EEDO Call for Evidence; summary of Association for the Conservation of

Energy’s evidence

Introduction

The most important piece of missing evidence necessary to enable the EEDO to design its strategy

and undertake its activities effectively is an analysis of the full potential of energy saving before new

generation becomes the more cost effective option. This point was raised in:

ACE and Unlock Democracy (2012) A Corruption of Governance?

Studies of the full potential of energy saving have been undertaken for other geographical areas,

perhaps the most well-known being Vermont, USA:

Blair Hamilton. A Vermont Case study and roadmap to 2050. One of the Atlantic Energy

Efficiency papers

Specific Questions

a) The UK has become more efficient over time but there is significant additional potential

that could be tapped in the sectors of domestic and non-domestic buildings, and

industrial, electricity generation, services (excluding buildings), and transport sectors.

Where would you prioritise further Government focus and why? How large is the potential

for further energy efficiency gains? Which specific technologies and behavioural measures

have the greatest unrealised potential? What are the costs and other constraints on

realising that potential?

i. The housing stock

It has been well documented and widely accepted that the building stock, in particular the housing

stock, holds significant carbon and energy savings (ACE, 2008. How Low? Achieving optimal carbon

savings from the UK's existing housing stock; ECI Oxford, 2005 The 40% House; Boardman, Brenda,

2007 Home Truths; Boardman, Brenda, 2012 Achieving Zero).

These opportunities also hold huge social, economic and other non-energy benefits.

Although policies to date, including Warm Front and the successive supplier obligations have

delivered impressive levels of low cost measures, significant potential for highly cost effective

savings still exists. As outlined in ACE’s Dead CERT report, the proposed changes to the existing

policy framework do not take advantage of the significant remaining potential for the delivery of loft

and cavity wall insulation through the promotion of these measures.

There is also significant evidence, summarised in Chapter 4 of a paper written by the Existing Homes

Alliance, to illustrate that area-based delivery models hold the potential to deliver measures at a

much reduced overall cost.

ii. Robust implementation of existing policies

The most cost effective and secure energy savings available are under the auspices of policies

already in place or announced.

Greater Government focus should be placed on robust and effective implementation of the existing

policies. A suite of policies already exists that covers a large part of the potential energy savings and

includes a good number of the available policy mechanisms. Focus should be placed on ensuring

that:

the technologies that are supported by policies are deployed and installed effectively and

monitoring is put in place to ensure this (the EST Heat Pump Trial is a good example of a

monitoring scheme that will establish actual performance rather than manufacturers’

estimates and will lead to more effective deployment of the technology)

full compliance with existing standards and requirements (eg building regulations thermal

standards for new build and refurbishment, the energy efficiency prerequisites in RHI and

FIT schemes and the requirement to hold and display EPCs or DECCs) and the energy

efficiency requirements of policies

policies that promote the delivery of energy efficiency are robust in design

opportunities to promote carbon/energy efficiency objectives within renewables

deployment policies are taken full advantage of (eg high energy efficiency standard

prerequisites for receipt of FIT and RHI payment to reduce the cost of carbon saved in these

policies. See ACE responses to the FIT consultations 2009 and 2012, and RHI 2010 and

conference paper 2011 on the dangers of siloed policy making)

The huge potential, in carbon saving, economic and social terms, in new policies such as the

proposal for consequential improvements to be extended to smaller buildings under the Building

Regulations and the minimum standards for the private rented sector will only be realised if these

policies are delivered on the ground.

Evidence is available on discrete areas of underperformance of policies or technologies installed

under policies (for example an Assessment of energy efficiency impact of Building Regulations

compliance, by Grigg, P. (2004) for the Energy Savings Trust and Energy Efficiency Partnership for

Homes)

ACE, along with CIBSE, the Construction Products Association, BSRIA and STROMA have developed a

proposal for radically improving compliance with Part L by strengthening existing procedures for

ensuring that the claimed design carbon emissions, as determined via the ‘design stage’ SAP/SBEM

assessment, are delivered in the completed building

ACE’s response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry has highlighted key flaws in the

design of the new Private Rented Sector policy that risk its ability to deploy energy efficiency

improvements. First, that the huge potential, within the requirement on landlords to respond to

‘reasonable’ requests from tenants for improvements from 2016, to drive early improvements will

not be realised if no protection against retaliatory eviction is included in the package. Second, under

current articulations landlords will not in every case have to bring their F or G rated property up to

an E rating, but must only to take action. This loophole means that it will be virtually impossible to

police the rental of below E rated properties.

Clearly significant carbon savings potentially covered by existing policies are at risk. The EEDO must

take swift action to close loopholes and ensure full compliance.

No evidence is available on the full extent of the policy implementation gap. The EEDO should as a

priority commission research on the carbon savings accounted for in policies but not realised in

practice.

iii. Promotion of strong European policy

Many of the most effective UK enabling and delivery programmes have come about as a result of

successfully negotiated European processes. Perhaps the most important of these European

processes for energy efficiency deployment is currently taking place in the negotiations of the

Energy Efficiency Directive. A clear opportunity exists to drive secure future investment I energy

efficiency by supporting the following amendments that were promoted in the European

Parliament:

A binding 20% energy savings target– thus putting it on an equal footing with the EU’s 20%

greenhouse gas and renewable energy targets.

Allocation of individual targets and a trajectory for each Member State – this is essential to

develop effective national policies, to adjust the EU ETS to account for reduced energy

demand, and to allow an accurate assessment of progress towards the 20% target.

1.5% annual savings target in Article 6 is clearly defined as a cumulative target with i) each

year’s savings being additional to those of the year before and ii) the previous years’ savings

being maintained to 2020 and beyond.

Oppose efforts by some Member States to credit 'early actions' towards new targets.

While it may be reasonable for countries which have already achieved significant energy

savings to adopt relatively less stringent overall targets for 2020, we do not believe that

actions which were taken before the Directive's adoption should be allowed to count

towards the Article 6 target. Past efforts have not been enough – this is why Europe is

currently due to miss its 20% target by at least half, and why the EED is needed. Article 6

must drive savings which are additional to those already achieved.

Support the proposal by the European Parliament for national financing facilities, which

would allow the strength of the UK’s financial sector to be harnessed in order to save

businesses and householders money

Back ambitious renovation targets for all public buildings. Restricting the applicability of a

renovation target to central government buildings only would severely limit the potential to

reduce the running costs and carbon emissions of UK public buildings and to reduce

taxpayers’ bills. An ambitious renovation programme would send a clear message to the

growing retrofit industry and develop the skills needed to support the implementation of the

Green Deal.

b) Barriers resulting in under-investment in energy efficiency include market failures and

financial, organisational and behavioural barriers. Within the context of the existing and

forthcoming UK policy framework, what lessons do you think we can learn from other

countries to help us further overcome these barriers?

[NB: The study Financial and fiscal instruments for energy efficiency in buildings, 2009 referenced in

Appendix 1, contains a schedule of fiscal and financial initiatives in place across Member States

which contains many best practice examples)

i. Widespread access to favourable rate finance

The example of the KfW bank in Germany is widely used as an example of best practice in the

provision of finance for energy upgrades to existing housing. Three elements have been credited

with being key to the KfW model’s success: 1) a subsidised interest rate, 2) integration of finance

into the retail banking infrastructure and 3) the availability of the finance at the most appropriate

moment to trigger works (general refurbishment).

Evaluations carried out on the KfW bank indicate that the year 1 costs to the German Government

are low and the benefits returned to the public budget far outweigh the costs.

The establishment of the Green Investment Bank provides the UK Government with a huge

opportunity to replicate the success of the KfW model. To do this the GIB must focus not just on

energy infrastructure but in a very large part on the aggregation of large numbers of small energy

refurbishment project to manage investment risk and achieve favourable interest rates. This point

was central to ACE’s evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee enquiry on the GIB.

ii. Recycling of carbon tax revenues

To help overcome barriers to private investment and ensure that carbon taxes do not simply pose a

burden on companies but promote significant carbon saving, a large number of Member States have

recycled revenue from the EU ETS or other carbon taxes back into energy saving initiatives.

For instance, the Czech Republic has just committed to earmark 50% of the EU ETS phase three

revenue for climate protection measures (as strongly recommended in the EU Emissions Trading

Directive1), with the greatest portion of these funds directed towards energy saving measures and

use of renewable energy sources for heating in public and private buildings.2

The Swiss are also recycling another type of carbon tax back to the companies and householders.

The tax on gas and fuel for heating systems is revenue neutral. Companies (excluding those exempt)

receive funds back in proportion to their wage bill, each resident sees an equal reduction in their

health insurance premium. Since 2009, one third of receipts have been ring-fenced for a "building

program for climate-friendly building renovations and the promotion of renewable energies", this has

equated to about 300m CHF so far.3

A study by Camco (2012) has revealed that reinvestment of the combined revenues from the EU ETS

and the carbon floor price could quadruple projected carbon savings. Therefore ACE, along with 70

1 2009/29/EC Article 10

2 http://www.endseurope.com/27195?referrer=bulletin&DCMP=EMC-ENDS-EUROPE-DAILY

3

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Green_firms_rewarded_with_CO2_tax_payout.html?cid=30471186; http:

//www.bafu.admin.ch/co2-

abgabe/index.html?lang=de; http://www.bafu.admin.ch/dokumentation/medieninformation/00962/index.html?la

ng=de&msg-id=39612

other organisations, advocate that these revenues be invested post-2013 in energy efficiency

schemes, prioritising the homes of the fuel poor (http://energybillrevolution.org/).

iii. Fiscal and tax incentives

There is strong anecdotal evidence that financial incentives are exponentially more effective when

offered through the tax system in the form of differentials or rebates (for example the boiler cash

back scheme). This form of incentive therefore reduces not only financial barriers to energy saving

action but, perhaps more importantly, works to reduce the behavioural barriers, making investment

more attractive.

There are numerous examples of how the tax system is used in European Member States to

promote energy efficiency (examples summarised in Financial and fiscal instruments for energy

efficiency in buildings):

Income tax breaks

Belgium: Federal tax reductions covering up to 40% of householders’ investment in energy

efficiency and renewables

Finland: tax breaks for up to 60% of labour costs associated with installing energy efficiency

measures in homes

France: 25-40% tax credit for energy saving or renewables equipment expenses

Commercial tax

Netherlands: Energy Investment Allowance allows entrepreneurs to deduct part of the

investment costs associated with relatively innovative projects from their corporate income

tax.

VAT reduction

Belgium: Federal VAT reduction on home refurbishments from 21% to 6%

France: reduced VAT rate for District Heating

Other

Bulgaria: Building Tax breaks

UK use of fiscal incentives

The UK could, and should, make significantly more use of the tax system to promote the take up of

energy saving measures in both the residential and commercial sectors.

LESA

The Landlord’s Energy Saving Allowance is one example of the use of the tax system to promote take

up of energy saving measures. However, the very low annual take up of this tax break (less than

0.2% in 2007/8) indicates that this tool could be more effectively promoted.

According to the EEPH’s Private Landlords Research, 2009, only 10% of commercial landlords and 4%

of single property landlords are even aware of LESA. The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group in its Annual

Report for 2009 recommended clearly that it was “vital that the LESA be much more heavily

promoted in order to increase take-up from its current derisory levels.”

Introduced in 2004 and due to end in 2015, LESA allows landlords to claim up to £1,500 per property

for buying and installing energy saving products.

LESA should be extended beyond 2015 and the allowance increased.

ACE proposes that the allowance be raised to £3,500 per property – this being the sum required to

improve 75% of F and G-rated PRS properties to EPC Band E. Furthermore, the allowance should be

extended to at least 2018 so as to give a greater spur to improvements ahead of the introduction of

the minimum energy efficiency standard in introduced in the Energy Bill 2011.

Quite clearly, it would be wrong to provide a tax break for landlords for whom the Green Deal will

remove the upfront capital cost of improvements. However, there are two particular sets of

circumstances in which the LESA could play a key role in driving energy efficiency installations in the

PRS:

Where a landlord is unable to access the Green Deal finance mechanism due to a lack of

consent by the tenant (or for other reasons), the LESA can provide an important alternative

incentive to take up the Green Deal. There will be some situations – e.g. large blocks of flats

– where consent requirements are very complicated, with multiple consents necessary

before GD installations can be undertaken.

The LESA can be used, in addition, to incentivise deeper retrofits by landlords, which

incorporate the installation of more expensive measures that go beyond the Green Deal

‘Golden Rule’.

Reduced rate VAT

Some energy saving or energy efficiency products already benefit from a reduced rate of VAT (5%).

To encompass more fully the range of energy efficiency measures this reduction should be extended

to all flue heat recovery installations, ‘A’ rated boilers and ‘A’ and ‘B’ rated windows installed by

Green Deal-accredited installers. In order to avoid deadweight compliance, the 5% rate should only

apply to windows and boilers that are more energy efficient than those required under Building

Regulations. See Andrew Warren’s report on reducing the VAT rate.

Stamp Duty

With the removal of the Stamp Duty Relief for Zero Carbon homes in September 2012 the Stamp

Duty Land Tax system will be completely blind to energy efficiency levels.

Variable stamp duty or stamp duty rebate is a tax tool that has the benefit of acting at the trigger

point of purchase and, in the case of variable rates, would encourage the energy efficiency rating of

a building to be captured in its market value.

Two sources in particular outline the value of this approach:

Eoin Lees (2005) Using stamp duty to bring about at step change in household energy

efficiency

Darryl Croft (2011) Addressing Key Barriers in the Delivery of Domestic Energy Efficiency

Improvements - The Case for Energy Efficiency Property Purchase Taxes

Council Tax

ACE’s discussion paper sets out the various issues around the use of Council Tax as an incentive to

householders. It concludes that a variable rate Council Tax banding is the most practicable use of this

Tax.

iv. Distributional equity

A clear barrier to investment from householders in energy saving measures is lack of private funds,

compounded by reduced access to finance, particularly for those in low incomes.

It must be an essential part of the EEDO’s role to ensure that the benefits accrued from energy

saving are shared fairly in order that the efficiency gap does not widen alongside the income gap.

Equity considerations can be a key barrier to the introduction of energy and carbon savings and

policies. The prominence of fuel poverty as an issue in the UK is a key barrier to the use of carbon

pricing tools to promote energy savings and low carbon energy.4 To overcome this barrier significant

investment in fuel poverty alleviation, through home energy efficiency improvements must be

made.

Level of investment in fuel poverty alleviation

ACE’s Green Deal and ECO consultation response (Chapter 5) provided evidence as to why the level

of ring-fenced expenditure on the low income and vulnerable target group (proxy for fuel poverty) is

completely inadequate to fulfil Government’s duties under the Warm Hoes and Energy Conservation

Act 2000, particularly with the removal of Warm Front support.

Published at the same time as the consultation response, ACE’s Dead CERT report outlined a

proposal in which 98% of the ECO expenditure could be targeted on the fuel poor, at least I the first

period, with carbon savings being delivered using just the remaining 2%.

Public expenditure on fuel poverty alleviation

Public expenditure in energy efficiency programmes to address fuel poverty is a key tool used to

address these equity considerations. The removal of Warm Front has left England without any form

of public expenditure to address the efficiency gap.

Both Scotland and Wales have in place public expenditure schemes (the Energy Assistance Package

in Scotland, NEST and arbed in Wales) which effectively assist those households on low incomes to

overcome the specific barriers to energy and carbon saving they experience.

The recent Hills Review found energy efficiency improvement programmes to be the most cost

effective policies for alleviating fuel poverty. Contrary to the results of the Hills modelling, which

found the supplier-funded energy efficiency programme to be marginally more cost effective than

the Exchequer-funded programme, ACE’s briefing finds publically-funded fuel poverty programmes

are the most cost effective approach.

Hills response

4 Sunderland L (2011) Risks, conflicts and opportunities in the development of energy poverty alleviation policy

under the umbrella of energy efficiency and climate change ECEEE Summer Study

As illustrated by evidence presented by ACE in its response to the Hills Review of fuel poverty phase

one consultation, Hills’ preferred definition of fuel poverty could impact heavily on the types of

policies and deployment programmes that are designed around it. ACE’s response to the

consultation on the proposed new definition provided evidence that:

The proposed definition places an overemphasis on the income causal factor, giving changes

in income levels greater impact on modelled fuel poverty numbers. This clearly provides a

disincentive to invest in energy efficiency programmes to alleviate fuel poverty, which Hills

finds to be the most cost effective approach.

Hills’ definition of fuel poverty has created a tension between carbon reduction programmes

and fuel poverty programmes. In the way Hills’ definition is constructed, it becomes more

difficult to reach the fuel poverty targets when investments are made in energy efficiency in

the homes of the non-fuel poor.

c) Investment in energy efficiency measures and energy service contracts by third party

investors is believed to be an important aspect of improving energy efficiency uptake but

to date there has been limited uptake in the UK. Can you provide examples of barriers to

further uptake of third party finance solutions and examples of third party finance

solutions, internationally or in the UK, that overcome the barriers to further uptake?

d) EEDO is commissioning two evidence reviews which will draw on empirical evidence to

highlight the effectiveness of interventions designed to influence specific energy related

behaviours in both the domestic and non-domestic sectors, including those specific

behaviours that result in increased energy efficiency. The reviews will pull out what works

in driving improvements in energy efficiency and, for the non-domestic sector in

particular, will also cover barriers to action and key organisational factors that promote

action to energy efficiency. The reviews will identify any gaps in our knowledge and

priorities for future research. Of what empirical evidence are you aware that looks at the

effectiveness of specific interventions relating to energy behaviours in the domestic and

non-domestic sectors?

e) We must ensure that energy customers have a clear understanding of the potential

benefits of energy efficiency. Have you been involved in, or are you aware of, any case

studies where energy efficiency benefits have been realised and effectively measured?

What were the benefits of these projects and what were the costs, including those of

monitoring?

A number of ACE research sources are listed in the Appendix that identify and investigate non-

energy benefits of energy saving programmes:

Dead CERT: Framing a sustainable transition to the Green Deal and the Energy Company

Obligation

Warm Homes, Green Jobs

Raising the SAP – Tackling fuel poverty by investing in energy efficiency

Comfortable Living Environment and Energy Reducing

Cold Comfort for Kyoto? Carbon implications from increasing residential cooling demand

Asset Value Implications of Low Energy Offices

f) Energy efficiency is not only about how we consume energy. It is also about producing and

converting energy as efficiently as possible; that is, making sure that we get the highest

possible amount of energy output from a given fuel input. Examples include the use of

higher efficiency boilers, flue heat recovery systems, combined heat and power plants,

recovery and use of heat discharged from industrial processes. Do you have any concrete

examples where more efficient processes such as these are saving energy and money?

What if anything should DECC do to incentivise such process efficiency?

g) What else should DECC do to deliver permanent, additional reductions in UK electricity

demand to enable cost-effective achievement of carbon targets? Why should DECC do

this?

i. New load reduction

Perhaps the most important measure to reduce long-term electricity need and prevent investment

in unnecessary new capacity is the reduction of heat and transport fuel demand now. Both heat and

transport are expected to be electrified to varying degrees as part of the low carbon energy future.

Only by reducing the loads associated with these services before they are transferred from gas or

transport fuel to electricity can overinvestment be avoided.

This point has been expanded upon with regard to heating by Nick Eyre, ECI, Oxford in the following

paper:

Nick Eyre, Efficiency, demand reduction or electrification? ECEEE Summer Study 2011. The

paper reviews the analyses that point to low carbon electricity accompanied by

electrification of demand as a climate solution. It investigates the socio-technical feasibility

of electrification of heating, with reference to the implied changes in behaviour of

consumers, equipment supply chains and the capacity of electricity generation and

distribution systems. It concludes that electrification of heating is not a panacea. It is only

likely to contribute to a viable climate solution in the context of significantly improved

efficiency and reduced heating demand. The two processes of demand reduction and

electrification need to be conceptualised, planned and delivered together if there is to be a

successful transition to very low carbon buildings.

ii. Demand-side FIT and forward capacity mechanism

To enable demand reduction to fully take part in the electricity market of the future a mechanism

must to be introduced to reward non-generation. The Feed in Tariff Contract for Difference set at a

level just below that required to incentivise the cheapest forms of low carbon generation has been

proposed as an essential addition to the Electricity Market Reforms. Sources:

Green Alliance (2011) Decarbonisation on the Cheap. Available at http://www.green-

alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/reports/Decarbonisation_on_the_cheap_dble.pd

f

Paolo Bertoldi (2009) Feed in tariff for energy saving: thinking of design. ECEEE Summer

Study. Available at:

http://www.eceee.org/conference_proceedings/eceee/2009/Panel_1/1.235

The Regulatory Assistance project discuss capacity payments to promote clean electricity and

demand reduction in:

RAP (2010) Clean First: aligning power sector regulation with environmental and climate

goals. Available at: www.raponline.org/document/download/id/927

h) If it were to develop a market incentive measure to achieve permanent reductions in

electricity use, Government would need to estimate the counterfactual baseline that any

associated efficiency improvements could be measured against. What methods might be

used to achieve this

Appendix: Guide to Sources of Evidence

Selected ACE consultation responses 2012 Green Deal and ECO

2011 ECC inquiry: fuel poverty in private rented and off grid sectors

2011 Comprehensive Review Phase 1: Consultation on Feed-In Tariffs for Solar PV

2011 Hills Fuel Poverty Review

201 EAC inquiry: Green Investment Bank

2010 The proposed RHI financial support scheme

2009 Renewable Electricity Financial Incentives

2009 Building Regulations Parts L and F

Selected Conference papers

2011 - Levelling the playing field through least-cost energy planning: in limbo, too late or just right?

2011 - Unlocking pension cash to fund energy efficiency improvements

2011 - Addressing Key Barriers in the Delivery of Domestic Energy Efficiency Improvements - The

Case for Energy Efficiency Property Purchase Taxes

2011 - Energy poverty – risks, conflicts and opportunities in the development of energy poverty

alleviation policy under the umbrella of energy efficiency and climate change

2011 - Dangers and unintended consequences of siloed renewable energy and energy efficiency

policy making: Evidence from the UK

ACE Research Tags Description

Potential; non-energy benefits; delivery; finance

Dead CERT: Framing a sustainable transition to the Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation (2012; funded by a consortium of companies) Dead CERT provides a thorough critique of the Government’s current proposals for the new home energy refurbishment framework commencing this autumn. Its aim is to understand the implications of the move from CERT to Green Deal and ECO for the markets for these measures, and to make recommendations to support a well-managed transition which ensures carbon budgets, fuel poverty targets, and the wider ambitions for the Green Deal can be met.

Delivery Scaling the solid wall (2011; commissioned by Consumer Focus) A study that investigated the issues and barriers that will need to be addressed if the solid wall insulation industry is to take off in the way that Government expects. This report presents the findings of research into the experience of

Tags Description

delivering solid wall insulation to date, based on interviews with stakeholders and a review of SWI schemes and trials. It presents policy recommendations for both social and private sector delivery.

Delivery Independent evaluation of the Team Hackney Carbon Emissions Reduction pilot (2011; commissioned by London Borough of Hackney) A rolling evaluation of the pilot of a social marketing approach to energy and carbon reduction in Hackney.

International experience

Atlantic Energy Efficiency (2011; supported by DG RELEX) This project analysed EU and US energy technology road maps, the potential for synergies and opportunities for mutual learning and harmonisation with a focus on policy, performance, and energy R&D and associated policies aimed at enhanced energy efficiency. It identified joint EU-US approaches to supporting emerging economies' own efforts to embrace energy efficient and low carbon technologies. A series of papers have been published, covering the global, EU, Japanese, Chinese, US, Indian and other emerging economies’ experience of deploying energy efficiency across the sectors.

Fairness Costs of the ECO: the Impact on Low Income Households (2011; funded by Eaga Charitable Trust) This report used quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine the distributional impact if the costs the forthcoming Energy Company Obligation (ECO) fell on different parts of the energy tariff. It put forward policy recommendations to DECC and Ofgem on how ensure that the costs of the scheme are recovered as equitably as possible.

International experience; governance

National energy efficiency and energy saving targets (2011; commissioned by the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and funded by the European Climate Foundation) The report is based on a survey completed by eceee members and other contacts in most Member States together with an online stakeholder consultation. The report is designed to help decision-makers and relevant stakeholders appreciate how targets are currently used and how effective they can be. It is hoped that this report will provide evidence to be used in upcoming policy development discussions - particularly surrounding the upcoming draft energy efficiency directive and the European Commission's review of whether targets need to be made mandatory for the EU to meet its objective of a 20% primary energy saving by 2020.

Finance; fairness Green Deal: Access for All (2011; commissioned by Consumer Focus) This project provides detailed analysis of different options for, and combinations of, support from the two main sources of financial support for residential energy efficiency investment in the UK - Green Deal finance and the Energy Company Obligation. The research considers potential for take-up across the housing stock as applied to different consumer groups and was presented to and discussed with DECC prior to publication.

Fairness A Future Obligation on Energy Companies (2011; funded by Carillion Energy Services) The report examines the options for the design of, and priorities for, the new Energy Company Obligation (ECO) in the context of the Green Deal policy framework. Using ACE’s Housing Stock Optimisation Tool (HSOT), different approaches to scoring the ‘affordable warmth’ metric were analysed, and the impact upon the delivery of certain measures, and the alleviation of fuel poverty, assessed.

Tags Description

Finance A Fair Green Deal (2010; funded by Carillion Energy Services) Following the Labour Government’s outline of a Pay As You Save approach to delivering energy efficiency improvements, ACE undertook a project to determine whether the approach could be amended to allow access for fuel poor households. The report found that through supported repayments, fuel poor households could receive comprehensive energy efficiency improvements for £3bn per year.

Fairness Who pays for our low-carbon future? (2010; funded by Eaga Charitable Trust) A study by the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) and the Association for the Conservation of Energy assessed the distributional implications of the Low Carbon Transition Plan by establishing: what needs to be done to UK housing to meet our renewables target of 15% by 2020; the proportion of this target to be met through renewable heat, renewable power and energy conservation; the cost of meeting these targets, and how these costs are recovered, through people's energy bills, through income tax, or even through a financial transaction tax.

Delivery; finance A review of the delivery tools used to improve Hard to Treat Homes (2010; commissioned by Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes) An evaluation for the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes of current and historic policies and measures to support energy efficiency improvements in harder and more expensive to treat homes. The research involved reviewing local level projects promoting the installation of more expensive measures to assess the range of degree of action and common identify barriers. The report concluded in a range of lessons from the private and social housing sectors and policy recommendations to promote delivery. A database of over 70 projects delivering hard to treat measures was formed.

Non-energy benefits

Warm Homes, Green Jobs (2009; commissioned by Eaga Scotland) This study investigated the employment (direct and ancillary) and gross value-added impacts of meeting the Climate Change (Scotland) Act’s 2020 targets for the housing sector, and compared these with the findings from previous studies estimating economic effects of energy efficiency programmes.

International experience; finance

Financial and fiscal instruments for energy efficiency in buildings (2009; commissioned by EuroACE) EuroACE published this working paper on the existing financial and fiscal incentive programmes for sustainable energy in buildings in the different EU Member States. The survey reflects the wide-range of measures that can be deployed to incentivise energy efficiency investment in buildings, as well as the great potential for information exchange and sharing of best practice within the EU.

Potential; fairness; non-energy benefits

Raising the SAP – Tackling fuel poverty by investing in energy efficiency (2009; commissioned by Consumer Focus) This report investigated the energy, fuel poverty and economic impacts of raising the energy efficiency standards of the housing stock to EPC bands B and C.

International experience; behaviour

European Display Campaign (on-going; initially supported by Intelligent Energy Europe) The European Display Campaign is a voluntary scheme designed by energy experts from European towns and cities. When started in 2003 it was initially aimed at encouraging local authorities to publicly display the energy and environmental performances of their public buildings using the same energy

Tags Description

label that is used for household appliances. ACE Research developed 100 case studies of local authorities successfully leveraging Display’s communication tools to encourage wider community energy action and achievements.

Delivery Review of the market for community energy saving partnerships (2008; commissioned by the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes) To aid EEPfH in informing DECC’s design of the Community Energy Saving Programme, a new design of a second energy supplier obligation introduced as a pilot; presented to DECC officials in charge of programme design prior to publication.

Non-energy benefits; delivery

Comfortable Living Environment and Energy Reducing (‘CLEVER’) Homes (2008; commissioned by Northern Ireland Energy Agency) The CLEVER Homes project was a cross-border partnership project aimed at demonstrating two types of solar-powered ventilation technologies combined with energy efficiency measures in homes throughout Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The intention of the project was to enhance indoor air quality, reduce domestic energy consumption and bills and improve the health and quality of life of the householders. ACE Research evaluated the project’s outcomes.

Potential; delivery; finance

How Low? Achieving optimal carbon savings from the UK's existing housing stock (2008; commissioned by WWF) Based on modelling of the whole of the UK’s housing stock, this project outlines the measures that need to be taken within the UK housing stock to meet the 2020 targets and recommends fiscal and policy measures that could facilitate the necessary changes.

International experience; potential

High-rise Refurbishment: The energy efficient upgrade of multi-storey residences in the European Union (2006; supported by the International Energy Agency and EuroACE, requested by EU’s informal council of housing ministers) Analysis of the technical and economic potential for energy savings from a range of measures in multi-family buildings across Europe, encompassing six case studies and policy and finance recommendations; played an important role in making a successful case for a share of EU structural funds to be used in housing energy efficiency and renewables.

Non-energy benefits; potential; behaviour

Cold Comfort for Kyoto? Carbon implications from increasing residential cooling demand (2006; funded by Pilkington Energy Efficiency Trust) This report looked at the need for cooling as temperatures increase towards 2020, and the impact energy intensive cooling options in the residential sector could have on the UK carbon emissions target. By analysing attitudes and behaviour to the higher temperatures it created a number of possible cooling scenarios based on air-conditioning use. It then explored low and no-energy cooling options to synthesise a series of policy options and recommendations.

Non-energy benefits; finance

Asset Value Implications of Low Energy Offices (2005; funded by the Carbon Trust) Comprehensive assessment developed with the support of BP, Drivers Jonas, Jones Lang LaSalle, Kingston University, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Universities Superannuation Scheme.