Agenda item

The Committee considered the Joint report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships and the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services that provided members with details of projects and schemes available in the County to tackle fuel poverty (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

Cliff Duff, the Housing Regeneration Project Manager was in attendance to deliver the report and provide a presentation (for copy of slides, see file of minutes).

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager explained how fuel poverty was measured using the Low Income High Costs (LIHC) indicator, a household is considered to be fuel poor if:

• they have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level)
• were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.

Members were advised that homes with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of Band G were to move to Band C by 2030.

Members were shown a map of county Durham that indicated where the areas of fuel poverty apart from a few small areas in the east, most of the fuel poverty areas were in the rural west of the county, where there was no mains gas supply.

Members were advised that information is given via Warmer Homes campaign throughout the year but there were particular times when there were targeted promotions especially during the autumn and winter periods.

Councillor Jopling sought clarification on the 9% Green Levy on all energy bills and how this worked with the energy cap. She commented that some areas that were off gas were stone built houses and wondered how did they access funding.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager responded that previously the Green Levy was paid for via taxation but now all customers paid a percentage toward the Green Levy including those in fuel poverty and that the Green Levy would still be payable when the Energy Cap comes into force. He advised Members that there had been a lot of lobbying to get Government to fund this through taxation instead of the levy on bills.

He then referred to residents of stone houses accessing funding and advised that the grants did not include solid wall insulation but there were EU funded projects in five areas of County Durham that provided solid wall insulation.

Mrs Morris referred to consortium schemes to purchase fuel which could bring the price of fuel down by 5 or 6 pence a litre. She then advised that many people in rural areas may not fit the criteria for fuel poverty but they did experience high fuel bills and struggle to heat their homes and asked if there was anything that could be done for those people who don’t meet the criteria but were struggling financially.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager referred to the ‘Managing Money Better Service’ where they can assist people to get a lower energy tariff. He went on to advise that twelve North East local authorities through the North East Purchasing Organisation (NEPO) were looking at the feasibility to set up a regional Energy Service Organisation to be a competitor in the energy market and would be a not for profit organisation. NEPO’s report findings were due in March 2019 to see if the setting up of the organisation would be viable.

Councillor Millburn referred to people with pre-paid meters that were on standard tariffs and still paying the 9% levy. The energy companies were still charging people for the green levy when they know they are in fuel poverty and asked if anything could be done to help these people and to change them on to lower tariffs.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager responded that the ‘Managing Money Better Scheme’ was ending in March 2019 but they were hoping to extend the scheme if they could secure funding. However, he thought that this was an excellent idea to further assist people on pre-payment metres and higher tariffs.

Councillor Crute commented that he had assumed the levy was funded by the energy companies themselves and not customers. He indicated that the Council needed to do what they could to lobby against this levy.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager responded that energy companies did take their targets seriously as there were financial penalties if they did not meet their obligations. It was nonsensical to take the levy from the residents from their energy bills and give it back to them through fuel poverty grants. Talks were currently taking place to get the levy back to the original general taxation process. Lobbying was taking place through the charity National Energy Action.

Councillor Kay referred to the largest group of people who had the largest financial difference relating to fuel poverty were those living in private rented accommodation. Most of the properties were not energy efficient and a significant number of landlords take advantage of tenants. Councillor Kay went on to explain some properties are off gas that are not necessarily in remote locations and there was a village off gas that was surrounded by other villages on gas. He advised that stone properties could be insulated from the inside, but this would reduce the amount of floor space.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager advised that in relation to the private rented sector the eco obligation minimum energy efficiency standard for private rented sector is that no property should be below an E rating and by 2023 all private rental properties must be an E to move the market away from F and G ratings. More legislation will follow to push this up to a D rating and this would be a nationwide regulation. In relation to gas connections, there was an assisted gas connection scheme but that required the connection to be a certain distance from the property. For extended gas mains this can be expensive and the cost was down to individual contractors.

Councillor Martin suggested that a flat tax system saves money and no one is left out. The Housing Regeneration Project Manager advised that the big argument was people who live in eco-friendly homes have low bills and pay less than those who live in inefficient properties and have high bills.

Members discussed the 9% levy, in particular those with high energy bills who paid more levy.

Councillor Crute stated that there should be a system in place that was based on your ability to pay but the onus should be on fuel companies.

Councillor Howell asked if there was anything they could do to ensure that the managing money better scheme continued.

The Housing Regeneration Project Manager responded that he would speak to the managing money better team and get back to Members.

Councillor Sexton referred to the sharing of information which was very expensive and time consuming to gather which resulted in increased charges.

The Housing Project Manager indicated that the warm homes discount legislation introduced the sharing of data and that DWP now share data.

The Chair concluded that there were two issues arising for the committee:

• Write to National Energy Action to support them in lobbying the government for fairer system to provide the Environment and Social Obligation Cost.
• Write to the Action Poverty Steering Group and the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder to advise of the Committee’s support of the Managing Money Better Service.

Resolved: (i) That the contents of the report and presentation be noted.

(ii) That a progress report be included as part of the work programme for 2019/20.

(iii) That the national gas forum be lobbied with regard to the payment of the 9% levy charge on electricity bills.

(iv) That the information on the 9% levy charge be passed to the Cabinet Member for Environment.