Hills Review Briefing
One of the Hill’s Review of Fuel Poverty’s main conclusions on policies to address fuel poverty was:
Narrowly targeted supplier-driven policies would have the largest effects on fuel poverty, on the assumption that suppliers reacted to their incentive to maximise cost-effectiveness.
Given the regressivity of raising funds for an energy efficiency programme from energy bills, it seems to be counter intuitive that a supplier funded programme would be more effective than a publically funded one.
ACE explores how this misleading conclusion was arrived at.
Trackback from your site.