Energy poverty across the EU:
main characteristics and
the urgency of the issue
Ute Dubois
ISG Business School, Paris
[email protected]
Energy poverty seen by the energy poor
Mrs. X. (tenant in social housing in a suburb of Paris) in a meeting on an energy
poverty identification programme, 31st January, 2017.
“In some neighbourhoods, it’s a misery, it is cold, there is damp,
when we open the windows it gets even colder. The landlord has
installed patches, but it smells because it continues growing, I
don’t know, I think of mushrooms”.
Introduction
• Over the past decade, there has been a considerable amount of
– Research,
– Experimentations, and
– Policy developments in the energy poverty field
• Objective of this presentation:
– Discuss what we have learnt and what we don’t know for the moment
– Show the magnitude of the problem for two groups of vulnerable
households
Outline
1. The definition and measurement of energy poverty
2. The various forms of energy poverty
3. How people adapt (or not)
4. Identification is an issue in itself
5. The policy dimension
6. Urgency of the issue
➢
Energy poverty indicators for two vulnerable groups
1. The definition and measurement of
energy poverty
• There has been considerable progress in our knowledge on energy poverty
– At EU level: Research on the characterisation and measurement (EPEEE in 2007,
Insight-E in 2015) and better awareness on the importance of the issue (for example
European Economic and Social Committee)
– In Member States: definitions adopted and/or refined in England, Ireland, France,
Belgium, Slovakia
• We have learnt that
– Defining energy poverty requires taking account of multidimensionality of the issue
(vague vs. precise ? which criteria?)
– Definitions have an impact on how the issue is viewed and addressed
– Measurement is complex in terms of methodology and of available data
• What we don’t know
– How to deal with the differences in energy poverty contexts in the definition of
energy poverty (European definition) ?
Energy poverty contexts
EU countries differ on:
•
Income levels  Median (2015)
•
–
–
–
–
– 2 315 € (Romania)
– 16 178 € (EU28 )
– 35 270 € (Luxembourg)
•
Energy price levels & price structures
in each country (2015)
–
–
–
–
•
Gas, Romania 3.4 ct/kWh
Gas, Sweden 11.73 ct/kWh
Electricity, Bulgaria 9.57 ct /kWh
Electricity, Denmark 30.42 ct/kWh
Shares of energy costs in
households’ budgets (2010)
– Slovakia: 13.6%
– Malta: 2.7%
– EU 28: 6.2%
Types of energy used for heating
•
District heating in Hungary, Bulgaria
Coal (Poland)
Natural gas (Italy, Netherlands)
Electricity (France)
Characteristics of the building stock
–
–
–
–
Individual / collective
Ownership of homes
Energy efficiency
Types of buildings & cost of refurbishment
➢ How to characterise energy poverty
given this diversity ?
– How to measure energy services deprivation ?
– How to capture the multidimensionality of EP ?
2. The various forms of energy poverty
• Improvement of knowledge on the diversity of energy poverty situations:
1.
Between countries: which factors are most important in each country? (Access?
Affordability? Energy efficiency? )
2.
In some European countries: better knowledge on which population groups are
most affected
3.
Region-specific forms of energy poverty: Eastern European countries (transition of
energy supply conditions), Southern Europe (context of crisis)
And on drivers of the vulnerability to energy poverty
• What we don’t know: perspectives of evolution of energy markets and their
impacts on the energy poor
Vulnerability to energy poverty depends on
different factors
Exposure
• Age
• Household composition
• Health status
• Income level
• Financial burden of energy bills
• Cold homes
• Restrictions (heat or eat)
• Effects on physical & mental
health
• Educational attainment
• Risk of accidents
• Deterioration of housing stock
• Type of dwelling
• Heating equipment
• Energy prices
• Geographical location
Sensitivity
Capacity of
response
Impact
• Capacity to move to a different dwelling
• Investment capacity
• Ability to switch supplier, to compare offers
• Uptake of assistance schemes
• Ability & willingness to adapt behaviour
• Access to energy poverty schemes
3. How people adapt (or not)
• Our knowledge has improved on:
1. Health impacts & pathways
2. Excess winter mortality (& summer mortality)
3. Coping behaviours (“I’m not complaining”)
4. Consumption trade-offs made by the energy poor
• What we don’t know: in many countries there is almost no work on
– Health impacts of energy poverty,
– Costs to the health system generated by energy poverty,
– The potential impacts of energy efficiency improvements.
Consumption trade-offs for the energy poor
Rationing energy consumption
•
Restrictions on
the energy
consumption
To be able to
spend on other
dimensions
Some strategies
– Reducing the temperature of heating in
order to limit energy bills
– Heating only one room
– Wearing additional clothes to cope with
cold indoor temperatures
– Reducing the lighting
– Having less cooked meals
•
Consequences
–
–
–
–
Health
Living conditions & social relations
Educational attainment
Degradation of building stock (mould, …)
Consumption trade-offs for the energy poor
Limiting other expenses in order to consume energy
Not restricting
on energy
consumption
At the detriment
of other
expenses
•
Some strategies
– Buying cheaper (and less healthy) food
– Reducing caloric intake
– Limit certain health expenses (dental
care, eyeglasses)
– Reducing expenses for clothes
•
Consequences
– Physical and mental health
– Wellbeing
– Inability to face unexpected expenses
4. Identification is an issue in itself
• We have learnt that
– Identification of energy poor households is distinct from definition & measurement
– On the supply-side, several challenges: designing identification methods (who? how? at
what scale?), elaborating & disseminating good practices
– On the demand-side, there are barriers to the uptake of measures  identification does not
necessarily mean addressing energy poverty
• We need to learn more on:
– What works and what doesn’t in terms of identification
– Involvement of local actors as a success factor & how to develop well-functioning
cooperation ?
The steps in the implementation process
Exclusion of
some
energy poor
people
Characteristics
of energy poor
population
A part of
targeted
population is
not reached
People outside
the initial
target who will
be included
Step 1:
Targeting
(partly a
political
choice)
Step 2:
Identification
(what ease of
identification?)
Population
included in
policy target
Population
included in the
initial target and
that can be
reached
A part of identified
energy poor do not
take up the
mechanisms
Step 3:
Implementation
(what ease of
implementation?)
Errors of
exclusion
and of
inclusion
Actual
beneficiaries
of energy
poverty
measures
13
5. The policy dimension
•
•
The policy dimension is key, but there is not always a commitment of
governments to energy poverty (EP) policymaking:
–
Until now, EP has not emerged on policy agenda in many countries  disconnection between
importance of the issue & recognition as a policy problem
–
EP is multidimensional  Raises the question of framing and of coordination of policies, as
housing policy, social policy, energy policy, and health policy can all contribute to EP
alleviation
–
Despite advantages of deep retrofits and of prioritisation of the energy poor in thermal
renovation policies, actual policies are often less ambitious.
What we don’t know
–
As EP has some difficulties to emerge on the policy agenda of governments, how could its
recognition be pushed in the Member States ?
6. Urgency of the issue
•
Currently available indicators give us a partial view of the problem.
•
Options for improving the measurement of energy poverty are discussed in:
– Thomson, H., Bouzarovski, S., & Snell, C. (2017). Rethinking the measurement of energy poverty
in Europe: A critical analysis of indicators and data. Indoor and Built Environment.
– TRINOMICS (2016) Selecting Indicators to Measure Energy Poverty, Final Report, May 2016.
➢ What magnitude of EP based on available proxy indicators from the Survey on
Incomes and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)?
•
Indicators for the whole population and two groups for which we assume that
energy poverty is high (Boardman, 2010)
1.
Elderly people on low incomes (in particular: single persons aged 65 years or more & income
below 60% of median equivalised income)
2.
Single parent families on low incomes (one adult with dependent children & income below
60% of median equivalised income)
EU-SILC indicators
For the whole population and for elderly low-income people
Sensitivity of the elderly to energy poverty
➢ Sensitivity to health impacts (excess winter mortality)
➢ Sometimes under-occupation of homes
➢ In certain countries: poverty risk
What poverty risk in general for the elderly?
– On average, the 65 years or over are less poor
EU: 14.1% (vs. 18% for < 65 years)
– Older people at high poverty risk in:
o Bulgaria: 31.7% (vs. 19.6% for < 65 years)
o Estonia: 35.8% (vs. 18.4% for < 65 years)
o Croatia: 26.3% (vs. 18.6% for < 65 years)
o Latvia: 34.6% (vs. 19.6% for < 65 years)
Total population
One adult (65 year or over)
Same
indicators
& low-income
for singleLeaking roof, damp
Inability to keep
walls, floors or
home low-income
Arrears on people
foundation, or rot in
adequately
utility bills
window frames of
aged
65 or more
warm
floor
9,1
Leaking roof, damp
walls, floors or
foundation, or rot in
window frames of
floor
15,2
EU (28)
19,1
6,8
17,3
5,2
5,1
18,2
Belgium
8,3
0,5
18,2
Bulgaria
39,2
31,4
12,9
Bulgaria
65,6
27,1
15,7
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
10,4
2,5
8,2
Denmark
3,2
0,0
15,9
Germany
10,4
2,4
9,5
Estonia
9,6
3,0
21,7
Ireland
6,2
7,0
20,6
Greece
The three available
3,4
16,1
energy
poverty
4,1
4,0
12,8
indicators
for
2,0
7,9 the total13,4
9,0
15,1
13,6
population
29,2
42,0
15,1
Greece
55,7
38,8
19,4
Spain
10,6
8,8
15,2
Spain
14,2
8,0
14,7
France
5,5
5,9
12,6
France
20,6
0,0
16,1
Croatia
9,9
28,7
10,9
Croatia
27,6
15,4
24,2
Italy
17,0
12,6
24,1
Italy
31,6
10,4
30,3
Cyprus
28,3
20,1
32,0
Latvia
14,5
16,7
Lithuania
31,1
8,4
26,5
Croatia: elderlyCyprus
low-income single37,9
households 6,7
24,4
Latvia
28,1 to
10,2
➢ Almost three
times more exposed
17,0
Lithuania
42,7
8,0
Luxembourg
0,9
2,4
14,4
Hungary
9,6
19,4
Malta
13,9
10,2
inability to keep home adequately warm
Luxembourg
0
➢ Two times more exposed to unhealthy
25,4
Hungary
30,5
housing conditions
10,2
Malta
14,4
Netherlands
2,9
2,7
15,7
Netherlands
Austria
2,6
3,5
11,7
Poland
7,5
9,2
11,9
Portugal
23,8
7,8
28,1
Romania
13,1
17,4
Slovenia
5,6
17,5
Slovakia
5,8
5,7
Finland
1,7
7,5
Sweden
0,9
2,7
7,5
Sweden
United Kingdom
7,8
7,0
14,8
United Kingdom
Inability to keep
home
adequately
warm
Arrears on
utility bills
EU (28)
9,4
Belgium
2015
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
5,0
3,0
8,9
3,6
2015
30,5
24,1
0,4
12,4
22,7
41,8
5,0
15,1
4,9
2,1
13,1
Austria
9,9
1,1
10,2
Poland
26,9
13,6
25,4
Portugal
UK: elderly low-income
single households42,6
12,8
Romania
22,1
generally less exposed to energy poverty than
26,9
Slovenia
16,5
total population
(but
they
are
still
more
6,3
Slovakia
19,6
vulnerable
to
the
effects
of
energy
poverty)
4,4
Finland
3,3
2,6
30,0
14,1
26,5
7,9
37,5
6,1
20,0
4,0
4,6
2,4
2,8
5,8
3,1
1,4
10,8
One adult (65 year or over)
& low-income
Total population
9,1
Leaking roof, damp
walls, floors or
foundation, or rot in
window frames of
floor
15,2
Inability to keep
home
adequately
warm
Arrears on
utility bills
Leaking roof, damp
walls, floors or
foundation, or rot in
window frames of
floor
EU (28)
19,1
6,8
17,3
5,2
5,1
18,2
Belgium
8,3
0,5
18,2
Bulgaria
39,2
Czech Republic
5,0
31,4
12,9
Bulgaria
65,6
27,1
15,7
3,0
8,9
Czech Republic
10,4
2,5
8,2
Denmark
3,6
3,4
16,1
Denmark
3,2
0,0
15,9
Germany
4,1
4,0
12,8
Germany
10,4
2,4
9,5
Estonia
2,0
7,9
13,4
Estonia
9,6
3,0
21,7
Ireland
9,0
15,1
13,6
Ireland
6,2
7,0
20,6
Greece
29,2
42,0
15,1
Greece
55,7
38,8
19,4
Spain
10,6
8,8
15,2
Spain
14,2
8,0
14,7
France
5,5
5,9
12,6
France
20,6
0,0
16,1
Croatia
9,9
28,7
10,9
Croatia
27,6
15,4
24,2
Italy
17,0
12,6
24,1
Italy
31,6
10,4
30,3
Cyprus
28,3
20,1
26,5
Cyprus
37,9
6,7
32,0
Latvia
14,5
16,7
24,4
Latvia
28,1
10,2
30,5
Lithuania
31,1
8,4
17,0
Lithuania
42,7
8,0
24,1
Luxembourg
0,9
2,4
14,4
Luxembourg
0
0,4
12,4
Hungary
9,6
19,4
25,4
Hungary
30,5
22,7
41,8
Malta
13,9
10,2
10,2
Malta
14,4
5,0
15,1
Netherlands
2,9
2,7
15,7
Netherlands
4,9
2,1
13,1
Austria
2,6
3,5
11,7
Austria
9,9
1,1
10,2
Poland
7,5
9,2
11,9
Poland
26,9
13,6
25,4
Portugal
23,8
7,8
28,1
Portugal
42,6
2,6
30,0
Romania
13,1
17,4
12,8
Romania
22,1
14,1
26,5
Slovenia
5,6
17,5
26,9
Slovenia
16,5
7,9
37,5
Slovakia
5,8
5,7
6,3
Slovakia
19,6
6,1
20,0
Finland
1,7
7,5
4,4
Finland
3,3
4,0
4,6
Sweden
0,9
2,7
7,5
Sweden
2,4
2,8
5,8
United Kingdom
7,8
7,0
14,8
United Kingdom
3,1
1,4
10,8
Inability to keep
home
adequately
warm
Arrears on
utility bills
EU (28)
9,4
Belgium
2015
2015
EU-SILC indicators
For the whole population & low-income single-parent families
Sensitivity of single-parent families
➢ Direct health impacts for children
o Asthma and allergies in the presence of damp & mould
o Psychological health (for example for teenagers)
o Impacts on educational attainment
o Effects on nutrition (heat or eat)
➢ Plus lower incomes
What poverty risk in general for the single parent families?
– In Europe, one third of single parent households are at risk of poverty
(vs. 17.3% for the whole population)
– In all countries, the risk of poverty rate is higher for the single parent
households than for the average population
Total population
Single person with dependent children
& low-income
Leaking roof, damp
Inability to keep
walls, floors or
home
Arrears on utility
foundation, or rot in
adequately
bills
window frames of
warm
floor
23,7
24,9
27,6
EU (28)
9,4
9,1
Leaking roof, damp
walls, floors or
foundation, or rot in
window frames of
floor
15,2
Belgium
5,2
5,1
18,2
Belgium
21,9
32,8
39,3
Bulgaria
39,2
31,4
12,9
Bulgaria
60,7
59,8
24,6
Czech Republic
5,0
3,0
8,9
Czech Republic
13,6
11,3
18,3
Denmark
3,6
3,4
16,1
Denmark
39,8
22,8
41,7
Germany
4,1
4,0
12,8
Germany
23,6
11,0
25,5
Estonia
2,0
7,9
13,4
Estonia
5,1
19,9
27,1
Ireland
9,0
15,1
13,6
Ireland
27,4
37,4
23,3
Greece
29,2
42,0
15,1
Greece
53,4
69,4
12,5
Spain
10,6
8,8
15,2
Spain
17,5
20,0
20,2
France
5,5
5,9
12,6
France
13,1
27,4
26,1
Croatia
9,9
28,7
10,9
Croatia
34,8
44,3
15,9
Italy
17,0
12,6
24,1
Italy
36,5
34,3
36,1
Cyprus
28,3
20,1
26,5
Cyprus
52,3
25,3
35,3
Latvia
14,5
16,7
24,4
Latvia
34,5
44,7
32,1
Lithuania
31,1
8,4
17,0
Lithuania
34,8
27,9
16,1
Luxembourg
0,9
2,4
14,4
Luxembourg
2,4
16,1
27,1
Hungary
9,6
19,4
25,4
Hungary
26,9
57,7
45,9
Malta
13,9
10,2
10,2
Malta
43,9
33,1
16,5
Netherlands
2,9
2,7
15,7
Netherlands
14,0
6,5
25,5
Austria
2,6
3,5
11,7
Austria
2,3
17,5
15,3
Poland
7,5
9,2
11,9
Poland
26,1
27,0
23,0
Portugal
23,8
7,8
28,1
Portugal
47,2
30,8
30,4
Romania
13,1
17,4
12,8
Romania
25,7
34,6
28,8
Slovenia
5,6
17,5
26,9
Slovenia
18,1
39,9
39,2
Slovakia
5,8
5,7
6,3
Slovakia
24,6
24,6
35,5
Finland
1,7
7,5
4,4
Finland
7,1
24,9
15,0
Sweden
0,9
2,7
7,5
Sweden
4,7
8,3
15,6
United Kingdom
7,8
7,0
14,8
United Kingdom
29,2
27,8
30,4
2015
Inability to keep
home
Arrears on utility
adequately
bills
warm
2015
EU (28)
Conclusion
• Some populations are particularly at risk with existing (proxy) indicators
• There are regional (and sometimes national) differences regarding the
factors that contribute to energy poverty
– For example in South-East Europe: substandard housing + lack of access + high costs
– For example in countries of Southern Europe most affected by the crisis: Income
reduction + energy cost + inefficient housing
➢ As these situations will most likely not improve by themselves, actions to
alleviate energy poverty are necessary
• There is still work to do on
1. Developing more accurate measurement methods
2. Identification and dissemination of good practices in energy poverty alleviation
Thank you for your attention !
Join #EUSEW17
www.eusew.eu
‘EU Sustainable Energy Week’
@euenergyweek & #EUSEW17
‘EU Sustainable Energy Week’