Community Energy

Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Prepared for the Energy Efficiency Partnership for

Homes

November 2008

Research undertaken and report prepared by:

Impetus Consulting Ltd
Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Introduction
In September 2008, the Government announced plans to launch a new £350 million Community
Energy Saving Programme (CESP) 1 . This new programme would be targeted at low income
communities in around 50 - 100 areas, offering free and discounted central heating, energy
efficiency measures and small scale generation projects. Funded via a new and additional obligation
on energy suppliers and electricity generators, the programme would be intended to support new
and existing partnerships of local councils, voluntary organisations and energy suppliers. Around
90,000 homes might benefit over the next three years.

The programme was announced as part of the Government's Home Energy Saving Programme,
which aims, by 2020, for every household to be able to maximise its energy savings, whilst also
investing in our future low carbon energy infrastructure.

The workshop
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was due to launch a consultation on CESP
towards the end of 2008. To help inform this consultation, the Energy Efficiency Partnership for
Homes (EEPH) organised a workshop in conjunction with DECC, to discuss options for the efficient
delivery of the programme. Around 50 stakeholders attended the event, including members of the
EEPH representing Ofgem, local authorities, NGOs, organisations involved in fuel poverty
alleviation, the heating, lighting, glazing and heat pump industries, the insulation (including solid
wall) industry, the managed housing sector, the private rented sector, as well as representatives of
energy suppliers and generators.

EEPH Chair Professor John Chesshire OBE introduced the event and welcomed representatives of
DECC - Colin Macleod, CESP Project Manager and Scott Ghagan, Energy Saving Project Director.
Colin Macleod gave a presentation on the aims and objectives of CESP, followed by a question and
answer session . This was followed by three interactive workshops, looking at the benefits and
challenges of the proposed whole house/whole street approach, solutions to these challenges, and
the potential added value role of partners.

DECC requested that the following points not be discussed in the workshop:
‰ The total value of the programme (since this is already fixed).
‰ The legislative base (which will be the same as the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target
(CERT)).
‰ The target (CO2 target already set).

Outputs
Presentation
The presentation from DECC clarified that the intended approach of the programme is to tackle
whole houses on a street-by-street basis, with the objective of permanently reducing fuel bills and
cutting carbon emissions. CESP will fund 50-100 projects, reaching around 100,000 households in
total. It will be launched in spring/summer 2009. The current plan is to target resources at the lowest
income householders; 2.2 million households will therefore qualify for consideration, mainly located
in urban areas. The main difference between CESP and the CERT is the community angle – so
that’s what DECC wanted the workshops to focus on.

1
Number 10 press release, issued 11 September 2008, Home Energy Saving Programme,
2
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16807

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Q&A session
The question and answer session established the following:

Timeframe
CESP will be a three-year programme, but it’s not yet decided whether the three years will be
measured from September 08 (announcement) or spring/summer 09 (commencement).

Partners
The Government would like everyone involved in the programme (Government, generators and
suppliers, communities and householders) to be able to take credit for it. DECC would like to
encourage local authorities to be key partners but can’t mandate this.

What will be funded?

The Government is aware that income maximisation is an important part of the programme, but is
expecting other partners (such as local authorities and community groups) to offer this service; it
can’t be funded directly by CESP since CESP has the same legislative basis as CERT, which
requires funded measures to achieve carbon savings. (EEPH urged DECC to work with the
Department for Work and Pensions on this issue.)

The fact that solid wall insulation has the added benefit of enhancing the appearance of a house will
be taken into account.

Which types of housing will be eligible?

Social housing has not been eliminated from CESP; DECC would like to hear participants’ views on
whether and how it should be included.

Links with other programmes

Measures funded under CESP will be ‘additional’ even if they are eligible under CERT. There is
nothing to stop an overlap between CESP and CERT where this is the most cost effective approach.

Workshop 1 – Benefits and challenges of a whole house, street-by-street

approach

Purpose
The purpose of this workshop was to brainstorm the benefits and challenges of a whole house,
street-by-street approach, and to think about the issues and considerations of linking in with major
existing schemes. Looking at the benefits enabled delegates to take a step back and think about
why this scheme is a good idea, before coming up with a list of the challenges of taking such an
approach.

Summary of outputs
Benefits
A whole house, street–by-street approach can encourage collective engagement by getting through
to those who are otherwise hard to access. Taking a face-to-face approach means you are fully
engaging with the householder. A street-by-street approach may also have the effect of encouraging
some of the more wary householders to adopt new measures because they see their 3

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

neighbours using them. It may be successful in reaching those who will not self-nominate and
should also catch householders who fall through the net and/or are most in need.

Another benefit is that the house will, as a result, be future-proofed; installing the more expensive
measures will have a lasting impact and ensure that hard to treat homes are tackled. A whole-house
approach could also potentially stimulate innovation by requiring a more creative approach than the
standard measures currently funded under CERT.

The proposed approach will be cost effective because it maximises savings and carbon reduction.
An area-based approach can also lower the cost of delivery through economies of scale and
reducing the need for repeat visits. Furthermore, some of the measures that may not have been
cost-effective in isolation will become so once they are incorporated with others.

Behavioural change is another clear benefit of this type of approach; face-to-face contact is a proven
way of changing behaviour. Furthermore, it increases the visibility of energy efficiency measures, as
the communities that are treated will become exemplars for others to follow.

Linking with major schemes – issues/consideration

CERT
Concern was raised about how to ensure transparency between CESP and CERT; for example,
which programme has been used to fund which measures. There was a plea for clarity in terms of
which measures can be funded under which scheme, and the proposed system for communicating
between different schemes (particularly important given that several suppliers and generators are
involved). Some participants mentioned the risk of having ‘colliding’ schemes. Questions were also
raised over how priority group allocations would work (with CESP effectively being entirely targeted
at CERT’s priority groups). The generators present felt that they would be at a disadvantage
compared to suppliers because they don’t have the experience of running CERT schemes. There
was agreement that there will need to be a certain degree of flexibility of approach.

Local authority schemes

Participants were in general agreement that it will be vital for local authorities to be involved in CESP
schemes in order to engage successfully with householders. Several participants felt that CESP
could potentially link with local authority resourcing, e.g. through Home Improvement Assistance
grants or adaptation loans. Several local authorities offer top up funding for Warm Front recipients
(where the Warm Front grant is not sufficient to fund all the appropriate measures) – could they do
something similar under CESP? CESP will additionally need to link with the Decent Homes scheme
(and its equivalents; the Scottish and Welsh Housing Quality Standards).

Warm Front and equivalents

Participants concluded that a partnership approach would be necessary to ensure cost effective
delivery of both Warm Front and CESP and to avoid householders being confused. For example, the
situation of having two different teams going round promoting CESP and Warm Front should be
avoided. Where possible, there should be seamless communication and a common survey for all
schemes. Some participants raised the issue of timeframe: if householders in CESP areas that are
eligible for Warm Front measures are to get those measures funded under the latter scheme, they
may end up waiting much longer for their installation than neighbours who get the measures funded
directly by CESP. Furthermore, how can occupant disturbance be minimised? The issue of Warm
Front grant limits was also raised, and the question of whether CESP could be used to top up these
grants.
4

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Other challenges
A number of other challenges were also identified within this workshop. The eight main challenges
became the focus of Workshop 2, and are listed below.

Workshop 2 – Solutions to the challenges 2

Purpose
The purpose of the second workshop was to explore some of the challenges identified in the first
workshop in more detail. Participants were split into eight groups, with each group looking at one
challenge. They were asked to list any further issues associated with that challenge as well as
potential solutions.

Summary of outputs
Coordination
The first challenge identified was how to coordinate the programme – how to ensure efficient
delivery with minimal bureaucracy, how to coordinate funding and how to organise the project team.

Solutions/issues
Bureaucracy
Participants stressed the need to make things easy for customers to ensure the programme works.
In addition, if the plan is for communities to compete to take part in the programme, there was a
concern that the proposed size of community will be too big to make this work.

Participants requested that there be some degree of flexibility in the way funding is provided – some
asked whether local authorities could help to provide the start-up costs.

The surveyor was deemed essential in terms of generating client demand – he/she must be able to
correctly signpost the householder to the various sources of help available.

Levering in funding
For CESP to be delivered as efficiently as possible, the Government will need to set the rules so that
joint funding is permissible. There was general agreement that there needs to be transparency in
terms of who is funding what. There needs to be accountability of the different funding streams
(Warm Front, CERT etc.) so that it is absolutely clear who will get credit for what. There is also the
potential to dovetail CESP in with other programmes such as Green Neighbourhoods, Warm Zones
etc.

Project team
Funding will need to be provided for the project team – could CESP funding be top-sliced to allow for
central coordination? Some felt this coordination role should be the responsibility of the suppliers
and generators. The local authority should be a key player (some felt that the local authority should
be allowed to choose who the CESP provider is), and the relevant Energy Saving Trust Advice
Centre must also be involved. Community consultation will also be crucial to ensure the project team
in place is one that the community has confidence in.

2
Some of the workshop groups discussed challenges besides those they were tasked with; to avoid
5
confusion, their comments have been put under the relevant workshop heading.

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Creating demand
The second challenge identified was how to create the necessary demand to achieve a whole house
and whole street approach. Some householders will not want to have any measures installed, even
if they are free (perhaps due to the disruption that is, to some degree, inevitable). Others may want
some but not all the measures required to achieve the objectives of CERT. Consideration will need
to be given to ‘hard to reach’ groups and also those in the private rented sector.

Solutions/issues
In terms of creating customer demand, choice and flexibility for the householder will be key; the
householder will need to remain in control. Surveys and installations must be offered at a time of day
that suits the target audience and communication must be simple and clear. There are various
means by which to engage with a community to help generate demand, such as radio shows, local
events, and talking to local community groups. A trusted brand, such as the local authority, can also
be very valuable in this respect. Demand can also be enhanced by offering ancillary services such
as loft clearance. The street-by-street approach should be effective in reaching ‘hard to reach’
groups although some participants suggested that the scheme should focus on the low hanging fruit
first (with hard to reach groups following afterwards). Participants felt that everything should be done
within an individual household within a defined time period e.g. measures all fitted within seven days
– the focus must be on quality, not quantity.

Many local authorities have landlords’ forums that can be an effective way of engaging with the
private rented sector. A few participants expressed the view that there may need to be some
restrictions on a truly flexible approach, stating, for example, that ‘the customer is not always right’;
there will be a need for a stick as well as a carrot. (The group did not discuss what form the stick
could take). A couple felt that lack of demand really won’t be a problem – the demand does exist.

Fairness/equity
The third challenge related to ensuring fairness and equity in terms of distributing CESP funds. This
included how to define communities and how to avoid creating energy efficiency ghettos. There was
also a concern around ensuring that rural areas get their fair share of funds.

Solutions/issues
A community could be identified based on geography or personal ‘links’ (there is a need for people
within the community to know each other so that they can encourage take up). Property type and
need could also be defining factors, as could the presence of existing local organisations that are
already successfully engaging with the community (such as Transition Towns, currently active in
around 100 areas).

Most participants felt that rural areas should be included, and that the Government should recognise
the potential of rural areas to deliver carbon savings. There was a suggestion that suppliers could be
given the extra challenge of tackling rural areas (versus generators who are new to this area so
should be tasked with the easier to reach groups; different rules could apply for suppliers and
generators).

To help ensure fairness, it was felt that the lowest income decile should be used as the main
qualifying criterion, along with other measures such as hard to treat homes (off the gas network,
solid wall, etc.) or average SAP ratings. Local knowledge should be used to identify which areas
have already received support and which are in need of a helping hand. Energy Performance
Certificates (EPCs) and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) could be used as
criteria to select communities. There was an acknowledgement that there will be more communities
applying for funding than will get it. There will also be severely deprived communities lacking the 6

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

infrastructure to deliver CESP. It was felt that support should go to those communities that are most
in need and actually want assistance.

Some participants felt that resources should be focused on areas selected as Beacon Councils in
this sphere in order to take advantage of their knowledge and experience and to ensure there is a
legacy.

To cope with the energy efficiency ‘ghetto’ issue, areas could instead be viewed as a ‘hub’ with the
intention of replicating the process into neighbouring areas. Other locations could also be
encouraged to take action in the wider community to even out the process a little.

Transparency
The next challenge involved ensuring transparency; assessing the programme’s impact and success
(cross referencing the two different objectives); and making clear how much is spent on what.

Solutions/issues
The Government should define exactly what the objectives of the programme are and what the
hierarchy of these is; for example should it be primarily carbon savings, then financial savings, and
then cutting fuel poverty?

Some participants felt that an Energy Performance Certificate survey should be conducted for each
participating home. This would specify which measures are required and act as a ‘tick box’ to ensure
all necessary work is completed.

There will need to be a clear list of measures that can be funded under different programmes and a
list of who is doing what.

In terms of measuring success, this will be different for the different stakeholders:
‰ For the Government, it will be about meeting its carbon and fuel poverty targets.
‰ Suppliers and generators will be concerned with delivering their target.
‰ Community stakeholders will be motivated by improving 100,000 homes.
‰ Local authorities will have engaged householders whose life has been improved.
‰ Warm Front and CERT will see wider take up due to a more engaged audience.

One participant pointed out that local government is accountable to residents; they felt that CESP
should be similarly accountable.

Short timeframe
Two key concerns about the relatively short timeframe of the programme were about the capacity of
the industry to produce and install the required number of measures, and the need for generators to
develop skills in this area very rapidly.

Solutions/issues
Participants generally felt that there would not be a problem in terms of manufacturing capacity (as
the scope of the programme is relatively limited). However, there may be a problem with not having
enough local installers available.

Generators may be more likely to contract out because of the short timeframes – they may not want
to invest in new company activities.

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

A concern was expressed that three years is not long enough to encourage innovation. Participants
would prefer the timeframe to be three years from commencement of the programme rather than
from announcement to allow slightly longer to deliver outcomes.

Ensuring a whole house/street approach

The next challenge was how to ensure a whole street approach (with no ‘cherry picking’ and no
householders left out) and a whole house approach (with the need for a definition of ‘whole’ house).

Solutions/issues
To achieve this objective of a whole house/whole street approach, most agreed that all measures
will need to be provided for free. However, the current funding will only go so far – there was a view
that it would need to be doubled to provide the necessary measures to achieve a whole house
approach at no cost to the householder.

Participants in this group were split between those who felt the programme should be:
Working to a target SAP figure, aiming to bring all properties up to a certain score (which
offers the advantage of easy to calculate CO2 savings), or
Using a measures approach with the home assessed on the applicability of the measures.

All agreed that the measures will have to be inclusive, with no individual homes picked out. The
scheme manager will also need to ensure that measures are installed throughout the property, and
not focus on those that gain the greatest credit.

The Energy Saving Trust advice centre (ESTAC) zones could potentially offer a way to access
CESP funding (for example, limited to a number of communities per region).

Liability/accountability
This concern was linked to generators’ limited liability, and how to address issues of contracting out.

Solutions/issues
Since CESP is a finite programme, there will be relatively high costs for the start up of schemes.
Generators will not want to set up a large infrastructure to deliver the schemes, only for the
programme to terminate after three years. In addition, it will be costly to administer the system for
quantifying carbon and energy savings made.

Participants asked whether there could be a single fund with a buy-out provision that is applicable to
all generators, as well as capped liability and a provision for proportionate penalty. There will need
to be designated service providers who take on liabilities for the programme.

Community heating
How can community heating be included within CESP when the timescale of three years is too short
for many community heating projects? The uncertainty of local authority capital is another problem in
this respect.

Solutions/issues
The first solution would be to extend the programme. Other options would be for credits (e.g.
carbon) to be counted when the money is paid out (rather than when the scheme is in operation).
How the schemes are measured will be crucial to the successful delivery of this programme. It was
pointed out that schemes servicing non-domestic properties (e.g. schools, hospitals and leisure
centres) will also offer financial savings for householders, and the CO2 savings from these
schemes should be credited. 8

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

Participants asked whether the Treasury could recognise or agree that funding for these projects
should be ring-fenced.

Workshop 3 – Added value role of partners

Purpose
To consider the ideal role of local authorities and community groups in CESP and how they can add
value to the scheme. How can these partners help to deliver more than the physical measures?

Summary of outputs
How can local authorities add value?
Participants agreed that local authorities have an invaluable degree of local knowledge which will be
important in delivering CESP; for example, they will be able to ensure that resources are targeted as
effectively as possible. They are also generally trusted by householders and could provide an
essential coordination role. They have a number of existing communication channels which can be
used to promote CESP (such as newsletters). They also have experience of what works and of
rolling out projects. Local authorities may also be able to offer their own resources to help with the
delivery of CESP and will be able to ensure that the programme is integrated into other public
services and strategies.

One key potential barrier to the involvement of local authorities is the fact that they have limited
resources. Their involvement will also require the buy-in of senior staff. Some participants felt that
local authorities may be inclined to focus on their own stock, whereas CESP is targeted at all
tenures. Other participants raised questions regarding how local authorities can share best practice
with each other (it was suggested that the IDeA could be the conduit for this). Others questioned
how quickly local authorities would be able to respond, given CESP’s relatively tight timeframe
(some felt this would not be a problem). If CESP is organised on a competitive bidding basis, there
was a concern that many authorities may be put off from applying because of a perceived low
success rate versus a great deal of effort required to prepare the bid. This runs the risk of the ‘usual
suspects’ being involved in CESP (i.e. those authorities that are already known for being very active
in this area).

Which stakeholder community groups should be involved and what are the
added benefits of their involvement?
The following community groups were identified as potentially playing a valuable role in the delivery
of CESP:
‰ Parish councils, which can add credibility, trust and provide in-depth local knowledge.
‰ Faith groups, which can add credibility, are generally well trusted, cut across social
barriers and can create a ‘blitz’ spirit of encouraging the community to pull together.
‰ Advice centres, which can offer coordination and referrals as well as direct contact with
the target audience and links to other initiatives.
‰ Residents and tenants, in particular local ‘movers and shakers’, who can be invaluable in
explaining in layman’s terms to others why they should be involved. They can also be an
effective conduit for complaints.
‰ The health sector, which can also play an important role, although this sector has very
limited resources. It’s vital that health professionals don’t raise expectations amongst 9

Impetus Consulting Ltd

Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Community Energy Saving Programme
Stakeholder Workshop

Summary Report

their patients that are then not met (e.g. with schemes failing to deliver promptly) as their
relationship relies on very high levels of trust.
‰ Schools, which can be important in helping to engage with the families of pupils and can
offer a venue for events. However, there may be an issue with their catchment areas not
aligning with CESP boundaries.
‰ The fire and police services are another trusted group and have the benefit of being out
and about within the community.
‰ Other groups could include the Women’s Institute, charities, social clubs, local media,
housing associations, ‘green ambassadors’ and those involved in the Local Strategic
Partnership.

Summary and conclusions

Participants were generally in agreement that the proposed approach of CESP could be very
beneficial in helping to take whole communities out of fuel poverty whilst also dramatically cutting
carbon emissions. However, there are clearly several issues which will require further investigation
in order to find the right solution. In particular, there will be a need to ensure effective and
transparent coordination between CESP and the other major funding streams. A major challenge will
be ensuring there is sufficient demand to achieve a whole house whole street approach; various
community partners could play a key role in helping to achieve this. Ensuring that these new
resources are distributed as equitably, but also as effectively, as possible will be another challenge.

EEPH is grateful to have had this opportunity to engage with DECC in the design of this exciting
new programme. The Partnership would very much like continued involvement in the process and
would welcome the chance to convene again before the proposed consultation is complete, to allow
more feedback.

10

Impetus Consulting Ltd