Reshaping HECA UK HECA Conference, Cardiff 2004 Preliminary Findings from Research of English HECA Officers Oliver Myers, London Borough of Camden Chair of London HECA Forum & UK HECA Chairs Research Sub-Group

Background to Research Dissatisfaction with current arrangements - No level playing field or standard reporting format - No enforcement, auditing, penalties or incentives Opportunity - Additional EST funding for HECA Forum -DEFRA HECA Review Process - Steering Group formedJan New Perspectives appointed Feb Deadline for responsesApril Preliminary findingsMay 2004

HECA Progress Reports removal of HECA reporting for excellent councils DEFRA HECA Review Terms of Reference (end May) -Statutory or complementary guidance? -New burdens procedure -Sustainable Energy Act - Section 4 is a power not a requirement Policy Context

HECA A Study of the Variation in Responses from LAs, with Proposals for Facilitating Implementation; ACE, Dec 1997 Monitoring the Implementation of HECA, DETR/Optima Energy, 1999 Previous research

HECA RegionNo. of ECAs No. of Responses Response rates East482552% East Midlands402870% East Pennines211257% London331855% North East23939% North West432251% South East673654% South West452760% West Midlands341750% Total % Response Rates

About HECA Officers 53% of HECA Officers have been in post over 3 years, 15% for no more than 1 year Only 22% spend over 70% time on HECA; 36% spend less than 10% of their time on HECA 61% have no-one else in own team, a further 28% no more than 1 FTE in own team 49% are managers (15% heads of service or above), 51% non-managerial Specialism: 30% environment, 23% energy efficiency, 23% housing

About HECA Officers Only 22% have no energy related qualification; 46% have City & Guilds, 42% a degree and 23% NHER auditing Only 10% feel a beginner in technical matters and in policy matters, most have moderate or extensive knowledge of each

About ECAs 28% had strategies pre-1995, 26% during 1996, 26% since 1996, 20% did not know 96% have partnerships with their EEAC, 89% with Warm Front, 84% with suppliers, 51% with Housing Associations ECAs are prioritising non-hard to heat home measures 36% not very likely and 22% not at all likely to meet their HECA targets, 29% quite likely and 9% very likely Reasons against: lack of resources (60%), low take up in private sector (16%), unrealistic target (14%), lack of commitment (14%), hard to treat homes (10%)

About ECAs Internal budgets for promotion: 11% have none, 18% under £5k, 30% under £8k and 40% 8-80k Levered in for promotion: 14% none, 16% under £8k, 22% over £8k Internal budgets for works: 11% have none, 47% over £30k Levered in money for works: 8% none, 39% over £30k

Present data collection and reporting Data collected to inform strategies: 95% use Warm Front, 89% use EEAC data, 71% use own stock, 74% use private grants, 60% use building control, 64% other installers, 54% energy suppliers For % improvement figure in private tenures: 24% use HECAMON, 60% use other surveys, 31% building a database, 34% only known improvements For % improvement figure in public sector: 15% use HECAMON, 49% use other surveys, 53% use database, 27% simply known improvements HECAMON surveys: 33% telephone, 71% postal

Of methods no longer used, HECAMON is most frequently abandoned (11% done by themselves, 11% done by outside agency) 24% don’t know how reliable their data is, 16% feel their method over-estimates, 32% feel their method under-estimates, only 32% feel their method is pretty accurate 20% have no budget for HECA reporting, only 8% reported a budget over £5k Under a third have ever revised progress figures Only 15% have revised their baselines Present data collection and reporting

Understanding of and views on current HECA & HECA reporting requirements 50% feel HECA is primarily about energy efficiency; 40% about reducing CO 2 emissions; 26% about reducing fuel consumption; 20% about tackling fuel poverty, 13% meeting Kyoto targets Majority (51%) use reduction in CO 2 emissions as main % improvement indicator, only 33% use theoretical reduction in energy consumption 35% don’t know how Government assesses their reports and 29% feel it is done inadequately; only 29% feel Govt. looks at strategy or checks figures

Understanding of and views on current HECA & HECA reporting requirements 38% do not know how Government uses information, 11% don’t believe it’s used at all, 18% believe it’s used for monitoring HECA, 14% to compare ECAs, 13% to monitor against Kyoto/other strategies Only 21% feel positive about requirements. 26% feel reporting is unreliable, 10% pointless, 9% too time consuming, 7% too complicated, 9% provides false view of progress, 7% complain about feedback. Despite cynicism, 44% find annual report quite useful and 21% find it very useful; 43% of these because it helps them evaluate their strategy and 15% because it keeps it on the agenda

Reshaping HECA 82% feel main aim of report should be fuel poverty, 79% making the case for extra funding and 73% monitoring towards HECA targets 78% feel reports should be widened to include fuel poverty, 62% to include renewables, 37% other fuel switching, 23% non-domestic energy Most favoured indicators: installed measures in last 12 months (83%), the incidence of fuel poverty (78%), full energy audit (64%), all measures now in place (64%), full consumption data (63%), all measures still missing (60%)

55% would like to see data collected from actual fuel consumption data; 46% would like to see a national energy database, 38% sampled surveys in area, only 24% co-ordinated regional and 17% co-ordinated national surveys Data should be used for planning local strategy (84%), planning regional HECA strategy (65%), allocating extra funds to areas needing them most (65%) Indicator for % improvement; 57% want theoretical improvement in energy efficiency, 57% reduction in CO 2 emissions, 53% reduction in energy consumption, 35% % of possible measures still requiring installation Reshaping HECA

94% want a standard reporting format 71% feel Government should audit and validate reports How should baselines be set? No consensus on method, over half did not answer. Only 15% support continued use of existing baseline, 41% want a revision in 2004/05, 30% revision of 1996 baseline using a common method 71% want Govt to assess performance on basis of indicator and strategy appraisal combined, or on appraisal of strategy (16%). Only 6% on indicators alone Reshaping HECA

53% feel ECAs should be compared, 20% by quartiles, 14% by 5 point scale as with HIP, and 14% by league tables 61% want to see more incentives & 13% penalties to encourage reporting, but 33% want neither; extra funding (35%) is seen as best incentive 34% think any extra resources should be allocated to fuel poor, 10% want these allocated to ECAs for full time HECA Officers or training 57% want some sort of HECA qualification training, with 27% against Reshaping HECA

Objectives for further analysis Possible factors contributing to effective strategies Data collection methods that are used and favoured Differences in views on HECA requirements Differences in views on changes to HECA requirements Good ideas/issues for recommendation

Next Steps Submission of 1 st Draft report7 th June Discussion at UK HECA Chairs Meeting16 th June Distribution of 2 nd Draft report to Regional HECA Fora 25 th June Deadline for comments23 rd July Submission of Final Report to DEFRA2 nd Aug