Memorandum submitted by Kent County Council
(FP 29)
Kent County Council, as a large authority with
considerable issues in relation to fuel poverty and energy efficiency,
welcomes this opportunity to provide evidence to the Energy and
Climate Change Committee and wish to note the following points
in response to the areas identified:
1. THE COHERENCE
OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S
INITIATIVES ON
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1.1 The crux of alleviating fuel poverty
is the roll out of a comprehensive area based retrofitting initiative.
The national government could assist local delivery of this by
directly providing local authorities with the funding levied in
by utilities (CERT). The Local Authority could then combine this
funding with funds currently provided to Warmfront to offer assisted
installations to all households.
1.2 Doing this would overcome the current
barriers to assisting fuel poor households outlined below:
(a) Householders lack of trust in the available
offers: Local authorities still hold a position of trust and
as administrators/marketers of an area based scheme they would
expect a high response rate.
(b) Fragmented funding: Current initiatives
are unpredictable and do not offer the installer market longevity.
Offering a five year business plan, based on utility and national
assistance, would result in supply costs being driven down and
offer security to the installer market.
(c) Eligibility: The English House
Condition Survey 2006 indicates that 57% of vulnerable households
in fuel poverty do not claim the relevant benefits to qualify
for the national scheme (National Audit Office, published 4 February
2009). Through an area-based scheme all households would be eligible
for some assistance and this would be marketed under the same
trusted banner. Confusion over schemes and utility offerings would
therefore be removed from the marketplace.
(d) Not all property and tenure types have
schemes that are applicable. Most noticeable of these is where
the vulnerable customer is not the owner: All property types
would be eligible, making it simple to understand.
(e) Lack of awareness: As this would be
area-based the local awareness would be concentrated and installations
would be visible in the area.
2. THE METHODS
USED TO
TARGET ASSISTANCE
AT HOUSEHOLDS
WHICH NEED
IT MOST
2.1 There is a distinct gap between the
roles of staff who encounter the effects of fuel poverty and those
that are able to signpost to assistance. There seems to be little
national drive to utilise these roles to get measures installed
into households. The remedial action for this is to impose duties
on these functions to be part of the solution.
2.2 For example some roles that are likely
to identify needs early include Doctors (repeated visits affected
by cold, such as falls, asthma etc), officers responsible for
those that are new entrants to the benefits system, and public
staff responsible for the payment of housing benefit to private
lettings.
2.3 The social economy picks up the cost
when early intervention is not made by these functions. For example
the well-documented increased health costs and the burden on services
for doctors and the increased drain on benefits (as a higher percentage
of income is used on fuel costs and possible health impacts).
3. SOCIAL TARIFFS
AND PLANS
TO PUT
SOCIAL PRICE
SUPPORT ON
A STATUTORY
FOOTING
3.1 Social tariffs are a welcomed intervention.
Kent has a high proportion of rural households which are not eligible
for dual-fuel discounts. Statutory social tariffs for the rural
fuel poor would be welcomed.
4. SUPPORT FOR
HOUSEHOLDS NOT
CONNECTED TO
THE MAINS
GAS GRID
4.1 Kent's rural households experience the
fluctuations of fuel costs (especially oil) more than those on
mains gas and electricity. These households require specific assistance
in installing alternative fuel sources and assisted efficiency
measures.
February 2010
| 
