Buildings & Cities (May 2024)
Assessing retrofit policies for fuel-poor homes in London
Abstract
Designing public retrofit programmes for tackling fuel poverty is a complex, global challenge affecting vulnerable households. This paper investigates how health and socio-economic inequalities shape the challenge of fuel poverty, with a focus on multilevel governance and retrofit programmes in London since 2021. The interrelationships between national metrics and local policy are analysed, as well as domestic retrofit programmes across various scales. Limitations are identified in how national and local policies incorporate inequalities, especially in the context of rising energy costs and climate change impacts. In London, there are related shortfalls in the operationalisation of the London Building Stock Model (LBSM). While this tool maps the energy performance certificates in homes, this requires cross-referencing with additional socio-economic databases to identify fuel-poor households, which are not publicly available. Further accountability issues exist due to the lack of binding targets from municipal government, and private-sector retrofits are mainly the responsibility of housing associations, which are not legally obliged to report on energy retrofits and fuel poverty. There is a clear need for inclusive metrics and retrofit programmes that incorporate wider inequality indicators to accurately identify households in fuel poverty. Policy relevance This study examines the complex and dynamic interrelationships between net zero and climate change targets, rising energy prices, and the inequalities of households in fuel poverty. First, public retrofit funding programmes are designed for low-energy-performance properties by prioritising those with low EPC ratings, leading to a relative neglect of the wider health impacts and socio-economic disadvantages faced by more vulnerable households. Second, there is a need for more inclusive national metrics (e.g. Low Income Low Energy Efficiency) and assessment tools. These would map a broader range of local inequalities facing vulnerable households and evaluate the effectiveness of policies. Third, local authorities should set binding targets and lead place-based interventions at the city scale, investing in energy efficiency, local clean energy and vocational education and training, thus creating green jobs and specialised qualifications for domestic retrofits.
Keywords
