50.In addition to improving household incomes, energy efficiency is key to alleviating fuel poverty. The Government has a statutory target of moving all fuel poor homes to EPC band C by 2030 as well as interim targets of EPC Band E 2020 and Band D by 2025. The overriding consensus from stakeholders is that these targets are expected to be missed; and by a significant margin. Since the Government’s Fuel Poverty Strategy was introduced in 2014/5, the number of households in fuel poverty in England has increased by 210,000 to 2.55 million. The slow pace of past and projected future progress in improving energy efficiency is shown in Figure 7 below:
Figure 7: Actual and forecast changes to EPC banding in fuel poor households including PRS and ECO.
Source: Reproduced from the Committee on Fuel Poverty’s written evidence.
51.The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is now the only public scheme that directs funding to domestic energy efficiency measures in England. As the current iteration, ECO 3, is focused on low-income, vulnerable and fuel poor households, ECO is also the Government’s key mechanism for alleviating fuel poverty through energy efficiency. The general view from respondents to our inquiry was that ECO has value but is not sufficient as the only available fuel poverty funding. We found that the supplier-led approach to energy efficiency brings some benefits, such as capitalising on suppliers’ ability to undertake cost-effective interventions at speed and at scale. Commercial realities dictate that suppliers undertake their obligations at the lowest cost, which has kept an element of competition in the energy efficiency market. Nonetheless, ECO’s limitations—discussed below—cannot be disregarded.
52.ECO is under-funded, and its budget has been gradually shrinking. Energy suppliers are required to meet targets for home heating reduction costs which, under ECO 3, the Government expects will cost £640 million per year (in 2017 prices). This is paid for by a levy on all consumer bills. The budget was halved in 2017 from an original projected spend of £1.3 billion and is significantly below the budget of ECO’s three predecessor schemes (CERT, CESP, and Warm Front) which together totalled £1.57 billion per year. This reduction has, unsurprisingly, resulted in a drop in ECO installations, as shown in the Government’s own graph (Figure 8) below. The Government has been quick to stress that it refocused ECO on those most in need of support, but slow to defend the broader trend of falling installations.
Figure 8: ECO measures installed, by obligation, by month, up to end to end March 2019.
Source: BEIS Household Energy Efficiency statistics, headline release June 2019
53.The Committee on Fuel Poverty (CFP—a non-departmental body advising BEIS on fuel poverty) found that by the time the ECO scheme ends in March 2022, it will only have reduced the number of fuel poor homes in Band F/G by 1 percentage point. This lack of progress can be clearly linked to the lack of funding; the CFP calculated a funding gap of £15.1 billion for fuel poverty targets under current policy. Lawrence Slade, Director of the industry trade body Energy UK, said the scheme was “undoubtedly” underfunded and that it was “unarguable” that more money is needed. As ECO is funded through regressive levies on energy bills, stakeholders have not recommended that its budget is increased. Instead, stakeholders agree with the CFPs recommendation that ECO is supplemented with centrally funded schemes.
54.Second, ECO’s low-cost focus is contradictory to its aim of helping those most in need. It is widely accepted that due to commercial realities, suppliers discharge their home heating cost reduction obligations in the lowest cost way. While suppliers’ ability to deliver installations competitively at scale and speed is beneficial, this approach is not suited to the Government’s only scheme for energy efficiency in fuel poor homes, where the complex needs of some of the hardest to heat households can result in high costs. The energy supplier npower told us that “low cost solutions [ … ] are not particularly well suited to delivering a social obligation, because they discriminate on cost grounds, rather than household need.” Some of the most fuel poor homes in the lowest EPC bands require structural work on their property, or need several measures installed to make a meaningful improvement to their energy efficiency. But suppliers are choosing the “low-hanging fruit” applicants with cheaper installations and rejecting those where installations are costlier, even if their need is greater. As a result, some fuel poor homes most in need of help are neglected.
55.Rural areas are particularly at risk of neglect as complications such as being difficult to access, unconnected to the gas grid, and requiring more costly interventions like solid wall insulation mean improvement can be more challenging. ECO3 requires 15 per cent of the supplier’s obligation to be met in rural areas but the broad definition of “areas with a population of under 10,000” means truly isolated homes can be overlooked in favour of homes in small towns and villages. We were told that despite accounting for around 20 per cent of fuel-poor properties in 2015, less than 1 per cent of rural households have received ECO measures.
56.Third, ECO often requires recipients to contribute “top-up” funds. These funds, which can be several thousand pounds, are asked from those least able to afford them and can effectively bar eligible applicants from the scheme. For example, in its own ECO impact assessment, the Government assumes that the co-funding required for solid wall insulation is 75 per cent of the cost. Estimates of insulation costs suggest that this means households can be asked to contribute around £10,000 towards such measures. We asked the Government whether it was monitoring the scale of these top-up contributions and were told that though “BEIS has gathered some evidence” the data on contributions is “not always robust”. The Government plans to evaluate the scheme, including customer contributions, later this year. We welcome this evaluation which offers an opportunity to understand the scale of customer contributions, and to provide for detailed monitoring on an ongoing basis. We do not see how the Government can assess the true impact of ECO, both now or in the future, without understanding the scale of these contributions.
57.There were also different views on whether the eligible pool of ECO recipients should be more tightly focussed. Some stakeholders expressed concern that only 30 per cent of those eligible for ECO are fuel poor, and recommended amendments to the criteria, such as an income cap for all benefits. Others said that targeting was an expensive element of ECO and warned that these costs could grow if the group were focused on “harder-to-reach homes”, diverting money away from installations. The Minister told us:
The problem with the fuel poverty definition [ … ] is that it is an entirely variable number. Both the numerator and the denominator change, so 30 per cent of the fuel-poor cohort rotate in and out of the definition every year. It makes it very hard to track and target those in fuel poverty.
58.We accept the Minister’s justification but ECO’s flaws, as discussed above, mean that, alone, it will fail to meet the Government’s fuel poverty targets. We believe that ECO should not operate in a vacuum. Tackling fuel poverty requires a multi-tiered structure of policy. If adequate support for the fuel poor were in place, suppliers could focus on their strengths of competitively delivering low-cost installations at scale.
59.The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) has value in delivering low-cost measures, but it should not operate in isolation. ECO is underfunded, and those most in need may be neglected under current targeting, or unable to access ECO as the top-up funds are prohibitively high. To ensure the Government’s fuel poverty ambitions are met, additional schemes to complement ECO will be needed.
60.As outlined in Table 1 (Chapter 3), the devolved nations provide central funding for local authorities to operate local schemes for energy efficiency, as well as a national fund for fuel poverty, that operate alongside ECO to tackle fuel poverty. This funding can be spent on ECO top-ups, or on the hardest to treat homes deemed too expensive for ECO. The three tiers of ECO, local, and national support combine to result in much greater progress on energy efficiency than in England. One of the consequences of the additional funding is that it contributes to attracting more ECO interventions, as shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9: Households in receipt of ECO measures by local authority per 1,000 households, up to end of December 2018.
Source: BEIS Household Energy Efficiency statistics, headline release (June 2019)
61.Although the reduction of central funds under ECO has affected the whole of the UK, the devolved schemes have mitigated the drop in installations. In 2017/18, 15,500 households in Scotland received support under the Home Energy Efficiency Programmes for Scotland (HEEPs) and 4,600 households in Wales received support under the Nest scheme alone, with a further 6,000 households targeted between 2017 and 2021 under the Arbed scheme. The installations in these households were supported through schemes that are not available to households in England.
62.The extra support has a clear impact on fuel poor households. Figure 10 below shows the EPCs of fuel poor homes over time in Scotland and England. The graphs demonstrate that Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England, where in some bands, progress has stalled.
Figure 10: The proportion of fuel poor households by Energy Performance rating in England and Scotland, 2010 - 2017
Source: BEIS, Annual fuel poverty statistics report (2019); Scottish Government, Scottish house condition survey (2017)
63.The CCC has said “the Scottish approach represents best practice in a number of areas [and is an] effective policy package to drive emissions reductions and other outcomes, including on fuel poverty” and called the Welsh Arbed scheme “an excellent demonstration of the broader health, affordability, wellbeing and regeneration benefits of an area-based retrofit programme.” The fuel poverty charity National Energy Action told us that “these areas of good practice should be replicated consistently across all nations across the UK” to meet the Fuel Poverty and Clean Growth targets. While there is still more to be done in the devolved nations, it is clear that England is falling behind on delivering improvements for fuel poor homes.
64.We conclude that central funding for fuel poverty is needed. We recommend that the Government follows the example of the devolved nations by supplementing ECO with central Government funding for fuel poverty.
65.The support offered in the devolved nations falls into two pots: local and national. At the local level, Scotland’s area-based schemes, and Wales’s Arbed scheme, work through local authorities to target improvements to those most in need. There are also some successful examples of local authorities in England allocating funds to improve energy efficiency for the fuel poor, as shown in Box 4. This funding acts as a second tier of support, aiding those who are deemed too expensive to be supported under ECO.
66.We heard that these schemes allow funding to be used more effectively for several reasons. Local authorities are better placed than an energy supplier to identify and target those in need and can also identify local delivery partners. In addition, local authorities can tailor support to the needs of their area and combine with other local projects where possible. Local authorities are also generally more trusted by vulnerable customers than companies operating on behalf of suppliers, some of which have been linked to sub-standard work (see below). Overall, we found clear support for local authorities to have a greater role in energy efficiency.
67.Unlike ECO, locally delivered schemes allow those most in need to be prioritised, rather than those with the lowest-cost installations. In Scotland, a formula is used to allocate funding based on need in each area, taking into account the proportion of fuel poor households, as well as the proportion of dwellings with solid walls and hard to treat cavity walls. Similarly, the Arbed scheme involves working with local authorities to identify areas of fuel poverty in the parts of Wales where the greatest impact can be made.
Box 4: Examples of English local authorities
We heard that several local bodies in England are already implementing successful local energy efficiency schemes from their existing resources. For example, we heard oral evidence from the Greater London Authority, where a £2.5 million Warmer Homes programme targets fuel poor Londoners. Two further examples that we heard from are Plymouth and Liverpool.
Plymouth City Council helped to establish Plymouth Energy Community (PEC); a community benefit society which aims to address fuel poverty, energy bills, and carbon emissions. PEC is now independent from, though works closely with the Council, and will soon become a registered charity. Having secured funding from sources including the Council, British Gas, the National Lottery Fund and its own community-owned renewable energy installations, PEC works alongside residents and partner organisations to provide support including free advice, training, and energy efficiency measures. Since 2013, PEC has helped over 20,000 households and provided 2,154 home visits, and achieved £1.2 million in savings for residents in the first year after engaging with the scheme.
Liverpool City Council has developed a Healthy Homes team to help those who cannot afford to keep their homes warm. This offers a range of services including detailed personalised advice on available grants, switching suppliers, and benefits checks, emergency fuel payments, boiler safety checks and repairs, and free energy efficiency measures. In 2018 the service delivered 1029 fuel poverty measures across 797 different postcodes in the city, generating over £6.5 million in life time savings and annual fuel savings of £700,000.
68.Targeting those most in need also allows for fuel poverty in rural households to be addressed. Philip Sellwood of the Energy Savings Trust (an energy efficiency organisation) told us that despite the fact rural households were “clearly [ … ] much more expensive to reach” the Scottish scheme supported them because “the one underpinning criterion for that scheme is that it acts as the geographic last resort”. In practice, this means that even if applicants live on islands or in rural areas “they have the same right of access to the programme” as applicants in urban areas and this is “one of the criteria that makes it such a successful scheme”.
69.We appreciate that devolving greater responsibility for fuel poverty would represent an added requirement for local authorities at a time when their resources are stretched. However, the examples of local schemes, including some in England, make it clear that devolving greater responsibility for fuel poverty to local authorities can be a success. The Government needs to properly resource local authorities to enable the progress made elsewhere to be replicated.
70.Different areas have different fuel poverty challenges, and local authorities are best placed to tailor and target support to where it is most needed. We recommend that the Government develops a formula to allocate central funding to local authorities based on need. Local authorities should be subject to a new statutory requirement to spend these funds on energy efficiency in vulnerable homes but should retain flexibility in how they do so.
71.At the national level, Scotland and Wales also offer a central fund to support households; Warm Homes Scotland and the Nest scheme in Wales are national funds open to applications from vulnerable homes, either as individuals, or through local authorities or charities. These national schemes protect those who may have slipped through the gaps of the local authority and supplier schemes. This may occur, for example, for a young family living in fuel poverty who are deemed too expensive for ECO, and whose local authority is prioritising pensioners. This third tier, or safety net of support, ensures all homes have access to funding.
72.Scotland’s “flagship fuel poverty scheme”, the Warm Homes programme, takes a “whole house approach” meaning it often installs multiple products to make homes as efficient as possible. In 2017/18, the programme helped 4,903 customers with over 13,944 installations, giving them an average annual bill saving of £319. Wales’ Nest scheme also takes a “whole house” approach to install as much as is necessary to reach EPC Band C in a property where cost effective and practical. The scheme is targeted at the most energy inefficient households; in 2017/18 all the properties receiving measures through the Nest scheme were rated E (8.2 per cent), F (45 per cent) or G (46.8 per cent) with more than 4,600 households receiving improvements, each saving a modelled £400 on an average annual energy bill.
73.English households should have access to similar schemes. The Committee on Fuel Poverty’s 2018 annual report recommended a new “Clean Growth Challenge Fund” of £1 billion by 2021 and a further £1.8 billion between 2022 and 2025 to meet the 2020 and 2025 EPC targets respectively. Fuel poverty ambition on this scale was until recently a reality in England as the Warm Front scheme, though limited, offered national funding to anyone suffering from fuel poverty. The scheme closed in 2013, replaced by ECO and the now closed Green Deal. The National Audit Office reviewed the scheme in 2009 and found that it “had helped to alleviate fuel poverty in a large number of households” but was not targeted enough. The closure of the Warm Front left a gap in provision for fuel poor households that has not been adequately filled by ECO for English households; this needs to be remedied.
74.It is vital that no fuel poor home should fall through the gaps if they are not identified by either their energy supplier or their local authority for assistance on energy efficiency. We recognise the value of Wales’ Nest and Scotland’s Warm Homes schemes in providing a safety net of national funding to which all fuel poor homes can apply. We recommend the Government establishes a central national fund to provide access to assistance for all low-income, vulnerable and fuel poor homes.
75.The Government operates two payment funds to provide energy bill support to eligible consumers. The Winter Fuel Payment is an annual payment of either £200 or £300 (depending on age) made to consumers over the state pension age for women, with no means testing for need. The Warm Home Discount is a £140 rebate off the electricity bills of eligible consumers. Eligibility includes both a core group of consumers who receive the Guarantee Credit element of Pension Credit, and a broader group of low-income consumers, but the limited funds are largely left to energy suppliers to decide how to allocate. These payments do not contribute to energy efficiency improvements; instead they provide temporary relief from some of the costs of energy bills.
76.We were told that the Government counts payments under the Warm Home Discount scheme towards its statutory target of moving all fuel poor homes to EPC band C by 2030. The Government told us that a minimum of 110,000 recipients of the Warm Home Discount are moved out of fuel poverty as a result of this payment. Although it is positive that these recipients have their fuel poverty lessened in the short-term, they could be returned to fuel poverty if the payments ceased. Counting these short-term uplifts towards the energy efficiency fuel poverty target means that real progress towards alleviating one of the root causes of fuel poverty is obscured.
77.It is disingenuous of the Government to include the Warm Homes Discount in the energy efficiency fuel poverty figures as this distorts evidence of progress and obscures the true number of households that will be missed under the Government’s 2030 statutory target. We recommend that the Government no longer counts the Warm Homes Discount towards fuel poverty energy efficiency targets.
78.We also heard that the Warm Homes Discount, and Winter Fuel Payment, may not be the best use of funds, as they act as a stop-gap, with no long-term energy savings. A recent report from the Centre for Policy Studies think tank which assessed how to fund social care recommended taxing the Winter Fuel Payment and excluding high rate taxpayers. The total annual budget of the Winter Fuel Payment and Warm Home Discount is £2 billion and only 10 per cent of the recipients are fuel poor. The Committee on Fuel Poverty said that “by changing the focus of the programmes to those most in need, £0.8 billion/year of funds could be transferred [to energy efficiency]”, and recommended refocusing the Winter Fuel Payment.
79.Funds for lowering energy bills should be targeted in a cost-effective way and should seek to achieve lasting change. In principle, we are in favour of refocusing the Winter Fuel Payment to those most in need. However, we recognise that unintended consequences, such as high administrative costs, may limit the cost effectiveness of any change. We recommend that the Government assesses the value of refocusing the Winter Fuel Payment to those most in need and using any savings to invest in energy efficiency programmes for fuel poor households.
80.If the housing stock is to be decarbonised, almost every home will need some energy efficiency improvements. Yet scams and poor standards of workmanship have blighted confidence in energy efficiency installations. Issues such as damp from poor installations, hard sell approaches, and scams related to the Green Deal have “exacerbated” the problem. If there is limited trust in energy efficiency schemes, there will be limited progress in housing decarbonisation and fuel poverty alleviation.
81.In 2015, the Government commissioned Dr Peter Bonfield to conduct an Independent Review into consumer advice, protection, standards and enforcement for energy efficiency and renewable energy in existing homes. The resulting Each Home Counts review, published in December 2016, identified systemic issues in the energy efficiency sector. To rectify standards, the review made a series of recommendations, including the need for a new quality mark, as well as a Code of Conduct, and Customer Charter.
82.In response to the review, the Government said that it would work with industry to understand how the sector proposes to implement the recommendations of the review. These words have failed to be accompanied with action, and many of the review’s recommendations have not been implemented.
83.The quality mark, called Trustmark, was launched in October 2018 and, when enforced, would mean that ECO funds could only be administered through companies accredited with the new quality mark. This is intended to prevent what the report described as “too many instances of poor-quality installations being made by companies who do not have the skills, quality levels or core values required to operate responsibly in this market.” Though the quality mark has launched, it is not yet a legal requirement for all companies operating under ECO to be accredited by it due to the Government’s failure to introduce the secondary legislation it told us is necessary. We are concerned that even if in place, the quality mark would need close monitoring to provide enough protection for customers. There is also concern that the review’s other recommendations are not being met. The supplier SSE told us:
We are concerned that now two years after the publication of the review, the impetus to deliver the recommendations has stalled and so far there has been little progress to improve consumer protection. [ … ] We are very concerned that without strong leadership from Government the energy efficiency industry will fail to deliver the majority of the Each Home Counts recommendations. Currently the energy efficiency industry is being left on its own to decide a way to implement the recommendations. We do not believe that this approach will ever result in a robust regime for ensuring high quality.
84.Over two years after the publication of the Each Home Counts review, the Government has no excuse for the delays in implementing all of the recommendations. The longer the Government neglects this issue, the more people are at risk from sub-standard interventions in their homes. We recommend the Government immediately brings forward the necessary secondary legislation requiring ECO funds to be spent only with companies accredited by the new Trustmark quality scheme. We recommend that the Government puts in place the necessary monitoring and feedback mechanisms to ensure that the Trustmark scheme is operating effectively to provide consumers with adequate protection.
85.Another key recommendation of the review was to provide advice and guidance on energy efficiency, so people can make informed decisions and identify available support. An advice line has operated in the UK since 1992, but the English scheme was replaced in June 2018 with the Simple Energy Advice website. The Energy Saving Trust, established by the Government to run the original 1992 advice service, told us a lack of advice is “a key barrier for people to act on energy efficiency [and] ensure government financing has maximum impact”. When the Each Home Counts review was published the advice line was operating, and yet the report still included three recommendations on advice and guidance, including establishing a central Information Hub to “enable engagement with all consumers, including vulnerable households, in ways most appropriate to them.”
86.We are not persuaded that the Government’s Simple Energy Advice website provides sufficiently personalised information. In other UK nations, advice is tailored with householders able to speak to trained advisors who can discuss personal and non-standard circumstances—whether that be an unusual home heating system, a hard-to-insulate home or difficult family circumstances. Multiple stakeholders have told us that it is essential for the success of energy efficiency and fuel poverty policy for the UK follow this example. We heard the need for one point of contact—a ‘one-stop shop’—with trained advisors that consumers can contact through multiple channels, including home visits, to receive advice, quell concerns, and be directed to the available support.
87.A system to provide personalised and tailored advice is vital for the building of public engagement and consumer trust in energy efficiency. We recommend the Government implements the other recommendations of the Each Home Counts review, including expanding the information hub to provide access to trained advisors who can give customers tailored and personalised support.
135 HM Government, (Oct 2017)
136 National Energy Action (the fuel poverty charity) told us the target was unlikely to be met in the lifetime of a child born today. National Energy Action ()
137 Committee on Fuel Poverty, (Nov 2018)
138 The projections take into account expected energy efficiency improvements due to the amended private rented sector regulations (PRS - discussed in Chapter 5) and ECO
139 House of Commons Library, (March 2019)
141 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, (Oct 2018)
142 Department for Energy and Climate Change, (June 2012)
143 Citizens Advice ()
144 Committee on Fuel Poverty, (Nov 2018)
145 As above
147 National Energy Action (); Welsh Government (); (); Association for Decentralised Energy (ADE)
148 E3G (). Forms of central funding also recommended by Citizens Advice (); Energy Saving Trust (); Energy UK (); IPPR (); Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturers Association (); National Energy Action (); Plymouth City Council (); Plymouth Energy Community (); The Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group (); UK Green Building Council (); WWF UK ()
149 IPPR, (Aug 2018)
150 Npower ()
151 National Energy Action ()
153 IPPR (); For discussion on the challenges facing rural households, see: Federation of Petroleum Suppliers (); CLA (); Calor Gas Ltd ()
154 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, , Last updated Nov 2017
155 [Vyas]; Calor Gas Ltd ()
156 IPPR ()
158 BEIS, Energy Company Obligation ECO3: 2018–2022 (Oct 2018) Table 23
159 Energy Savings Trust, (accessed July 2019)
160 (May 2019), in response to a (May 2019).
161 As above
162 Committee on Fuel Poverty (CFP) ()
165 The majority of these households were supported under Scotland’s schemes targeting fuel poverty: Area based schemes and warm home Scotland, though some were supported with Government loans. Scottish Government, (May 2019)
166 Welsh Government, (Jan 2019)
167 Due to a difference in the methodology for calculating the EPCs, the exact scores between Scotland and England cannot be compared, but the overall trend—shown by the angle of the lines—can be.
168 Committee on Climate Change, (June 2018)
169 National Energy Action ()
170 [Sellwood]; Kingspan insulation (); UK Green Building Council (); Sustainable Energy Association (); E3G ()
171 IPPR ()
172 SSE Energy Services (); The Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group ()
173 Plymouth Energy Community (); Sustainable Energy Association ()
176 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (), January 2018
177 Welsh Government, (Dec 2018)
178  Rodrigues
179 Correspondence between the Committee and Plymouth City Council
180 Correspondence between the Committee and Liverpool City Council
182 Scottish Government, (Accessed June 2019)
183 Welsh Government (Accessed June 2019)
184 Welsh Government, , 2017–2018
185 Welsh Government ()
186 Committee on Fuel Poverty, (Nov 2018). In January 2019, the the Government establish a £1.08 billion treasury funded “Challenge fund” to run from April 2020 to April 2022.
187 The Government announced the phase out of the scheme in the 2010 spending review. At the time the Government said the scheme would be replaced by the Green Deal and ECO. One explanation given was that the new schemes would be better targeted on the vulnerable and those in hard to treat homes. For example see PQ23422, , 23 November 2010
188 National Audit Office, (Feb 2009)
189 House of Commons Library, (March 2019)
190 [Perry; Golding]
191 (May 2019), in response to a (May 2019).
192 Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (); IPPR ()
193 Damian Green MP, Centre for Policy Studies (April 2019)
195 Committee on Fuel Poverty, (Nov 2018)
196 Citizens Advice ()
197 Citizens Advice (); Citizens Advice Scotland (); Dr. Professor Tom Woolley ()
198 Dr Peter Bonfield, (Dec 2016); See also: Dr Peter Bonfield ()
199 Dr Peter Bonfield, (Dec 2016)
200 , 10 January 2017
201 Dr Peter Bonfield, (Dec 2016)
202 [Perry; Golding]
203 SSE Energy Services ()
204 Dr Peter Bonfield, (Dec 2016)
205 Energy Saving Trust ()
206 Dr Peter Bonfield, (Dec 2016)
207 IPPR (); Sustainable Energy Association (); Energy UK (); Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturers Association ()
208 Energy Saving Trust (); Sustainable Energy Association (); NAPIT Certification (); Citizens Advice Scotland (); E3G (); Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturers Association ()
Published: 12 July 2019