It shows important differences in electricity prices and a tendency towards harmo-

nised gas prices.

Fuel Poverty: The consequences

Fuel poverty usually results in a continuous vicious circle. Poverty forces poor households to

live in bad quality hard to heat dwellings.Moreover the recent rise of energy prices (and further

expected rises) will make it more and more difficult for this category of people to pay the bills.

Physical health risks and impact

The national studies established a relationship between fuel poverty and impacts on physical

health, which affect firstly vulnerable people, such as children, elderly people and people with

chronic health conditions.

For example, in the UK, where data and research findings on mortality caused by bad

housing conditions are available, it appears that an average 25 000 to 40 000 people die

each year, depending on the severity of the weather. In the other countries represented in the

Project, there is no such data collected.

The permanent cold and the humidity in a dwelling can lead to respiratory problems, such as

asthma, bronchitis, etc. And in order to find an alternative and less expensive way for heating

the dwelling, people choose to install auxiliary heating.

Page 10 on 44


However these alternative heaters don’t solve humidity, still have an impact on health and

may cause accidents and/or

carbon monoxide poisoning.

Despite these dangers, the

auxiliary heating is perceived

as a reliable, immediate and

manageable means of heating

by many people in fuel poverty

and agencies working with

them.

M o r e o v e r , s o m e “ l o w

performance” dwellings may have also defective electrical devices, which represent major fire

hazard.

Impacts on health are considerable, but are not directly linked to outdoor temperatures.

According to a study carried out by the WHO, excess winter mortality is highest in the least

cold countries in Europe. For example excess winter mortality is nonexistent in Saint-

Petersburg, whereas it is

10.77 % in Paris and 19.11 in

Barcelona.

Even though more work

needs to be done, in particular

on the issue of excess

summer mortality, currently

available studies show that the

condition of buildings is the

determining cause of excess

winter mortality. People over

the age of fifty and young children are at greatest risk from the poor thermal performance of

buildings.

Page 11 on 44


The economic consequences of the problem weigh heavily. This is why combating energy

poverty pays. A study has shown that for every 100 Euros spent for this purpose 42 Euros

are saved in health costs. The 58 remaining Euros are saved in terms of combating the

effects of climate change. It is therefore generally recognised that the entire sum invested are

repaid to society, as available studies show that energy poverty has a major impact on the

health of families involved.

Mental health risks and impacts

In each country, people in fuel poverty are susceptible to mental health problems. Bad dwell-

ing conditions can cause anxiety, lead to social exclusion and isolation and have a negative

impact on self-esteem and the capacity to manage.

Degradation of dwellings

Humidity in dwellings can lead very quickly to the degradation of the building. It causes

changes to the properties of the walls, doors and windows, increasing thermal loss. The

more a dwelling deteriorates, the more it is difficult to keep it warm and to stop humidity. A

vicious circle is launched. Tenants in fuel poverty, reporting the material degradation of the

dwelling may find their landlord reproaches them for not heating it adequately and thus con-

tributing to the deterioration.

This can lead to tensions between owners and tenants. However, owners are usually respon-

sible for maintenance and retrofitting works of their properties and bad relations make it more

difficult to negotiate for retrofitting works.

Excessive debt

Households on low incomes finding it difficult to pay their energy bill often start to accumulate

debts. Paying high energy bills may lead to much lower disposable income for other essen-

tials such as food and transport. The possibility of financial assistance for the fuel poor is

specified in WP3, whose objective is to underline the different mechanisms and infrastruc-

tures that intervene in the issue of fuel poverty.

Page 12 on 44


CO2 emission

The low energy performance of dwellings and their degradation cause an increase in the en-

ergy consumed to keep an adequate heating standard. Addressing fuel poverty should be

integrated into the global fight against global warming with actions targeted to households

with low income.

Synthesis

The analysis of causes and consequences of Fuel Poverty allows us to see the differences

and similarities between the five countries studied. It enables us to check the difficulties of

the people living in this situation, and to reflect on their needs and on a suitable strategy to

eradicate this phenomenon. We perceive that there are differences in the specific causes and

consequences not only between countries but within regions of each country. (For example,

North/South of Italy; the four countries of the UK; Flanders, Walloon and Brussels in Belgium).

It would be interesting to study more closely those disparities within the different countries.

This study has revealed the lack of data and of other relevant studies (except in United King-

dom) on the health consequences of fuel poverty.

Page 13 on 44


Fuel poverty in Europe

Fuel poverty is a major social problem which requires action across a range of policy issues and at all political

levels. The number of fuel-poor households in Europe could multiply in the near future as:

• nearly 1 in 7 households in Europe are at risk of poverty,

• from 2005 to 2007 the price of domestic gas increased on average by 18%,

• from 2005 to 2007 the price of domestic electricity increased on average by 14%,

• more than 60% of the dwellings in the five countries studied in this project were built before any thermal

insulation regulations were applicable.

According to the studies carried out in five EU countries (UK, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain), fuel poverty is a

major social problem. Although this study does not provide as much detail for the other member States, it can

be inferred that the problem of fuel poverty is universal across Europe.

Page 14 on 44


An analysis of three variables from the EU-SILC survey 20052 shows that:

• Regional inequalities are significant across individual countries with significant differ-

ences in the quality of the housing stock, economic prosperity, climatic factors and re-

gional demographics. These must all be considered in any evaluation of fuel poverty at a

national level.

• The most financially disadvantaged households are older households, low-income

households with dependent children and, in particular, single parent families.

Housing tenure is also important with tenants more likely than owner-occupiers to be fuel

poor.

• The age of the property is also an important factor since many fuel-poor households

live in dwellings constructed before the introduction of regulations concerning thermal

standards.

• The EU-SILC data are of limited value in developing an accurate and detailed analysis of

fuel poverty. National data-sets must be used to provide an informed view of fuel poverty

within the individual countries. Nevertheless, the EU-SILC data do provide useful

comparative information, both objective and subjective, on the profile of fuel pov-

erty in the Member States.

The situation in the five partner countries: policies and social support

• United Kingdom: The UK has the greatest experience and understanding of fuel pov-

erty issues. There is an objective measure of what constitutes fuel poverty (see page 11)

and this enables the problem to be accurately quantified. There are currently some 5.1

million fuel-poor households – almost 20% of all households.

Page 15 on 44


2 The EU Statistics on Income and Living conditions (EU-SILC), is coordinated by Eurostat - Statistical Office of the European Commission.

• France: In France there exists a coherent infrastructure to tackle different manifestations

of fuel poverty but policy is not well coordinated. The incidence of fuel poverty in France

is variously estimated at between 2 million and 5 million households. Within France, fuel

poverty has been regarded and treated as a problem of general poverty. Consequently, a

range of infrastructure and welfare measures have been developed to help fuel-poor

households but they are more curative than preventative and are not well directed to-

wards addressing the causes of fuel poverty.

• Belgium: There is a considerable degree of social support and consumer protection but

there is a lack of the political awareness needed to develop an effective response on a

long term.

• Italy: A social tariff has been established for electricity consumers (5 million vulnerable

households) and the Energy Regulator is working on a similar mechanism for the gas

market.

• Spain: Fuel poverty is not recognised at any significant level. There is no real remedial

infrastructure because there is no perception of fuel poverty as a compelling social prob-

lem.

Page 16 on 44


How to tackle fuel poverty:Some good practices

The meaning of a “good

practice” on fuel poverty

EPEE project triggered a process of

knowledge of fuel poverty based on

a progressive implementation of

different level of survey:

Analysis of causes, consequences,

determinant factors and impacts of

fuel poverty (through the analysis of

the different National situations and

a European comparison to find a

common approach in treating the

matter);

Survey on the each Country’s

infrastructures potentially strategic

in a vision of the organisation of a

National Action Programme on fuel

poverty;

Discussion and participated work

with stakeholders and key-actors

to provide a review of measures and existing mechanisms (“good practices”) able to operate

in reducing fuel poverty impacts and to find proposals of “new mechanisms”.

Lessons learned from the National Workshop

It is vital to spread awareness in society of the problems of

energy poverty and its link to the energy efficiency quality

of housing.

National energy efficiency programmes must include the

issue of energy poverty. This may be a key factor in

improving the impact of these policies from the economic,

energy, environmental and social point of view.

The consequences of liberalisation of the energy market on

poorer households must be addressed by the setting up of

regulatory and / or compensatory measures

Social workers, the key links in the chain of detection of

families vulnerable to energy poverty, must be given special

training in this subject

Addressing the problem of energy poverty involves

increasing knowledge of the issue, coordinating policies,

and an international exchange of best practices. To this

end a European research institute might be a useful tool for

demonstrating a common European commitment to

combat the problem. Such an institute could study, assess

and develop policies for combating energy poverty.

Page 17 on 44


Path of participation allowed to finalise a common and reliable definition of “good practice”

rather than the adoption of the more ambitious meaning of “best practice”. This seemed the

best choice in relation to what all the partners knew tank to the National surveys and the

comparison of the different results:

• British experience, for example, reports the existence of several measures and tools to

tackle fuel poverty and confirms that the local level is the best and most reliable to im-

plement effective actions; on the other hand, this situation highlighted that too many ac-

tions may dangerously fragment the available funds;

• In France and in Belgium different useful existing measures demonstrate an interesting

approach taking different aspect in account (energy, social, economic, …) and different

sectors seem committed in policies potentially to be structured in an Action Programme;

• Italian situation presents and high and significant combination of tools and measures

mainly operating on energy efficiency on buildings in general and social housing in par-

ticular;

• In Spain interesting opportunities exist but measures and tools well oriented to causes

and factor influencing fuel poverty lack.

This is what EPEE found bout technical measures specifically addressed to the improvement

of energy efficiency in buildings and to concretely promote the rational use of energy (in

accordance with EPBD).

Concerning legislative and regulation tools and the wider field of financial supporting schemes

and actions or tools (meaning specific allowances for the mitigation of the burden of energy

costs on the available income of vulnerable households), as short-time tools in tackling fuel

poverty, each Country presents similar situations in relation to the quality of the existing tools.

This picture confirms that it’s better to consider the meaning of “good practice” as an action

or a measure of whom we may define effectiveness depending on their coherence in relation

to the objective of eradicating causes and reduce impacts. We have to start from “good

practices” and work towards an Action Programme made by effective measures operating on

different thematic themes or fields.

Page 18 on 44


EPEE benchmarking European analysis was oriented to identify measures, tools and

mechanisms with the ability in removing causes of fuel poverty (for example, measures

related to the improvement of energy efficiency of buildings occupied by vulnerable

households) or even to the reduction of their impacts (as subsidies and allowances do when

they strengthen the household’s income) or to the key-actors’ ability in directly operating and

giving support to vulnerable households and find with them all the conditions needed to face

the problem on the whole (energy costs, energy efficiency, income).

This approach allowed to satisfy the original main assumption: fuel poverty is absolutely an

unknown concept except for Great Britain and so it seemed a good choice to make a

significant effort in searching measures that could be repeated in each Country and

considered as a good basis to imagine and propose new mechanisms.

Some measure for protection of vulnerable households, established by energy regulators or

implemented by energy suppliers (for example, rules for disconnection and their attention to

vulnerable consumers) sometimes are consolidated (as in France or in Great Britain) whereas

in other contexts , as in Spain or in Belgium and in Italy (at the moment only for electricity

market), they are “good practices”.

Social tariffs are a quite different matter because they are treated in different way in each

partner Country and the needed requirements to this benefits vary a lot.

Discussions in French national workshop showed how the biggest energy supplier introduced

a voluntary social tariff for its vulnerable customers and they may receive an allowance on

energy bills. On the other hand in Italy the energy regulator established a national system of

social tariff in accordance with a Decree of the Minister for Economic Development. This

system is affected by the use of a quite unreliable economic indicator in the definition of

vulnerable households. We may find a similar situation in Spain (even if it works with very low

power) and in Belgium (where free amount of energy for vulnerable households are granted

and lower bills for fuel poors exist).

Page 19 on 44


These considerations remind another crucial issue within the tempt to imagine how an Action

Programme for Fuel Poverty could be structured. A common need of a reliable system to

measure, evaluate and monitor fuel poverty exists and it was often considered as the most

important action to assure the feasibility o fan effective Action Programme.

General results

The results of the search and the selection of “good practices” have been organised

according to the different targets because fuel poverty is a complex phenomenon and an

holistic approach is needed in order to consider all the possibilities in operating in different

fields to improve each conditions that may influence and impact on this new form of poverty.

Energy efficiencyof housing

Energy Price

Household incomes

Affordable heat

Social Tariffs

Warm ZonesFSATME

WhiteCertificates

Winter Fuel payment

Maximising Income

Improve Energy qualityof housing stock heat

Micro-credit

Externalities• Health improvement• Better living conditions• Housing quality improvement• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Page 20 on 44


Actions and measures may work towards three different targets:

• They may work to reduce energy prices for the households (“energy prices side”);

• They may improve energy efficiency of buildings occupied by vulnerable households

(“energy efficiency side”), including a necessary commitment and effort in educating

households to the rational use of energy and energy saving;

• They may work in the social field by strengthening low incomes as possible (“house-

holds’ income side”).

This approach agrees with the three main aspects influencing fuel poverty as the National

surveys confirmed. Fuel poverty is strongly influenced and determinated by the variable

action of three different factors:

• Raise of energy prices;

• Low energy performances of building stock and of existing social housing in particular;

• Low incomes.

Table 1: European good practices to tackle fuel poverty: review of the EPEE selected practices (level, impacts) per Country

Page 21 on 44


We crossed these three factors with different project, management and implementation level

in order to differentiate, for example, National or institutional initiatives from the local ones.

The organisation of results produced a table (Table 1) that gives a thematic overview of all the

“good practices” selected.

Another considered thematic principle in differentiating “good practices” concerns a very

important element that is transversal to the three factors mentioned above (energy cost/

energy efficiency/low income): information and training besides the system of knowledge and

competences are crucial and they may produce very effective “good practices” by

themselves.

Obviously every “good practice” needs to be supported by a Communication and training

Plan: information is necessary to make citizens, key-actors and other subjects aware of the

opportunity whereas training allow to transfer to technicians, decision makers and others the

needed know-how so that the measure could work with success (this is true, for example,

when a measure for energy efficiency exist and it needs craftsmen are well informed about it,

its requirements, …).

Page 22 on 44


Specific results

The analysis of specific results of the search of good practices has to consider that in any

national contexts, especially in the Mediterranean ones, fuel poverty and its relations with

social, economic, health, energy and environmental impacts should be connected with

increasing energy consumptions and costs due to cooling in summer and the need to have a

thermal comfort even in this season. Countries as Spain and Italy, but even France, have

particular climatic conditions in summer and hot excesses are increasing and they represent

a new critical state for vulnerable people (elderly people and children above all). In these

Countries ability in keeping home adequately warm is becoming absolutely equivalent to

ability in keeping home adequately cool in summer.

Cooling in summer must be considered as a urgent need to steer more clearly policies in

tackling fuel poverty towards a wider concept of energy efficiency and housing comfort of

buildings. New objective is an holistic approach to the energy issues of buildings and costs

related (a building must be heated, lighted, got cooled and equipped with the essential

appliances).

We may find a significant experience in a Spanish Plan for the prevention et in reducing

impacts of excesses of hot weather in summer: this good practice concerns a prevention

programme identifying best behaviours and knowledge to avoid problems. Anyway housing

summer comfort must be integrated with the most traditional issues of fuel poverty.

Page 23 on 44


Good practices with an impact on

“energy prices”

Continuous raising of energy

pr ices is a common factor

influenc ing fue l pover ty as

demonstrated by the results of

first analysis carried out in the first

phase of EPEE project.

Some Countries, where energy

mix depends strongly from the

import of oil and natural gas (as

Italy, for example), this trend

causes a lot of problems on

households’ income. In Italy, for

example, in the last 4 years a

f a m i l y h a d a n a d d i t i o n a l

expenditure of 400 € for electricity

and heating and in 2007 beared

an increase of 1,6% of costs for

electricity and 2,3% for natural

gas.

Operating on energy cost means

to work with short-time measures

in tackling fuel poverty and they

allow just to help households in

facing the raise of prices through

a i d s a n d s u b s i d i e s o f t e n

disconnected from the more general mechanism to eradicate fuel poverty’s main causes.

Energy Efficiency Certificates (EEC):a tool to be used in combating fuel poverty

To combat climate change, some European States have,

over a number of years, required energy suppliers (the

“obligees”), to achieve energy savings on behalf of their

customers. This mechanism, in different forms such as the

Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) or White Certificates,

has been utilised in different ways in individual states to

reflect their own policy priorities.

In Great Britain, since 1994, the major gas and electricity

suppliers have been required to achieve energy savings in

the domestic sector. From the outset suppliers’ obligations

have featured a strong social element, and a Priority

Group was designated to ensure that the most

disadvantaged energy consumers received an equitable

share of the benefits. Programmes that preceded CERT

required that 50 % of energy savings should benefit Priority

Group customers, This group includes households

receiving means-tested or disability-related social security

benefits. Under CERT, this group has been expanded to

include households in which the average age is 70 or over.

This Priority Group now accounts for about 43 %, or more

than 10 million households in Great Britain.

Expansion of the criteria for eligibility to the priority group

was accompanied by a reduction of the proportion of

savings to be achieved for that group, from 50 % to 40 %.

The Government estimates that 53 % of overall

expenditure will be devoted to the priority group.

Page 24 on 44


A common problem in the definition of these measures concerns reliability of indicators used

to evacuate the phenomenon, especially in searching the best definition of people to whom

address actions and aids. There is not necessarily an equivalence between vulnerable

households or people (usually included in welfare policies) and people who live in fuel poverty

conditions).

Actions to improve energy efficiency of buildings indirectly influence energy costs because

they trigger an effective mechanism of reduction of energy consumptions and energy bills. In

this case analysis of interventions’ pay back period is crucial.

Social tariff is an important tool within practices saving an impact on energy costs. The

situation in the different Partner Countries is quite varied. In Belgium, for example, an

interesting mechanism matches free energy for vulnerable people with tax exemptions or

sometimes a suppression of costs in the energy bill. Vulnerable people are considered who

receive yet a social aid or subsidy. On the other hand, in Italy the Government with the

technical support of the Energy Regulator recently set a social tariff for electricity customers.

People and households living with low income can benefit of a deduction in energy bill. A

problem concerns the indicator used in identifying people to whom address the benefit (ISEE,

Indicator of Social and Economic Family Situation is not so reliable). Social aspects are not so

well considered in the evaluation.

Actions on energy costs are also related to the protection of security of supply in case of bill

arrears. Concerned to that Partner Countries have different mechanisms and some times

they are considered “good practices”. It’s the Belgian and Spanish experience where

vulnerable people enjoy particular conditions and they have granted supply of heating during

winter (they are well protected by a precise national or regional Code of Commercial Quality

for Energy Suppliers). Italy represents a negative experience because there’s a very low level

of protection for vulnerable customers.

Page 25 on 44


Good practices with an impact on “energy efficiency”

Energy efficiency policies are considered the best tool to reduce energy consumptions and

costs for each kind of user.

Even in a fuel poverty visions these actions allows to work in a medium or long term

perspective in which renovation of the existing building stock and the new assessment of

energy efficiency standards for the new buildings are actions able to reach once energy,

environmental and economic targets. A problem is represented by the needed investments

and the related pay back period.

Operating on energy efficiency is

an action focused on the three

main crucial factor influencing and

producing fuel poverty: the

i m p r o v e m e n t o f e n e r g y

performance of buildings assures

a better housing comfort and an

important effect in social inclusion,

reduces energy consumptions and

costs families bear to satisfy their

energy needs. Other important

benefits concern environmental

performances of buildings. All

these elements confirm that

energy efficiency actions allow to reach a complete sustainability (energy, social, economic

and environmental sustainability).

Several good practices of energy efficiency selected by EPEE in the different partner

countries provide an interesting picture of initiatives related to the social housing stock (see

the example of the Italian national programme for renovation of existing social housing stock

with 280 Million Euro allocated), but also integrated programmes of energy auditing – energy

advice – improvement of buildings energy performances.

The Warm ZonesWarm Zones, set up in 2000,has proven to be particu-larly effective in combating energy poverty. It is based on approaching residents directly in each district, a method that makes it possible to draw up an accurate picture of the situation of each resident, to jointly iden-tify the work that needs to be done (insulation, heaters, etc.) and to inform the resident of available aid. The Latter solution is particularly attractive since the most disadvantaged households may be entitled to subsidies for all the work to be done. This is known as the "something for each" principle. Warm Zones acts in close partnership with local authorities, European agencies, energy providers and other partners such as heating companies. They are non-profit making organi-sations whose only purpose is to improve the quality of life of the most vulnerable families who often live in damp buildings or who cannot afford to heat their homes properly.

Page 26 on 44


Concerning that a French action

emerges for its methodological

completeness. It’s the “Social fund

for energy renovation (FSATME)”

that tackle fuel poverty helping

vulnerable households with an

holistic approach. It cares about

opportunities in reducing energy

consumpt ions operat ing on

buildings and heating plants also

giving to the households important

suggestions and informations to

increase their awareness about

rational use of energy. Social

workers are directly involved in the

programme. Mechanism is very

interesting because it is based on

a wider vision and perspective: it

cares about having all needed

technical warranties for the

c o n c re t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

interventions.

The english Warm Zone has a

similar approach. This is an

integrated programme matching

different operating levels (governmental, local, public, private) and different functions that act

on the main causes of fuel poverty.

Social funds for energy renovation (FSATME)

The main objective of «FSATME» is to improve the thermal

quality of vulnerable household housing to reduce their

energy bills and / or improve living comfort (temperature,

humidity ...), but social funds can also deal with the whole

energy consumption of housing (appliances, lighting,

entertainment devices) without forgotten water

consumption.

The detection of households can be done through various

means:

• When they call the Housing Solidarity Fund of the

department for the clearance of energy debts

• For social workers in the sector who find a poor quality

housing or bills too high,

• A heating engineer commissioned by the FSATME to

perform an energy audit and prepares

recommendations for improvements.

The request for an assistance by FSATME ( allocation of aid,

support for the launch of work and monitoring) can be

made by a social worker or by a local association. The

FSATME can be funded by the Housing Solidarity Fund,

Family allowance fund, General Council, Community and

ADEME. Energy suppliers may also contribute. About a

dozen devices have been introduced in a dozen French

General Council.

Page 27 on 44


Energy suppliers actively participate in the programme and they allocate a significant part of

the funds. Other important stakeholders are involved as Local Authorities, social workers,

craftsmen, …

In a European vision this could be considered a “best practice” because it is absolutely

repeated everywhere across Europe.

On the other hand energy labelling of buildings may be treated as a good practice because it

is the main tool EPBD considered to increase information about energy performances of

buildings. Since 2005 Italy implemented EPBD and in some Italian Regions (first of all

Lombardy Region) set up new energy efficiency standards for new buildings and the existing

ones. The control of buildings energy performances is both an important tool to increase

citizens’ awareness and an operating instrument for a concrete improvement of energy

quality of buildings, especially for the social housing stock. Similar experiences are the

Spanish and the Belgian one: in 2007 Spain Government established new standard for

energy performance in new buildings and in Belgium guidelines for energy efficiency in social

buildings exist. On a local level, experience of regional “Neighbourhood Agreements” in North

of Italy emerges.

Page 28 on 44


Good practices with an impact on the “household’s income”

This is the most traditional field of

intervention to tackle fuel poverty

and in general to help vulnerable

households. Even EPEE collected

spot act ions and measures

operating in a occasional and

exceptional way (contributions and

subsidies to help vulnerable

people to pay energy costs are the

most meaningful examples). These

practices can’t obviously eradicate

the causes of fuel poverty. In

addition the risk that economic

subsidies might unintentionally

produce an increase of energy

c o n s u m p t i o n s m u s t b e

highlighted.

On the other hand tax deduction

or exemption policies for energy

e f fic i ency i n t e r ven t i ons on

buildings (as it happens in Italy)

might be ineffective in tackling fuel

poverty if a priority addressed to

v u l n e r a b l e p e o p l e i s n o t

established.

Training for social workers

In general, social workers are not aware about

energy aspects related to housing. Entering a

housing of people asking welfare, they are

regularly faced to situations of fuel poverty

without the tools to identify them. The

development of a practical guide should enable

them to overcome this by providing them with

keys to understanding and examples of relevant

actions.

In addition to this guide, training social workers

on energy issues in housing seems very

necessary to help them to realise better audits of

the situations of fuel poverty.

This training can be organised on one or several

days, with the goal of:

• providing basic information about energy

market and energy efficiency,

• disseminating ways to identify dysfunctions

related to buildings, equipment and behav-

iour (analysis of bills, brief diagnosis of build-

ings, equipment),

• proposing solutions to situations encoun-

tered

• sharing the experiences.

Page 29 on 44


Information and training:

knowledge as a common value for an effective Action Programme

Communication and training are a fundamental component of any action programme or

policy involving people, professionals, public authorities, private companies, … On the other

hand these two functions may often represent good practices by themselves. In France for

example a very interesting good practices concerned the training of social workers on energy

issues, a relevant action related to the need of awareness social field has in relation to the fuel

poverty.

Another French good practice concerns information to a wide public: the idea of a

“apartment witness” able to communicate best behaviours to save energy and natural

resources in daily uses in house is very effective.

Communication, training, energy auditing, interventions on buildings and plants: an integrated

Action Programme is needed to tackle fuel poverty. This is the way English Warm Zone and

French Social Fund for Energy Efficiency in Buildings are operating. In these two cases

information about rational use of energy and energy saving match direct actions and

interventions on buildings for the improvement of energy efficiency and these actions are best

effective thanks to the training of the involved professionals.

Page 30 on 44


Recommendations Guides for local stakeholders

The recommendations guides realised in the framework of EPEE project are intended to

assist Politicians, local authority councillors and advice workers in identifying fuel and other

energy problems and to provide information and guidance on how to resolve these problems.

It considers the most common areas of concern for domestic energy consumers and

describes their rights and entitlements, and the agencies available to assist them. These

guides describe practical action to alleviate fuel poverty, to benefit the health and wellbeing of

constituents and to increase their disposable income. Also contained within the guides are

details of the specialist agencies to which constituents can be referred.

The causes of fuel poverty are inadequate thermal insulation, inefficient and uneconomic

heating systems, low household income, and high fuel prices. The consequence is that

millions of households cannot afford sufficient warmth for health and comfort.

However, fuel poverty can often be a complex problem and there may be a range of different

actions that can be taken to improve the circumstances of a constituent or client.

The five national guides for local actors have been designed to be well fitted to the priority

needs of local actors in the different Countries. Each of these guides aims at explaining better

the causes and the consequences of the fuel poverty and at presenting the existing

measures to fight against the fuel poverty. In very concrete vocation, these guides want to be

methodological tools for the local action.

Page 31 on 44


The Belgium Guide

The guide aims at making aware political decision makers at the

different level (Federal, regional and local) so that they include in their

present and future policies essential thinkings to fight against fuel

poverty.

The English Guide

has been designed to be a practical guide to help Members of

Parliament, local authority councillors and advice workers answer

queries on energy bills, heating, home insulation and energy efficiency.

The guide gives specific advice to each one of the identified problems

such as lack of payment of energy bills.

The French Guide

is dedicated to Local actors working in France. The guide is a new

document developed by French partners in the consortium. It is

structured in cards that give ideas on how to achieve specific

objectives.

For example objective 1 is to improve the local knowledge in Fuel

Poverty and for that objective the guide presents two different ideas

expressed in separately cards

Page 32 on 44


The Italian Guide

is focused on Local actors and decision makers in Lombardy Region

specifically and Italy in general. This guide explains in a simply way

what is fuel poverty and its causes and consequences.

It explains the way of identifying the problem and the best of all,

proposes how to tackle fuel poverty.

The spanish guide

is dedicated to Local social actors in Catalonia specifically and in

Spain. This is why this guide has been published in two languages.

The document is a practical guide for social workers that helps them

to identify the problem and gives some proposals on how to

eradicate fuel poverty.

The structure of the guide is base on an initial table that relates the

problem with the solution which are explained in different sections of

the guide.

Page 33 on 44


Recommendations for European and National Actors

EU legislation of relevance to fuel poverty

Fuel poverty must be an issue of concern to policy-makers at all levels in health, energy, so-

cial services and housing.

Energy

• Directive adopted on 25 June 2009 the internal market in electricity requires

Member States to take appropriate measures to protect final customers and, in particu-

lar, to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect vulnerable customers and to

help improve energy efficiency of housing (in view of n. 53 and points 7 and 8 of article

3).

• Directive adopted on 25 June 2009 the internal market in natural gas states the

same requirements as the directive on the internal electricity market (in view of n. 50 and

points 3 and 4 of article 3).

• Directive 2002/91/EC on Energy Performance of Buildings sets minimum require-

ments on energy performance in new buildings and for major renovation works for exist-

ing buildings with floor spaces of over 1000 m2 undergoing major refurbishment work.

• Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services en-

hances the cost-effective improvement of energy end use efficiency in the Member

States.

Page 34 on 44


Energy Consumers’ protection and rights

• Directive 2003/54/EC and Directive 2003/55/EC extend the right of consumers to

have a contract with their energy provider, the right to receive transparent information on

prices, and the right to be given adequate notice if contractual conditions are changed.

• Directive 2005/29/EC outlaws Unfair Commercial Practices including within the energy

sector.

• The Third Legislative Package of energy proposals adopted on 25 June 2009 will give

added protection to users, particularly in the context of the freeing of energy markets

(transparency regarding prices, rates, contracts and information about energy consump-

tion).

Health and fuel poverty

Poor housing conditions can have a serious negative impact on health and well-being. How-

ever, the key issues of access to adequate, affordable and appropriate housing are not within

the EU’s legal competence.

Some EU legal documents impact on affordability, quality and availability of housing but they

are not directly linked to health services. Some relevant European publications provide a pos-

sible basis for future EU legislation

Recommendations identified in the EPEE program

Oil and gas prices have reached unprecedented levels in world markets and domestic

consumers everywhere are facing major problems in terms of unaffordable energy costs.

Social inclusion policies are being adversely affected and the numbers of disadvantaged

consumers will continue to increase drastically.

The following sections provide some useful recommendations for decision makers at EU level

intending to strengthen action to tackle fuel poverty.

Page 35 on 44


These recommendations identified in the EPEE program, are based on the actions required

for preventing fuel poverty:

• A common definition,

• A legislative framework,

• A consistent diagnosis,

• A fuel poverty special interest group.

The importance of a common definition

The EU must set out a clear definition of fuel poverty. This may be quite general but should

recognise the key issue of inability to achieve adequate warmth at an affordable cost.

The five partner countries of the EPEE project have come up with this definition: “Fuel poverty

as a household’s difficulty, sometimes even inability, to adequately heat its dwelling at a fair,

income indexed price.”.

Member States should recognise energy poverty and refine the common definition according

to their own national circumstances.

For example, in the UK a household is deemed to be fuel poor if it requires to spend 10¥ or

more of income on essential energy services. Likewise the definition of a proper standard of

heating depends on country and climate. Furthermore, Member States should also define

precisely what is understood by those categorised as “vulnerable customers” and it would be

extremely valuable if the EU were to reach a common position on what constitutes

“vulnerability”.

Energy poverty is taken into account in the two directives adopted on 25 June 2009 for the

internal market in gas and electricity, but is not defined therein. In the revision currently under

way of directive 2002/91/EC on the energy efficiency of buildings the following definition is

proposed: “situation in which a household has to spend more than one tenth of its

income to pay bills to heat its dwelling to an acceptable standard, based on levels

recommended by the W.H.O.”

Page 36 on 44


The importance of legislative framework

Existing EU legal documents that directly or indirectly tackle fuel poverty constitute a good

starting point, but much more could be done through revisions and improvements:

Proposed amendments to existing regulations

• Amendments to directives adopted on 25 June 2009 relating to the internal gas and

electricity markets may detail the role of member States, in addition to protection of vul-

nerable customers, in aids for improvements of the energy efficiency of housing in the

context of energy poverty policies.

• An amendment to directive 2002/91/EC on the energy efficiency of buildings might set

higher standards, particularly in publicly or privately owned local authority housing, in

which energy efficiency criteria ought to be more stringent. All existing buildings, and not

only ones with floor areas of over 1000 m2 which are undergoing major refurbishment

work, should be subject to regulation, since most European buildings do not comply with

current energy efficiency standards. Revision of this direction is currently under way, and

the following measures were adopted by the European Parliament in April 2009: a state

of “fuel poverty” is defined, the 1000 m2 threshold is done away with, but “minimum en-

ergy efficiency requirements” are only required for buildings undergoing major refurbish-

ment work (20% of the value of the building, instead of 25% today).

• An amendment to Directive 2006/32/EC on Energy Services. Member States should

prepare Energy Efficiency Plans and implement some energy efficiency measures. The

amendment could include the recommendation that Member States prioritise social pub-

licly or privately owned local authority housing. This might involve domestic generation of

renewable energy or improved insulation and ventilation standards in this housing sector.

Revision work on this directive will start in 2010.

• Objectives linked to energy poverty should be incorporated in the various tools set up by

States in the context of the European energy policy programme. As an example: a com-

pany that emits too much CO2 might invest to improve energy efficiency for households

suffering energy poverty in other European countries, in line with appendix 1 of the Kyoto

agreement on the assessment and reduction of emissions (joint implementation).

Page 37 on 44


• This is also the case in Energy Efficiency Certificates (EEC) issued in some countries

such as the UK, France and Italy, which might adopt criteria linked to energy poverty, as

has already been done in the United Kingdom.

• Finally, in the context of the European action plan for energy efficiency, which is due to

start in Nov. 2009, one might include measures relating to combating energy poverty

with detailed targets for energy efficiency work on buildings for which there are funding

mechanisms from European Structural Funds and loans from the European Investment

Bank.

Proposed new regulations

• The relationship between health and fuel poverty. An EU regulation should give

Member States general guidance on the relationship between health and fuel poverty. EU

countries could benefit from common guidelines on how to protect the health of vulner-

able citizens from the consequences of fuel poverty. For example, Councils of the EU

(Health, Energy, etc.) should provide information about essential criteria to be considered

in devising winter and summer plans.

• Energy Consumers’ Charter. The Charter is potentially an excellent document and

does seek views on how best to protect the interests of vulnerable consumers. However,

in order to maximise the intended benefits we would strongly recommend, of the kind

that gave rise to the European passengers’ charter in the field of public transport, that

the charter needs to have the force and authority of a regulation. The enactment of non-

binding legislation, as the charter is intended to be, is inadequate in this context and it is

not clear why the rights of energy consumers should be relegated to non-binding legisla-

tion.

• Reporting. An EU regulation should oblige Member States to report on how they will

fulfil their obligations to energy consumers. The UK energy regulator, Ofgem, already re-

ports on progress in meeting its social and environmental duties and could serve as a

model for possible replication.

Page 38 on 44


The importance of a consistent diagnosis

As a preliminary action and before undertaking

further work on a common strategy to tackle fuel

poverty, it is important to analyse in detail the current

fuel poverty situation. There are not many specific

studies on Fuel Poverty so it is difficult to obtain

enough quantitative and qualitative data. For EPEE

study EU-SILC and national data have been used

and although the existing tools are good, we

suggest a revision on data related to Fuel Poverty.

This guide proposes two recommendations at this

level:

a) To improve quality of European data including

new variables and to cross existing data with

national data as some incongruities have been found between national and European

data.

b) To create a work group on Fuel Poverty data. This specific Commission would report on

national and European data, energy tariffs, social impact of energy supply. There should be

a common set of indicators through different countries in Europe. A EU regulation could be

the tool to oblige (oblige or encourage, or advise?) Member States to have national good

quality data bases, in this case, of Fuel Poverty. It would be very interesting for the

European analysis of Fuel Poverty if each region quantifies the number of households in

fuel Poverty, identifies where fuel-poor live, etc.

Page 39 on 44


European guide:

A tool for tackling fuel poverty

Fuel poverty is an increasingly serious problem across European Union member states and it is

important that the issue be addressed at the European level.

This will require intervention across a range of policies including: social welfare, energy prices and tariffs

and domestic energy efficiency, with particular emphasis on heating and insulation improvements.

The primary objective of the EPEE European guide is to propose a series of practical recommendations

addressed to European decision-makers based on findings of a study carried out by the EPEE

partnership.

Contents

• Introduction

• Fuel Poverty in Europe

• Tackling Fuel Poverty: what has been done at EU level?

• Key recommendations: what can be done at EU level?

• The importance of a consistent definition

• The importance of a legislative framework

• The importance of a consistent diagnostic

• The case for further fuel poverty research and analysis

• Conclusion: why it is important to tackle Fuel Poverty at a European level?

In the absence of effective national legislation to protect vulnerable consumers for example, it would

seem rational and equitable that the EU should take a much more active role in safeguarding the

interests of these consumers. Although Member States will retain the major role in action against fuel

poverty, EPEE believes there to be a compelling case for greater EU intervention via a possible range of

policy instruments, legislation and other mechanisms.

Page 40 on 44


The Case for further fuel poverty research and analysis

A number of mechanisms at European level do, in some way and to some extent, tackle fuel

poverty. Fuel poverty is not only about energy; it also encompasses health, consumer

protection and housing issues among others. It would therefore be useful to have a common

reference resource such as a European Fuel Poverty Watch. This institution would represent a

single central repository for information and research on the subject of fuel poverty.

This institution should be formed by a cross-Directorates group and an advisory group

(charities, lobbies, consumers etc).

Its tasks could include the work on Fuel Poverty data mentioned earlier, but also coordination

between countries, making sure that the regulations are being applied, etc.

Page 41 on 44


EPEE’s Partners

Five countries represented, several partners

Five countries are involved in the programme, each of which is represented by different types

of agencies:

• In France the EPEE work is shared across three organisations.

• Alphéeis, the programme coordinator, is a research organisation specialising in en-

ergy and the environment;

• ADEME, a public organisation in charge of implementing energy policy in the building

sector;

• and CLER (Liaison Committee for Renewable Energy), which administers a network

of players on the ground, mainly associations, in the field of energy and renewable en-

ergy. Two local members of CLER, Gefosat and Edif, are involved in the EPEE work.

• The British partner is National Energy Action (NEA). NEA is a national charity whose

priority objective is to develop and promote energy efficiency improvements in dwellings

occupied by low-income households. NEA works in partnership with national, regional

and local administrations, and with landlords, energy suppliers, health authorities, caring

agencies and consumer protection bodies to ensure that fuel poverty is central to policy

and decision making.

• In Belgium, the project is run by CUNIC (a non-profit making organisation of the Univer-

sity of Charleroi), which organises university training courses for adults. The Energy De-

partment runs seminars, conferences and training in various subjects such as social

guidance on energy and the rational use of energy, as well as providing specific training

on involving the community in these issues.

Page 42 on 44


• In Spain, the partner agency is Ecoserveis, an association that provides products and

services in the field of renewable energy and the environment and organises exhibitions,

publications and action on these themes.

• In Italy, the project is man-aged by Cestec, a company funded by Lombardy Region,

and originally established with the aim of carrying out regional action in support of small

and medium enterprises. Cestec now has an additional role in addressing fuel poverty.

ADEME CUNIC

ALPHEEIS ECOSERVEIS

CESTEC NEA

CLER

Page 43 on 44


Epee’s Team

Marta Garcia (Ecoserveis), Sophie De Canson (ADEME), PEP Puig (Ecoserveis), Ron Camp-

bell (NEA), Stefania Ghizordi (Cestec), Emilie Salesse-Gauthier (Cler), Sandrine Buresi (Cler),

Emmanuel Poussard (Cler)

Muriel Wart (Cunic), Pierre Nolay (Alphéeis), Jenny Sanders (NEA), Didier Chérel (ADEME),

Daphné Van Ing (Cunic), Mauro Brolis (Cestec), Damien Dussut (Cler)

Page 44 on 44


epee project european fuel poverty and en- ergy efficiency · 2014-08-11 · epee project: european...

Documents