1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Energy savings Before After Saving MWh(%) Fintry 42 32 10(24%) Girvan27 21
6(22%)
Hadyard Hill 34 28
6(18%)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.