logo

The expert voice for energy efficiency in the UK.
Follow us:

Posts Tagged ‘Europe’

Energy Bill Revolution,Energy Efficiency,Europe,Fuel Poverty

Still the Cold Man of Europe – briefing

This briefing compares the state of the UK housing stock and fuel poverty levels with 15 other European countries. It concludes that no other country of the 16 assessed performed as poorly overall as the UK across the range of indicators. The UK has among the highest rates of fuel poverty and one of the most energy inefficient housing stocks in Europe.

  • Despite the fact that it has amongst the lowest energy prices, the UK ranks very poorly in terms of the affordability of space heating and fuel poverty, ranking 14th out of 16 on both indicators.
  • It is the poor state of our housing stock that is the main cause of these problems. In terms of households reporting that their home is in a poor state of repair, the UK ranks 12th out of 16.
  • In terms of energy efficiency, out of 11 countries for which data is available, the UK’s walls are ranked 7th, roofs are ranked 8th, floors are ranked 10th and windows are ranked 11th.

The key results are shown in the table below. The latest official European data are used for this briefing, and the UK’s performance compared to our previous assessment two years ago.
Added to this year’s update is an analysis of the homes that seem to be dragging the UK’s rankings down. There are 26 million households in the UK and 21 million with a poor level of energy efficiency (Band D, E, F and G on an Energy Performance Certificate). The energy efficiency of all these homes has to be raised. The average energy efficiency of a UK home is Band D which is not high enough to protect households from fuel poverty.

Indicator 2011 (previous assessment) 2013 (this briefing)
Affordability of space heating 14/15 16/16
Arrears on utility bills in the last 12 months 9/16 14/16
Level of fuel poverty 13/16 14/16
Homes in poor state of repair 12/16 12/16
Thermal performance of…
Walls 6/8 7/11
Roof n/a 8/11
Floor n/a 10/11
Windows n/a 11/11

The least energy efficient homes in England

In this report we use the latest English Housing Survey to analyse those homes in England that are least energy efficient, with a worse than average energy rating (worse than D on the A to G scale). In England, approximately one third of homes – 6.6 million – are rated E, F or G.

The average required energy expenditure across the housing stock is £1,210. In E-rated homes, it is £1,640, in F-rated homes, it is £2,140, and in G-rated homes, it is £2,670, over twice the national average. Using Energy Performance Certificate data for England up to October 2012, the English constituencies with the highest proportions of E, F and G-rated properties are shown below. A full list of English constituencies and how they perform is available in the report.

Parliamentary constituency Share of home rated E, F or G MP Party
St Ives 50.4% Derek Thomas Conservative
Southend West 47.6% David Amess Conservative
Derbyshire Dales 44.8% Patrick McLoughlin Conservative
Ludlow 42.9% Philip Dunne Conservative
West Worcestershire 42.7% Harriett Baldwin Conservative
North Cornwall 42.3% Scott Mann Conservative
Birmingham, Hall Green 42.2% Roger Godsiff Labour
Croydon South 42.1% Chris Philp Conservative
Penrith and The Border 41.9% Rory Stewart Conservative
Southport 41.8% John Pugh Liberal Democrats

Our housing is infrastructure and the UK’s is in a very poor condition, resulting in high levels of fuel poverty and unaffordable energy bills. The solution to this crisis is for the UK Government to designate home energy efficiency as an infrastructure priority and use infrastructure funds to deliver the stable, long-term investment needed to implement a locally-led infrastructure programme to upgrade all UK homes up to Band C on an Energy Performance Certificate.

Continue Reading 8 Comments

Energy Efficiency,Europe

EU 2030 energy efficiency target sends all the wrong signals to investors and means 56m Europeans will continue to live in cold homes

ACE has reacted angrily today to the news that European leaders have adopted a 27% non-binding energy efficiency target, which represents a slowing of current progress on energy efficiency and will mean 56m Europeans will continue to live in homes they cannot afford to heat.

Jenny Holland, Head of ACE’s Parliamentary Team, said:
“We have long campaigned for a 40% EU energy efficiency target, which would have been the most cost-effective way to deliver emissions reductions, greater energy security and an end to the misery of 56m Europeans who have to live in homes they can’t afford to keep warm.
“The 30% target proposed by the European Commission already represented a regrettable lack of ambition, amounting only to a continuation of current rates of energy efficiency improvement. But the 27% non-binding target agreed by Europe’s leaders last night amounts to a slowing of current progress on energy efficiency. It means that the opportunity has been squandered to lower energy bills for households and businesses by a whopping €239 billion each year by 2030.
“For the energy efficiency industry, this unambitious target sends out all the wrong signals about Europe as a place in which to invest for the longer term. With the promise of a review of the target in 2020, we will be keeping up the pressure on both the UK Government and the European institutions to put in place a much more ambitious target at the start of the new decade.”

For more information, contact: Jenny Holland, jenny@ukace.org, 07875 629781

Note for editors:
See below for a more detailed ACE commentary on the EU 2030 energy efficiency target:
“Energy efficiency is now universally regarded as the first fuel. It is the key to reducing CO2 emissions at least cost, it creates sustainable employment where and when we need it most, it saves consumers money and helps the 56 million Europeans who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, it improves the state of public finances, enhances competitiveness and increases GDP. More pertinently than ever, it is the best way to enhance Europe’s energy security, by reducing the need to import fossil fuels from dangerous places. It is the one sanction on Putin that has real bite, and does not hurt Europe’s own economic interests.
“The European Commission recommended a binding 30% energy efficiency target for 2030. Whilst this would have represented a continuation of business as usual energy efficiency improvement, it would have at least brought up the rear, ensuring that the costs of meeting CO2 targets are reduced and the benefits increased. A binding 40% target would have ensured minimised costs and maximised benefits, alongside massively reducing dependence on Russian gas.
“While the 2030 target for reducing CO2 emissions by 40% is to be commended – particularly in the context of securing a global climate deal – and the at least EU-level binding status of the 27% renewables target is to be welcomed, the end-result of a non-binding energy efficiency target of 27% is appalling. Instead of taking its rightful place as first fuel, energy efficiency has been relegated to the position of Europe’s energy Cinderella.
“The UK Government, while an important player in securing the CO2 target, had previously been opposed to an energy efficiency target of any description, even a non-binding one. But agreeing to 27% is cold comfort. It is below the business as usual rate of energy efficiency improvement in the EU, and sends out a discouraging signal to investors. Moreover, the European Council agreed in March that energy efficiency was the top priority for energy security and boosting growth, but now:
• The CO2 target will be achieved at far less net economic benefit than it could be
• Compared to a 40% target, over three million jobs in the construction and manufacturing sectors will be foregone by 2030
• Net gas imports will be 45% higher than under a 40% target
• Energy costs to consumers will be unnecessarily high
“The status of the energy efficiency target will be up for formal review in 2020, where the Commission will consider a 30% target. Had European leaders at least agreed to make 30% binding, it would have guaranteed €2.5 trillion in savings to European consumers to 2030. We will be working hard with others to ensure that the European Parliament pushes the target back up and is made binding as well, levelling the playing field for energy efficiency, thus securing its status as an integral part of Europe’s energy infrastructure.”

Continue Reading No Comments

Emissions Targets,Europe

Heading in three directions makes a lot more sense

Ever since he took up his post two years ago, UK Energy Secretary Edward Davey has championed tirelessly the need for a binding target across Europe of a 40 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2030. It now looks pretty certain that his campaign will be successful.

The European Parliament has voted in favour. A large number of national governments are concurring. The European Commission has published a detailed policy paper, endorsing this figure.

So far, so uncontroversial.

But that target, Mr Davey argues, is sufficient by itself. He does not believe it necessary to have any related targets – whether covering renewables or energy efficiency. “Adopting an ambitious and binding greenhouse gas target will provide…a compelling reason for us all to do more on energy efficiency. But we should not prejudge the balance between increasing efficiency and deploying other low carbon measures to meet the greenhouse gas targets,” he maintains.

Others differ. Among those acknowledging the need for further statutory, as opposed to just aspirational, objectives are his opposite numbers from most of the western European governments: France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, and many others.

 Three energy targets

At present, the European Union does have three energy-related targets for 2020. Each is based upon an emblematic 20 per cent reduction. These are to cut greenhouse gases by 20 per cent; to boost the proportion of renewable energy to 20 per cent; and to improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent.

These may appear equal in timescale and objective. But they are not equal in stature. The first two both have the force of Community law behind them, effectively compelling each government to adopt appropriate policies. In contrast, the energy-saving target does not have the same status at all. It is far from compulsory, just an indicative aspiration.

Does this distinction matter in practice? You bet it does. The consequence of this “also ran” status is plain. Whereas there is confidence that the first two targets are on track to being met (indeed exceeded), you can find nobody who right now believes the 2020 energy efficiency “target” will be met.

The European Commission is due to publish in June its best forecast as to just how significant the under performance is likely to be.

But even before then, it has published some very telling evidence that suggests that those who pursue only a single 2030 target may well be guilty of deliberately frustrating many other worthwhile objectives.

It is official European policy that all new proposals must be capable of being justified via the accompanying economic impact assessment. Each new European Commission policy document is rightly required now to have a detailed Impact Assessment published alongside it.

This one demonstrates clearly that adopting complementary targets covering energy efficiency and renewables, as well as greenhouse gas emissions, would result in higher benefits relating to a whole variety of other public policies.

It is clear from this analysis that concentrating upon greenhouse gases alone means approaching the entire policy area from too narrow a standpoint. Granted the threat of runaway climate change requires effective action to contain its worst excesses. But there are a number of other policy priorities out with carbon abatement that all of Europe is seeking to address simultaneously.

The conclusion of the Impact Assessment is stark. And it is unequivocal. There would be many further benefits, above and beyond the climate changes ones, which would be obtained only via the adoption of new and very specific targets for both energy efficiency and for renewable energy.

These are adumbrated succinctly. To quote paragraph 85 of the Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment, they include: “improvements in fuel efficiency, security of supply, reduction of the negative trade balance for fossil fuels, localised environmental impacts, and health benefits.”

 Fear of ‘lower GDP’

To cap it all, those who seek to limit Europe to a single, solely ecological, target – in the objective view of the Impact Assessment – are endorsing a policy that will “result in lower GDP and employment, compared to a framework based on more ambitious targets for renewables and energy efficiency.”

As you can see, the conclusion is pellucid. European climate policy should not be developed in a silo, concentrating upon just a single climate-oriented policy outcome.

We need also to be concerned about improving public health. And increasing Europe’s competitiveness. And creating new jobs, new industries. And reducing levels of energy imports. And indeed ensuring that we can keep the lights on.

For all these reasons, when later this year all the European institutions do formally agree a policy framework for both climate and energy policy in the period from 2020 to 2030, there can be no question as to the best outcome. Three places to head are better than one.

 

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Energy Bill Revolution,Energy Efficiency,Europe,Fuel Poverty

Fact-file: The Cold Man of Europe

Fuel poverty is a major social crisis in the UK. There are over five million households in fuel poverty needing to spend more than 10% of their income on energy in order to keep warm. This number will increase significantly if gas prices rise as the Government expects.

This fact-file compares fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the UK to 15 other European countries with comparable levels of prosperity and heating need. It ranks these countries against six key indicators for which consistent and recent European data are available to assess the energy efficiency of the UK’s homes. The UK is ranked lowest for energy (or fuel) poverty out of 13 western European countries and near the bottom of the other league tables on affordability of space heating (14 out of 15), share of household expenditure spent on energy (11 out of 13), homes in poor state of repair (11 out of 15), thermal performance (6 out of 8), and the gap between current thermal performance and what the optimal level of insulation should be in each country (7 out of 8). Overall, no other country of the 16 assessed performs as poorly as the UK across the range of indicators.

Continue Reading 12 Comments

CONTACT US | FIND US | US | © 2017 Association for the Conservation of Energy. CAN Mezzanine, Old Street, 49-51 East Road, London N1 6AH. Tel: 020 7250 8410. Registered company number 01650772