Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Eighth Report


3  Household energy efficiency

There should be a general moral view that wasting energy is wrong. […] it is morally wrong to waste energy because we are putting at hazard our own grandchildren.

                Sir David Attenborough[58]

Background

41. Emissions from the domestic building stock were responsible for 152.9 MtCO2 in 2004, around 27% of total UK emissions. If domestic sector emissions are to be reduced in line with overall emission reduction targets, then domestic emissions have to fall to an annual 62 MtCO2 by 2050.[59]

42. In October 2006 Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs launched the European Commission's Action Plan Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential. The plan sets out more than 70 actions which the Commission proposes to take over the next six years to boost energy efficiency in the EU. The Commission estimates that the effect of the Action Plan will be a 20% reduction (against current projections) in energy consumption by 2020. Priority actions include the introduction of new appliance efficiency standards, revision of energy labelling rules, more stringent energy performance standards for buildings, and work on proposals for legislation to help ensure that emissions targets for cars are met.[60]

43. Defra sets out a hierarchy of particular behaviours to address climate change:

—avoid energy waste through simple changes to behaviour;

—use energy more efficiently by buying energy efficient products or installing home insulation measures;

—reduce carbon content of energy used by switching to green tariffs, biomass heating or microgeneration; and

—offset carbon.[61]

44. This message was supported by the Micropower Council in their evidence to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee in October 2006:

Energy efficiency should come first. It is the low-hanging fruit that we have out there at the moment and microgeneration technologies are there to supply whatever residual needs you have after you have taken every cost effective step to make a building as energy efficient as possible.[62]

45. Dr Dave Reay from the University of Edinburgh argued that significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be achieved through facilitating greater energy efficiency and reduced energy demand:

Some commentators have lamented high GHG emission from power-generation in the UK, suggesting that it is futile for individuals to cut their emissions while fossil fuel-fired power generation continues to dominate the energy mix in the UK. What they overlook is the prime reason for the existence of these power stations: direct and indirect energy consumption by households.[63]

46. Policy evaluation work by Defra has shown household energy efficiency measures to be more than four times more cost-effective per tonne of carbon saved than the next best demand-side sector, which is business. In general, demand-side measures were found to be more cost-effective than supply-side measures.[64] Indeed, in some countries it is standard practice for new supply and demand reduction options to be analysed in an integrated way.
California

During its visit to California, the Committee heard how the Pacific Gas & Electric company proposed the replacement of one of San Francisco's old power plants with a new plant twice the size of the old one. The regulator examined energy demand in the area, and its Energy Resource Plan showed that, as a result of energy efficiency measures, demand was not sufficient to justify the construction of the plant.

As a further demand reduction measure, the San Francisco Department of the Environment conducted an efficient lighting programme in which a large number of small businesses in San Francisco had been contacted and invited to install energy efficient lighting. Some 4000 businesses signed up to the scheme which resulted in 6MW of energy savings, equivalent to savings of $3.5m in energy bills every year based solely on lighting. The financial savings meant that there was only a 1-2 year payback period. A large proportion of the initial outlay was provided by the Department. For example, if the total cost of installation was $350, the business was invited to pay $100 with the Department making up the difference. Funding for this was generated by the 3% surcharge on energy bills (the Public Goods Charge). Revenue generated by this charge was then ringfenced for energy efficiency projects.

New build

47. Recent projections reveal that the current housing supply is insufficient to meet the growing demand as the population both ages and increases. In response to the Barker Report the Government has pledged to increase the supply of housing in England to 200,000 per annum by 2012 in order to bridge this gap. In recognition of the significance of reducing emissions from the household sector and increasing the energy efficiency of the housing stock, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) recently announced that "we need to set a target now for moving to zero carbon housing within 10 years".[65] In February 2007 the Government established the '2016 Zero Carbon Homes Taskforce' to:

—Identify the barriers to implementation of the zero carbon 2016 target, and put in place measures to address them.

—Develop a Concordat for publication alongside the final 'Building a Greener Future' policy statement, which will set out the respective roles of central and local government and business as we move towards the zero carbon 2016 target.

—Develop a timeline for steps that need to be taken over the next ten years to support the implementation of the zero carbon 2016 target.[66]

48. The Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University reported in its 40% House study that if the UK was to meet its climate change commitments, 14% of homes would need to be replaced, with 220,000 new homes built and others improved.[67] The Government has reviewed Part L of the Building Regulations for England and Wales, in order to make buildings more energy-efficient and to tackle climate change. The changes took effect in April 2006: new homes now need to be better insulated and use more efficient heating systems. The revised Part L1 (for dwellings) makes air pressure leakage testing mandatory, which should improve compliance by showing where there is unacceptable air leakage. Poor levels of airtightness in buildings can make a significant contribution to heat loss.[68] The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) notes that the review of Part L and the introduction of new standards "will improve energy efficiency by around 40 per cent for new buildings".[69]

49. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) says that it encourages "the upgrading of thermal performance of housing stock". It told us that homes and non-domestic buildings account for approximately 40 per cent of all UK carbon emissions and argued that, setting aside recycling initiatives, "there are a number of other areas where rapid progress could be made." ICE said that the Government could "lead the way with environmentally-aware contracts which are committed to sustainable, low-emission standards". It noted that in Hong Kong government contractors are required to provide for emission standards and waste disposal in their bids. However, it accused local authorities of failing to "deliver the proposed energy certification of public buildings".[70] The Micropower Council advocated the incorporation of microgeneration technology within new build "where it can be 'designed-in' at minimum cost and zero disruption to householders".[71] As a result of projects undertaken in Woking, the Chief Executive of the Borough Council was of the view that sustainable housing could be achievable by 2008, and there was no need to wait until 2016.

CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMES

50. On 13 December 2006, the Code for Sustainable Homes was launched. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), it is a:

[…] new national standard for sustainable design and construction of new homes. By integrating elements of this voluntary Code into new homes and obtaining assessments against the Code, developers will be able to obtain a 'star rating' for any new home which will demonstrate its environmental performance. It will provide valuable information to home buyers, and offer builders a tool with which to differentiate themselves in sustainability terms.[72]

51. At the same time, DCLG launched a consultation on the timetable for incorporating the energy and emission standards set out in the—currently voluntary—Code for Sustainable Homes into future Building Regulations in the move towards 'zero-carbon' homes.[73] However, we have been told that, in terms of energy efficiency, some new buildings do not comply with the existing Building Regulations. For example, the Institution of Civil Engineers said that "not all buildings as built end up with the desired performance levels".[74] Defra said it was "too early to tell whether [the Code] has been a success as a voluntary measure."[75]

52. Given the urgency of the need to tackle climate change as soon as possible, combined with the Government's own ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we are concerned by the length of time it is taking for the UK Government to move to 'zero carbon' housing. The technology required to create 'zero carbon' housing already exists, so we are puzzled as to why it is not already mandatory to build all new housing to this standard. The Government must set out a clear timeline delineating the proportion of all new housing stock which will be built as 'zero carbon' homes on a year by year basis. We further recommend that the 2016 Zero Carbon Homes Taskforce incorporates within its terms of reference the intention to report on steps to be taken to achieve 'zero carbon' homes as soon as possible.

53. Given that some new buildings fail to comply with the existing Building Regulations in terms of energy efficiency, we are not convinced that voluntary measures—such as the Code for Sustainable Homes—will be effective in tackling carbon dioxide emissions. The Government plans for large numbers of new houses to be built. It must not miss this valuable opportunity to ensure that they are as energy efficient as possible, as they will affect energy use for decades to come. The Government must not only require all new houses to be built to a 'zero carbon' standard well before 2016, but must ensure that existing regulations are rigorously enforced.

Existing housing stock

[W]e have become so used to seeing ministers doing things like opening new power stations or new gas pipelines or whatever, even new wind farms, always with a nice white hat on their head and stuff like that, but we have never yet seen a minister open a well-insulated loft.[76]           

54. Even assuming the Government meets its commitments to increase housing supply, estimates suggest that by 2050, only one third of the housing stock will have been built after 2005. New build represents only around 1% of the total housing stock each year. Therefore, a substantial proportion of the existing housing stock has been built to lower energy efficiency standards and subsequently is responsible for the majority of emissions from domestic dwellings.[77]

BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN EXISTING HOUSING

55. CSE argued that one barrier to individuals investing in energy saving is the 'opportunity' cost associated with it—spending on cavity wall insulation, for example, means that people will have less to spend on other things, such as new electrical goods or a deposit for a holiday.[78] In addition to cost, the 'hassle factor' was also cited as a major consideration for the householder in deciding whether or not to install energy efficiency or microgeneration measures. This view was supported by B&Q, which argued that "the individual is not focussed merely on price but also on the perceived effort required and disruption involved in adopting energy saving technologies within the home". It claimed that the direct benefits to the individual of adopting energy efficiency measures tend not to be recognised because of "the disassociation between energy use and costs and the effect of rising energy prices in masking the impact of savings".[79]

56. The Budget 2006 announced that funding of £20 million would be made available over the next two years (2006-7 to 2007-8) to "help local authorities and others work in partnership with energy companies to promote and incentivise energy efficiency measures to households".[80] Germany has a 20-year programme to refurbish all pre-1978 housing stock such that they attain contemporary energy standards.[81] According to the Baden-Württemberg Environment Committee in Stuttgart, new Federal German Building Regulations demand that when an existing property is being substantially refurbished—for example, by extending the property or replacing the roof or the windows—it must be brought up to the same energy efficiency standards as new-build properties.

57. Defra observed that:

The obstacles are multiple and challenging. One obstacle is consumer inaction due to the hassle factor, high upfront costs, and poor information. Often consumers are confused because they are subject to multiple messages coming from multiple sources and they do not have a framework for assessing the relative value and impact of different measures. Access to low cost finances is another issue, particularly for more expensive measures.[82]

58. Energy saving and energy efficiency are the first two measures listed in Defra's hierarchy of areas for individual behavioural change. However, some 8.5m suitable homes still lack cavity wall insulation whilst 50% of older properties are unsuitable for such improvement. [83]

59. Against the background in which new buildings only account for approximately 1% of the total housing stock each year, greater priority must be given to reducing the CO2 emissions associated with the existing housing stock. Particular focus must be given to existing homes with solid walls or flat roofs that are difficult to insulate. Where energy efficiency measures in existing homes are simply impractical or too expensive, an alternative approach is to include the incorporation of renewable electricity and/or heat technologies. This could either be within individual dwellings (e.g. solar water heating) or to supply groups of properties or a community (e.g. solar photovoltaic and wind generation; combined heat and power). The German programme to refurbish all pre-1978 housing stock such that they attain contemporary energy standards has much to commend it. The Government should evaluate the application of such a programme to UK circumstances, with particular emphasis on instances where older properties are substantially improved or extended. Planning permission should not be granted where the proposed modifications will increase the carbon footprint of the building.

HOME INFORMATION PACKS: THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE

60. From 1 August 2007 home owners of properties with four or more bedrooms in England and Wales will be required to arrange for a Home Information Pack (HIP) to be prepared before putting their homes up for sale. In a change to the original timetable, HIPs for smaller properties will be phased in at a later date. A mandatory feature of the HIP is an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which gives houses A-G ratings for energy efficiency.

61. Several witnesses were supportive of the inclusion of energy audits within Home Information Packs (HIPs). EDF Energy observed that they would "serve to increase customer engagement in energy efficiency measures",[84] while the Energy Retail Association took the view that the inclusion of Energy Performance Certificates within Home Information Packs (HIPs) will:

[…] be a policy in driving home the need for properties to be as energy efficient as possible. The onus will fall on the property owner and as they have a vested interest in obtaining the best price for their property it is logical that they should be the group that are incentivised to carry out the work.[85]

62. Recent research by the Energy Saving Trust revealed that energy efficiency is now an important consideration when buying a home for over two-thirds of those surveyed, with nearly 50% saying that they would pay an additional £10,000 for an 'environmentally friendly' property.[86]

63. The Environment Agency pointed out that:

There may be things that we can do to encourage people to upgrade the energy efficiency of the home at particular points of ownership. For instance, where they buy a house, sell a house or extend or modify a house there might be scope for tax breaks, because that is a good moment to get the builders in. One of the big barriers to domestic energy efficiency is that you have to get the builders in and people, understandably, do not like doing that.[87]

64. Friends of the Earth cited research which revealed that "the six-month period after people move home is one of the most important opportunities for tackling energy efficiency and putting in microgeneration, and so forth. If there was some kind of rebate on stamp duty if you put those measures in place quickly, we think that would be a significant opportunity to help bring down emissions".[88]

65. Budget 2007 declared that: "from 1 October 2007 all new zero-carbon homes costing up to £500,000 will pay no stamp duty, with zero-carbon homes costing in excess of £500,000 receiving a reduction in their stamp duty bill of £15,000." This exemption will apply only until September 2012.[89] In addition to the Home Information Packs, we believe there is scope for the Government to incentivise the buyer rather than the seller to undertake domestic energy efficiency improvements. Buyers are more likely to undertake substantial work on a property than sellers. We recommend that the Government provide a stamp duty rebate to home-purchasers who improve the energy performance of their property within one year of purchase.

Tenanted properties

66. There is a particular problem of split incentives when in comes to implementing energy efficiency measures in tenanted properties. Whilst landlords will often make investments in these measures, the benefits are usually enjoyed by tenants as reductions in their energy bills. Andrew Warren, from the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE), argued that landlords required substantial incentives to improve their properties.[90] This was supported by CRed, which expressed concern about the issue of encouraging landlords and/or tenants to invest in energy efficiency measures, and has found this to be "a particular problem for students".[91]

67. Under section 312 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA), landlords who pay income tax may claim a deduction—the Landlord's Energy Saving Allowance—against profits for expenditure to install loft insulation or cavity wall insulation in residential properties which they let. This was extended to cover solid wall insulation in 2005, and again in April 2006 to include draught proofing and insulation for hot water systems. The maximum amount which may be claimed is limited to £1,500 per building.[92] The Budget 2007 announced that legislation in the Finance Bill 2007 will render the allowance applicable on a per property basis rather than per building to ensure that "smaller properties have access to the full allowance".[93]

68. The then Minister of State, Ian Pearson MP, observed that:

"[t]he Landlord's Energy Saving Allowance is actually quite a recent initiative and we need to see whether that does bring about a significant change and more landlords agreeing to their properties having energy efficient measures put into them. I am optimistic that it will. It is a reasonably significant level of assistance. I think we need to keep that under review to see whether it is at the right level."[94] […]The Energy Performance Certificate will make [energy efficiency] information available for people who are letting by 2009, as well as people who are buying from June 2009.[95]

69. More must be done to tackle the issue of tenanted properties. Meaningful information regarding the thermal properties of these buildings, as well as the energy ratings of heating systems and appliances, must be made available to incoming tenants. Energy Performance Certificates for rented properties should be introduced as soon as possible, ideally before 2009.

Product standards

70. According to the Energy Saving Trust, the average home has around 12 unused electrically powered devices drawing power from the grid at any one time, rendering the UK the worst of five European nations surveyed for wasting energy by leaving mobile phone chargers plugged in, appliances on standby and lights on.[96] The EST claimed that, in UK homes each year:

  • Stereos on standby cost £290m and produce 1.6 million tonnes of CO2;
  • VCRs and DVD cost £194m and produce 1.06 million tonnes of CO2;
  • TVs on standby cost £88m and produce 480,000 tonnes of CO2.

Consequently, in the UK alone, household equipment on standby produces a total of 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum.[97] Furthermore, although current estimates suggest that consumer electronics account for around 16% of household electricity use,[98] a recent report by the Energy Saving Trust predicts that domestic entertainment and computer technology could account for 45% of all household electricity use in the UK by 2020.[99]

71. Dr Dave Reay from the University of Edinburgh highlights the issue of standby power as an increasingly significant contributor to household energy consumption and argues that manufacturers should reduce the standby power requirement, as well as providing OFF buttons and ensuring that devices can cope with repeatedly being switched on and off:

… standby power use now accounts for 7% of household electricity use and leads to 3 million tonnes of GHG emissions in the UK every year. The public perception is that many of these devices either aren't drawing much power or can't be turned off and on without the risk of the device breaking. Many of these devices (e.g. televisions, stereos, digital boxes and DVD players) draw over 10 watts in standby mode. […] it is a big waste of energy […] but the benefit is to no-one. There is no sort of extra comfort at home, there is no higher standard of living, it is just an absolute waste of energy and emission of greenhouse gases. [100]

72. In its 2006 Energy Review the Government pledged to "[…] limit the amount of stand-by energy wasted on televisions, stereos and other consumer electronics" and "continue to press at international level for full implementation of the International Energy Agency's 1 Watt initiative to reduce stand-by power consumption".[101] A study by the National Consumer Council revealed that only one item of the 350 consumer electronic products surveyed had a label displaying its energy consumption.[102]

73. Current policy and regulatory activity is focused too much on gas and electricity supply. Consumer behaviour, including decisions to purchase particular energy-using products, can also have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions from the domestic sector. We appreciate that "the end of standby" cannot be achieved unilaterally, but the Government must make every effort to drive forward improved product standards and eliminate the appalling waste of energy caused by leaving equipment on standby. It must make clear the efforts being made in international negotiations to achieve the "end of standby", and provide an indicative timetable detailing when it anticipates agreement is likely to be reached. As an interim measure the Government should initiate voluntary agreements with manufacturers on improving product standards. As a bare minimum they should include the energy labelling of consumer electronics—as is already in existence for "white goods" such as refrigerators—within the next twelve months.

ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING

74. Traditional incandescent light bulbs only convert around 5% of the energy they use into light. The remainder is wasted as heat. Domestic lighting was identified by the Energy Review as one of the groups of products requiring attention in the drive to raise standards for energy-using products in the home.[103] The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the global electricity bill could be reduced by nearly one-tenth if there were a global switch to energy-efficient lighting. According to the IEA lighting accounts for 19% of global electricity generation, resulting in CO2 emissions three times greater than emissions from aviation.[104]

75. The BBC recently reported that energy saving light bulbs require five times less energy, cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60-70%, and save users approximately £7 per bulb each year.[105] According to estimates by Osram, a light bulb manufacturer, if every UK household switched one bulb to an energy-saving alternative one power station would become redundant.[106] Dr Dave Reay, from Edinburgh University, argued that the ease of adoption of low energy light bulbs had a wider-reaching impact by empowering householders, leading to subsequent changes in domestic energy use.[107]

76. The ERA argued that:

Too much emphasis is placed on the efficiency of houses compared to the potential of energy demand reduction by households and this should also be addressed by Government in any policy review … low carbon emitting light bulbs should now be the norm and not the exception and the ERA are disappointed that this is not yet the case, especially given that by replacing every light fitting in the home with a low-energy bulb, the average family could save up to £240 per year.[108]

77. According to B&Q, "none of the people surveyed while buying/browsing lighting products actually bought an energy efficient product". High cost was often given as the reason for this. By reducing the price of energy-saving light bulbs, B&Q reports that it has increased sales by 80% over a year.[109] ERA argues that the Government could subsidise CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) to tackle consumer reluctance and concern over expense. However, the Energy Efficiency Innovation Review found that "price increases on [conventional] incandescents are likely to be more effective than subsidies of CFLs".[110]

78. Australia has recently joined Cuba and Venezuela in banning conventional incandescent light bulbs. The bulbs will be phased out over the next three years, becoming unavailable by 2009. Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian environment minister, claims that the ban will help cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 800,000 tonnes by 2012—reducing household lighting costs by 66%—and could reduce emissions by up to 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2015.[111]

79. In October 2006, Ian Pearson MP told the House that the Government was "committed to using all using all suitable policy instruments to remove the least efficient products from UK markets", stating that:

Our current assessment is that, by removing ordinary incandescent light bulbs (GLS bulbs) from the UK market and encouraging sales of the most efficient alternatives, we could avoid approximately one million tonnes of carbon emissions per year by 2020.

The UK cannot unilaterally ban or prevent the free trade in products such as incandescent light bulbs on the basis of their energy efficiency. However, the Government are pressing the European Commission to make light-bulbs a priority for regulatory action under the recently agreed Eco-Design for Energy Using Products (EUP) framework directive. We are also discussing with retailers and manufacturers how we can remove inefficient lighting products from UK shelves in advance of regulations.[112]

80. In March 2007 the European Council invited the Commission to introduce minimum energy efficiency standards as part of the work being undertaken through the Ecodesign of Energy-Using Products Directive, with a particular focus on lighting. This could lead to inefficient incandescent domestic light bulbs being phased out from 2009.[113]

81. In July 2007 the Prime Minister and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced their intention to propose to the European Commission an EU-wide reduction in VAT on environmentally friendly products, from "fridges to insulation".[114] As an interim measure, we recommend that the Government give serious consideration to taxing energy inefficient consumer electronics and lighting in order to reflect the wider environmental impact of choosing and owning poorer performing products. Revenue raised could then be used to offset financial incentives established to encourage environmentally beneficial behaviour. Any tax increase must, however, be combined with the provision of better information on the availability, environmental and cost benefits of energy efficient alternatives. We discuss the issue of economic instruments further in Section 5 (paragraphs 140-159).

Smart metering, information displays and better billing

82. There is no universal definition of a 'smart' meter but the phrase describes a new generation of meters which do more than merely measure gross gas and electricity consumption. Ofgem outlined the range of "smarter" metering technology which is currently available:

The more advanced meters could allow for more innovative tariff structures, encouraging consumers to avoid using appliances at times of peak demand. Improved billing, which reveals historical usage and displays consumption not only in terms of kWh, but also in terms of cost and CO2 emissions, can be used either as a stand-alone measure or in combination with a smart meter or information display.

83. EDF Energy stated that the Government should place an appropriate obligation on the energy industry to fit smart meters over around a decade, subject to a successful outcome to Ofgem's smart metering trial.[116] RWE npower had similar views. EDF is conducting its own Smart Metering Trial in conjunction with fuel poverty charity National Energy Action (NEA). Launched in April 2006, the trial will install up to 3,000 electricity and gas smart meters in homes over two years, in order to gauge how much energy consumers will save from becoming more aware of their energy use.[117]

84. ACE was similarly enthusiastic about the potential for smart meters and related innovations such as better billing information and prominent displays in consumers' homes, citing a study conducted by Sarah Darby (of the University of Oxford), which concludes that energy savings of 5-15% are possible with the use of feedback technologies such as displays.[118] However, research by Sustainability First concludes that the reduction in demand achieved by the installation of smart meters is smaller, at 1-3%.[119]

85. In June 2006 Ofgem reported on its consultation on the case for smart meters and how best to promote them. It concluded that whilst some responses to the consultation had argued for the national roll-out of smart metering, this course of action would not be "in customers' interests":

The track record of the network companies in offering cost-effective, good quality metering services and in choosing reliable metering technologies has been mixed at best … different types of customer are likely to want different types of smart meter and it would be difficult to meet customers' needs under a regulated approach.[120]

86. Ofgem has undertaken to develop a package of measures which acknowledges that "the regulatory framework needs to encourage new products, innovation and investment."[121] Ofgem was not convinced that a national roll out was warranted and warned in oral evidence about the costs and the contravention of its competitive approach to metering. Ofgem's Alistair Buchanan said:

Personally, I am a great advocate of the most intelligent meter, but it comes at quite a price, as you will see there. […] the de minimis route is just putting a fascia in everybody's kitchen. Whether that actually gives you much more information than you get from opening the cupboard under your stair or going outside your back door, I am not entirely sure. […] [W]e have gone down the competitive market route […] the view [in government and Ofgem] has been that you do not need to go down a mandated route.[122]

In July 2007 Ofgem announced that it will be administering a Government- and industry-funded trial of a range of smart metering technologies. The two year trial will examine the potential for smart meters, stand-alone information displays, and improved billing to elicit behavioural change in energy consumption.[123]

87. Centrica said that there "is little or no reliable evidence yet of sustained change in consumption resulting from use of smart metering in this country" and noted the potential of the Ofgem trial to produce such evidence.[124]

88. The then Minister of State, Ian Pearson MP, was strongly supportive of smart metering and supported a national roll-out:

[…] I believe this is a key enabling technology for the future. I would like to think that in ten years' time every home will have a smart meter and every business will have a smart meter as well.[125]

89. According to a recent Government consultation document, "[i]f households do not know their level of energy expenditure, how energy use can be reduced, by how much, or at what cost, they are unlikely to consider investment in energy efficiency".[126] The Government announced in its Energy White Paper that, in terms of better billing, with graphically displayed historical information, it will be working with gas and electricity suppliers to "incorporate this requirement within supply licences". The Government further proposed that from 2008, all new domestic properties and all existing properties replacing electricity meters will be given a real-time electricity display, providing real-time information about electricity consumption and cost. Furthermore, energy suppliers should provide a real-time display to any household that requests one, free of charge.[127] We note that these real-time displays are not smart meters and do not allow remote communication between the meter, the consumer and the supplier. We are disappointed by the recent provision in the Energy White Paper to provide householders with real-time displays on request from 2008. Real-time displays are not smart meters. This is a wasted opportunity and displays a sorry lack of ambition. At the very least, all displays issued must be 'future-proofed' to facilitate upgrading to two-way communication between meter, consumer and supplier, and to provide time-of-day pricing. As an interim measure, better billing must be in place within the next 12 months. This must incorporate not only energy consumption in kWh, but how this relates to cost, carbon dioxide emissions, and with individual historical usage to help consumers make informed decisions about energy use reduction and efficiency savings.

The Role of Energy Suppliers

ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMMITMENT (EEC) / CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET (CERT)

90. Alongside the Building Regulations, the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) is one of the principal UK policy mechanisms for improving the energy efficiency of existing homes. The aim of the EEC is to help electricity and gas consumers in the household sector to use energy more efficiently and in turn to reduce their fuel costs. Introduced in 2002, the EEC requires energy suppliers to achieve targets for installing energy efficiency measures in the household sector, particularly among the most vulnerable. Half of the energy savings made must come from priority customers who receive certain income-related benefits or tax credits. Under the current EEC, electricity and gas suppliers in Great Britain are required to meet targets for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency in households. These targets are non-prescriptive and can be achieved by carrying out a combination of approved measures, such as installing insulation or providing low-energy light bulbs. The cost of the EEC is passed onto consumers through a levy on energy bills.

91. The first phase of the EEC programme ran from March 2002 to April 2005, when suppliers were set a target of saving 62 TWh (terawatt hours). Ofgem—which administers the EEC on behalf of Defra—noted that during EEC1 suppliers had installed, or provided, energy efficiency measures which would result in an energy saving of 86.8 TWh, or 140% of the total target of 62 TWh.[128] EEC is currently in its second phase of implementation (EEC2, running from April 2005 to March 2008), and the overall target has been set at 130 TWh. In August 2006 Ofgem reported to Government that by the end of the first year of EEC2, suppliers had already achieved some 60% of the overall target.[129] By the end of year two, 93% of the target had been achieved, equivalent to 120 TWh.[130] The 2006 Budget announced that suppliers will be able to count extra work carried out in this EEC period (2005-2008) towards their targets in the next period. As a result, British Gas, EDF, npower, PowerGen, and Scottish and Southern Energy have agreed with the Government that they will carry out between them an extra 250,000 subsidised installations of home insulation over the next two years.[131]

92. Defra is consulting on phase 3 of the EEC which will run from 2008-2011 and will be renamed the Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT). It is proposed that Phase 3 will roughly double the level of activity required under EEC2, and should extend the scope to include all microgeneration technologies and include 'behavioural measures' such as information displays.[132] Estimates suggest that the cost to consumers of CERT will be in the region of £97 over the three-year period, assuming all the costs are passed on by the energy suppliers. This is around twice that of EEC2.[133] Post-2012, the Government envisages developing the scheme by shifting the focus from energy supply to the provision of energy services.[134] We discuss the energy services model in greater detail in paragraph 103. The Government has declared that there will be a household supplier obligation in place until at least 2020.[135]

93. Several witnesses were critical of the EEC. CRed described it as "a rather ineffectual halfway house".[136] The Centre for Sustainable Energy criticises the Government for a lack of ambition in relation to the EEC "[…] in terms of the kind of targets it is setting […] such that 60 per cent of the second round of the Energy Efficiency Commitment, which was going to be a three-year programme, was achieved in the first year".[137] It also argued that 'soft measures' such as the provision of advice are not given adequate emphasis by mechanisms such as the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC).[138] EDF, although supportive of the programme, asserted that:

[…] despite the substantial investment by energy suppliers in the residential sector … energy demand continues to grow and […] customer behaviour has changed very little.[139]

94. The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) was critical of the current EEC, claiming that whilst it has been "very successful in terms of reaching the given targets" there is "some way to go before every home in the UK is treated to make it warm and cheaper to heat". In particular, ACE argued that "as it is presently organised" the potential impact of Government's Energy Efficiency Commitment is limited because it concentrates on cavity wall insulation and loft insulation, measures which will not make a difference to the "50 percent of older properties that have single brick walls and the considerable number of flat-roof properties" in the UK. ACE also expressed concern that the "proliferation of short-lived special offers and marketing schemes from the energy suppliers" has limited the impact of the EEC on households.[140]

95. Doubts have also been raised about the impact of changes to the EEC. For example, Centrica argued in its written submission that the second phase of the EEC places a disproportionate emphasis on the savings to be made through the use of insulation.[141] The Energy Retail Association (ERA) was similarly critical of EEC2 on the grounds that "additional requirements imposed by Ofgem and Defra" make a wide range of energy-saving measures more expensive and less attractive to suppliers. The ERA argued that the twin goals of the EEC—reducing carbon emissions and tackling fuel poverty—lead to conflicting priorities, and that the EEC is "nearing the end of its effective shelf life".[142]

96. EDF and Centrica both proposed changes to the EEC, including:

  • more market-based mechanisms and longer commitment periods;
  • separation of fuel poverty and carbon reduction targets;
  • links with other mechanisms such as carbon trading;
  • greater flexibility to allow for the use of innovative technologies such as smart meters and microgeneration and rewards for behavioural changes.

PERCEPTION OF ENERGY SUPPLIERS

97. Several witnesses expressed concern about the perceived 'credibility barrier' associated with the Energy Efficiency Commitment. Research undertaken in 2004 by the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) for Ofgem suggests that—although the individuals who were surveyed had a sound knowledge of energy-saving techniques for their homes—there is a:

deep cynicism about energy suppliers promoting energy saving (even though suppliers are now the main purveyors of energy-saving measures) [and] no awareness of the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) and the energy-saving obligations it places on suppliers. [143]

Similarly, the Association for the Conservation of Energy claimed that:

… many householders can't believe that a utility which exists to make profits out of selling units of electricity or gas would actually subsidise energy saving measures that cut fuel bills. So measures are largely installed by householders in the know and with the ready cash to pay the (albeit subsidised) price.[144]

98. The Centre for Sustainable Energy concurred with this analysis, and agreed that if suppliers took a more transparent approach to their obligations under the EEC, consumers would be more inclined to accept advice on energy efficiency measures. CSE cited the outcome of its work with focus groups (undertaken for Ofgem) as evidence:

When they were told [about suppliers' obligations], they said, "Oh, that explains it. I will check out the little envelope stuff that is in my bill next time", and I think that tells a huge story.[145]

99. ACE supports energy-saving schemes which are organised at local level, such as those administered by Warm Zones Ltd (a subsidiary of the charity National Energy Action), which are designed to reduce fuel poverty and improve energy efficiency. According to ACE, these kinds of schemes can:

combine the credibility of the council, with the money of the energy supplier, plus the word of mouth endorsement of the community, and the local knowledge of the installers and community groups.[146]

100. Centrica's view is that customer apathy to energy efficiency, combined with the cost of equipment, is a fundamental barrier to uptake of energy saving measures. Centrica argues that fiscal measures, such as linking council tax rebates to uptake of energy efficiency measures (such as the installation of cavity wall insulation) represent one way to address this problem. British Gas conducted a trial of such a scheme in conjunction with Braintree Council, Essex in 2004, and this scheme has been extended to 25 councils across the country.[147]

101. We are concerned by the apparent poverty of Government ambition for the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC; now the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, or CERT), which compares poorly with the ambition of the emission reduction targets outlined in the draft Climate Change Bill. The existing targets are so undemanding that suppliers had already met 93% of the target for EEC2 (2005-08) by the end of the second year. Given that the Energy Efficiency Commitment is not even funded from the Government's own budget, this demonstrates a woeful lack of ambition.

102. We are pleased to see that CERT (EEC3) makes provision for the inclusion of microgeneration technology. However, the proposed size of CERT means that the amount of microgeneration it supports is likely to be small because suppliers expect to focus on cheaper ways of saving carbon dioxide. Therefore, once the existing programme of microgeneration grants has expired, the Government must not rely on this support mechanism alone until the market is sufficiently mature to stand alone without financial support. If the Government does go ahead with CERT as planned, and intends to use it as the sole support mechanism for microgeneration, then the level of CERT must be considerably bigger. The barriers to progress and increasing uptake in terms of microgeneration are discussed in Section 4 (paragraphs 115-118).

ENERGY SERVICES

103. The idea that consumers are interested in the services energy provides (e.g. heating and lighting) rather than in the supply of energy itself has been recognised for a long time. It is an approach commonly used in businesses and other large organisations, but it has not taken hold in the household energy market. The Government has been considering the conditions under which energy companies might extend energy services to households for several years. As early as 2000, the DTI published a report on rationales for this which also assessed some of the barriers.[148] During the Energy Review of 2005/06, Ministers began to highlight this potential. In a speech in June 2006, the then Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling signalled the Government's intention to encourage energy services for households:

[w]e are looking at how to create a shared incentive between consumers and energy suppliers to reduce energy use. We must look at how [energy suppliers] can change from just selling units of electricity to providing energy services—heating and lighting homes—making it their business to increase energy efficiency and cut demand.[149]

104. Whilst this vision has yet to be realised in the UK, it has already been implemented in some other countries. During its visit to California in March 2006, the Committee heard about a scheme whereby an electricity company would install more efficient refrigerators in small businesses, and charge the businesses for the goods over a period of time through their fuel bills. The size of the bills remained the same owing to the reduction in the quantity of energy being used, until the cost of the refrigerator had been paid back, at which point the bills would decrease to reflect the reduced energy demand and the business would own the energy-efficient refrigerator outright.

105. A number of witnesses told the Committee that they supported this vision. The Energy Saving Trust argued that "the long term goal we believe the Government should be working towards is a constraint on household carbon emissions. Ultimately, this may require incentivising energy suppliers to make energy demand reductions, as opposed to delivery of energy efficiency measures".[150] The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) also takes the view that energy suppliers should ultimately become energy services companies (ESCOs), which provide "for each household levels of warmth and ability to power an agreed number of appliances". ACE argues that in the long term this approach will be more cost-effective for the companies, helping them to avoid expensive investments in increasing energy generation and supply by helping their customers to reduce demand, despite involving a significant change in working practices for energy companies:

Unlike today, where a customer is just a number on a computer file, and the relationship purely transactional, energy services companies, to provide their services adequately, will have to know their customers, their lifestyles and the state of their property.[151]

106. The Chief Executive of EDF Energy told us that "we cannot afford to be just a provider of units and that a way to differentiate ourselves will be to embark our customers on this journey".[152] The Energy Retail Association was more cautious and noted that shifting energy suppliers towards an energy service model would be a "considerable challenge".[153]

107. Alan Simpson MP expressed concern that the current approach to the EEC is "fragmented, partial and short term […] Energy companies are not stepping in with offers to spread equipment installation costs over a 2-3 year period so that households can effectively make the repayments out of reductions in energy consumption".[154]

108. Currently the energy market is set up such that consumers can opt to terminate their contract with an energy supplier after 28 days. This system is likely to deter energy suppliers in making investments in customers' homes—for example, by installing solar thermal panels—as the consumer could opt to change provider with little notice. Ofgem is currently proposing to remove the "28 Day Rule" through the Supply Licence Review, with the aim of encouraging investment by the supplier in energy efficiency or microgeneration technology in the customer's home, in exchange for that customer's commitment to a fixed term contract.[155]

109. The Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust told the Committee that whilst a move to an energy services model was an attractive prospect, there was a "fundamental problem":

Customers do not trust the suppliers. Why is that important? It is important because, for years and years and years, energy suppliers have been intent, very open, about the need to sell more energy to their consumers, and the consumers know this. What the energy services model seeks to do is to turn that on its head, effectively, and persuade the consumers of the product that the suppliers wish to sell them less. Given the distrust that exists between many consumers and the brands, that is going to be a very, very difficult thing to pursue.[156]

110. Following the publication of the Energy White Paper, in June 2007 Defra launched a formal Call for Evidence on options for an obligation on energy suppliers beyond 2011.[157] A leading option is to set up a new cap and trade scheme which will require suppliers to reduce the carbon emissions from energy they supply or the amount of actual energy they supply to consumers. Energy services is an established concept outside the UK (for example, in California) but has yet to be established fully in the UK's domestic energy market. As stated in the Energy White Paper, the Government envisages shifting the focus from energy supply to energy services after 2012.

111. The Government must match ministerial rhetoric with tangible regulatory reforms that change incentives on suppliers. We commend the move to an energy services model beyond 2011, but the Government must make clear in its response what its intentions are to inspire consumer confidence in this model. Given the volume of evidence we received discussing the 'credibility barrier' associated with the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC), it must be made crystal clear to consumers that this is something that they are paying for through their bills. We recommend that householders' contributions to the EEC are listed separately as part of the Government's move towards better billing.

GREEN TARIFFS

112. Green energy tariffs are available through which energy consumers pay their supplier for the provision of 'green' energy. However, there is some confusion as to what actually constitutes a 'green tariff'. According to energywatch (an independent gas and electricity watchdog), some suppliers may provide renewable electricity (a 'green' source), others may invest in renewable technologies (a 'green' fund), while yet others may offset the emissions from conventional fossil-fuel sources (carbon offset). According to Ofgem, 350,000 energy consumers (between 1 and 2% of the total) in Great Britain are signed up to a 'green tariff'.[158] energywatch believes this low level may be attributed to consumer confusion. Accordingly, it has now produced a guide to all the 'green tariffs' available, and details what they actually provide.[159] Ofgem is currently consulting on a rating system for green tariffs.[160] We are concerned that the provision of 'green tariffs' by energy suppliers may not be as transparent or consistent as it could be. This could cause confusion and, at worst, result in a loss of consumer confidence in these products. The use of green tariffs could be an important step forward in the UK emissions reduction strategy, especially in those households where it is difficult to reduce emissions through energy efficiency measures. It is vital that Ofgem and bodies like energywatch investigate the plethora of tariffs which claim to be green and develop an independent assessment of those proposed in order to boost consumer understanding and confidence in reducing emissions via this approach. We look forward to the results of Ofgem's consultation on Developing Guidelines on Green Supply.


58   Q 512 Back

59   Department for Communities and Local Government, Review of Sustainability of Existing Buildings, The Energy Efficiency of Dwellings - Initial Analysis, November 2006 Back

60   EUROPA, Saving 20% by 2020: European Commission unveils its Action Plan on Energy Efficiency, Press release IP/06/1434, 19 October 2006 Back

61   Ev 338 Back

62   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Trade and Industry Committee on 23 October 2006, HC 1664-ii (2005-06), Q 134 Back

63   Ev 198 Back

64   Ev 3 Back

65   Department for Communities and Local Government, Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development-Consultation, December 2006; the Government defines 'zero carbon' as a home with zero net carbon emissions from energy use over a year. Back

66   www.communities.gov.uk Back

67   www.40percent.org.uk Back

68   www.est.org.uk/housingbuildings/regulations/ Back

69   Ev 128 Back

70   Ev 124, 126 Back

71   Ev 149 Back

72   Department for Communities and Local Government, www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503251 Back

73   Department for Communities and Local Government, Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development-Consultation, December 2006 Back

74   Q 298 Back

75   Ev 375 Back

76   Q 579 Back

77   Department for Communities and Local Government, Review of Sustainability of Existing Buildings, The Energy Efficiency of Dwellings - Initial Analysis, November 2006 Back

78   Ev 59 Back

79   Ev 146 Back

80   HM Treasury, Budget 2006, HC 968, March 2006 Back

81   Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2005-06, Sustainable Housing: A Follow-up Report, HC 779, March 2006 Back

82   Q 810 Back

83   www.gos.gov.uk/goem/news/newsarchive/carbonhomesavings/ Back

84   Ev 248 Back

85   Ev 184 Back

86   Department for Communities and Local Government Green light for home energy improvements, News release 2007/0075, 4 April 2007 Back

87   Q 750 Back

88   Q 893; with reference to Eoin Lees Energy, Using Stamp Duty to bring about a Step Change in Household Energy Efficiency, 2005 Back

89   HM Treasury, Budget 2007, HC 342, March 2007 Back

90   Q 579 Back

91   Ev 301 Back

92   HM Revenue and Customs, www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2006/bn50.htm Back

93   HM Treasury, Budget 2007, HC 342, March 2007  Back

94   Q 832 Back

95   Q 834 Back

96   BBC News, UK 'tops energy wasters league', 23 October 2006 [the other countries were Italy, France, Spain and Germany] Back

97   BBC News, Energy cost of PCs on standby, 21 April 2006 Back

98   National Consumer Council, Information blackout: why electronics consumers are in the dark, March 2007 Back

99   The Independent, UK's gadget-mania blamed for surge in emissions, 4 July 2007 Back

100   Q 454 and Ev 199 Back

101   Department for Trade and Industry, Our energy future-creating a low carbon economy, Cm 5761, February 2003 Back

102   National Consumer Council, Information blackout: why electronics consumers are in the dark, March 2007 Back

103   Department of Trade and Industry, The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report 2006, July 2006  Back

104   International Energy Agency, Light's Labour's Lost -- Policies for Energy-efficient Lighting, June 2006 Back

105   BBC News, Shedding light on call to ban bulb, 20 April 2006 Back

106   The Guardian, Push for energy-saving bulbs, 3 November 2006 Back

107   Ev 199 Back

108   Ev 183 Back

109   Ev 145, 146 Back

110   Energy Saving Trust, Energy Efficiency Innovation Review, Household Sector-Final Report, December 2005 Back

111   The Guardian, Australia switches on to light bulb change, Tuesday 20 February Back

112   HC Deb, 31 October 2006, col 272W Back

113   EUROPA, Energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs and other energy-using products on track for adoption, IP/07/867, 22 June 2007. In response to a Parliamentary Question, the Government noted that "it is known that some people living with lupus and epilepsy, and other long-term conditions, may be affected by energy saving light bulbs." HC Deb, 12 June 2007, col 992W  Back

114   ENDS Europe Daily, UK, France call for VAT cuts for green products, Issue 2365, 20 July 2007 Back

115   Ev 104 Back

116   Ev 249 Back

117   Ev 250 Back

118   Ev 237 Back

119   Gill Owen and Judith Ward, Sustainability First, Smart Meters: Commercial, Regulatory and Policy Drivers, March 2006 Back

120   Ofgem, Domestic Metering Innovation - Next Steps, Decision Document 107/06, June 2006 Back

121   Ev 104 Back

122   Q 281 Back

123   Ofgem, First trials for smart energy meters in Britain are to begin, Press release R/31, Thursday 12 July 2007 Back

124   Ev 254 Back

125   Q 819 Back

126   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Household Energy Supplier Obligation from 2011: A Call for Evidence, June 2007 Back

127   Department of Trade and Industry, Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, Cm 7124, May 2007 Back

128   Ev 102 Back

129   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Departmental Report 2007, Cm 7103, May 2007 Back

130   Ofgem, EEC Update 20, 11 May 2007 Back

131   HM Treasury, Budget 2006, HC 968, March 2006 Back

132   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Energy Efficiency Commitment April 2008 to March 2011: Initial Consultation, July 2006 Back

133   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Carbon Emissions Reduction Target April 2008 to March 2011: Consultation Proposals, May 2007 Back

134   Department of Trade and Industry, Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, Cm 7124, May 2007 Back

135   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Departmental Report 2007, Cm 7103, May 2007 Back

136   Ev 300-301 Back

137   Q 129 Back

138   Ev 60 Back

139   Ev 247 Back

140   Ev 235 Back

141   Ev 251 Back

142   Ev 183 Back

143   Ev 59 Back

144   Ev 235 Back

145   Q 136 Back

146   Ev 235 Back

147   Ev 254-255 Back

148   D Macklon, Energy Services in the UK Domestic Sector: Barriers to Development and Recommended Action Plan, (Report for the DTI), 2000 Back

149   Alistair Darling, Speech to the Fabian Society, 5 June 2006 Back

150   Ev 3 Back

151   Ev 235 Back

152   Q 627 Back

153   Q 428 Back

154   Ev 216 Back

155   Department of Trade and Industry, Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, Cm 7124, May 2007 Back

156   Q 10 Back

157   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Household Energy Supplier Obligation from 2011: A Call for Evidence, June 2007 Back

158   Ofgem, One in five households choose an innovative energy deal, Press Release, 4th July 2007 Back

159   www.energywatch.org.uk/help_and_advice/green_tariffs/index.asp Back

160   Ofgem, Developing Guidelines on Green Supply Consultation - 137/07, June 2007 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 13 September 2007