Reducing CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland Achieving a low carbon future – An analysis of area-based approaches to improving Scottish homes Liz Marquis

Area-based Non-means tested Free Overview Notes Describe schemes and areas List funding streams and funders, eg SSE cert, windfarm, Scot Gov CCF, SAC Insulation and other measures to all houses

Impact Fintry (%) Girvan (%) Hadyard Hill (%) Combined total(%) No. of properties 333 3006 828 4167 No. receiving advice/info 333(100) 3006(100) 791(96) 4130(99) No. survey and reports 260(78) 2162(72) 748(90) 3170(76) No. receiving measures as % of target group 152(46) 963(32) 469(57) 1584(38) No. receiving measures as % of those surveyed 152 (58) 963(45) 469(63) 1584(50) Notes this and the next 2 slide show/list the impact Highlight 99% getting advice, therefore big educational impact Compare the 76% receiving survey with uptake in your other approaches ie 10% Almost 40% of the total population received some measure

Impact For every £1 spent in Fintry £1 was saved by those who received measures, Warm Deal delivered such a saving at a cost of £2.45, The local incidence of fuel poverty fell by between 13% and 26%, Normally ‘hard to reach’ fuel poor households were identified and supported, In Fintry the cost to save 1t of CO2 was £196 compared to £350 under Warm Deal, Average energy ratings improved by around 1 NHER point in each area, Annual energy usage of treated households fell by between 18% and 24%, On average households saved between 1.3 and 3.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.   Notes – 1st 4 are social 2nd 4 enviro Cost effective method for carbon reduction and social spending Limited impact on fuel poverty – will be discussed later Also if you want to you can tackle the relative fuel poverty impact here with option slide 3.5 – I wouldn’t even try though given you have 10 min

Community income Total savings - measures Total savings - behaviour Combined Fintry £91,000 £71,000 £162,000 Girvan £230,000 £331,000 £561,000 Hadyard Hill £84,000 £92,000 £176,000 Notes- Low-income = low propensity to save therefore this is big local stimulus, cavity and loft expected to last 40years, so benefits ongoing

Energy savings Before After Saving MWh(%) Fintry 42 32 10(24%) Girvan 27 21 6(22%) Hadyard Hill 34 28 6(18%)

Reasons for success – area based Intensive marketing and community engagement Combining a variety of funding streams Economies of scale Notes – expand on community groups, schools, local press and not only increased awareness but trust Cert, SAC, windfarm, renewable, Kirklees estimate 50% increase in productivity

Reasons for success Non-means tested/free Stigma Passport benefits Those on the margins Able to pay Notes Stigma attached to admitting poverty often means people withhold info Non-take up rates of passport benefits acts to exclude eg 20% of those eligible for Income Support, 40% for Pension Credit, and 45% for Working Tax Credits failing to claim. Those on the margins of eligibility to passport benefits will also be in, or at risk or fuel poverty. In Fintry 69% of those who were found to be in fuel poverty were neither claiming a relevant benefit nor were they over 70, In Girvan and Hadyard Hill these figures were 48% and 21% respectively. For those able to pay but not interested this is only method to engage them and reduce carbon

Limitations Incidence of fuel poverty (%) 47 41 35 33 36 26 20 13 5 10 15 25 30 40 45 50 Fintry Girvan Hadyard Hill Before % After % % Reduction with targets to end fuel poverty, the measures available clearly inadequate, need for hard to treat measures, microgen This also true for carbon reduction as even in Fintry which saw the greatest impact energy usage was only reduced by around 25%, while Gov targets are for 42% by 2020

Recommendations The further integration of government and energy company efforts to help achieve both fuel poverty and carbon saving targets, A redefinition of the ‘Priority Group’ within regulations surrounding energy companies’ schemes to include those found to be fuel poor, A more extensive range of measures for ‘hard to treat’ properties, and the provision of low and zero-carbon technologies. To ensure all who should receive help actually do so, consideration should be given to extending a non-means-tested approach focussed primarily on deprived areas, Consideration of an expansion of this approach to less deprived areas is also required in order to ensure an increased response rate among the ‘able to pay’, and to maximise carbon savings.