Voluntas 4th Annual Conference. 15th November 2012. Green Deal - The Role of Social Housing Providers. Matt Roberts, Director of Asset Management and Development. Wigan and Leigh Housing.
5. Options Available
• Do nothing
• Green Deal Provider
• Provide part of the service – survey / installation
• Signpost
• Using Green Deal / ECO to improve homes
7. Become a Provider – the financial backer
• Can access loans at low rates (DECC)
• Has a sizeable customer base
• Are experienced in communicating with residents
• Have supply chains for doing the works
• Have an interest in ensuring the homes are of good
quality
8. Advantages
• Reduce tenants’ bills
• Lead on reducing carbon in customers homes and
potentially others.
• Generate a new income stream
• Maintain a closer understanding of properties and
resident needs
• Ensure quality of work
• Focus activity on reducing fuel poverty and encourage
behavioural change
• Employ local people
• Be seen as an innovator
9. Risks
Calculation of the Golden Rule
Energy efficiency is not always easy to sell.
Providers will take on default risk of Green Deal
charges.
Liable for guarantees and warrantees put in
place.
Still unclear how lenders will view Green Deal
finance – stock revaluation
9
13. Appropriate measures
• CO2 savings (kgCO2 saved per year)
• Cost of energy saved per year
• Capital cost per kgCO2 saved
• Capital cost versus running cost saving
13
14. Methodology
1. Retrofit Options Appraisal
a. Projected savings
b. Projected benefits
c. Forecast SROI
2. Data Collection
a. Questionnaire
b. Utility data
c. Focus groups
3. Results
a. Utility Cost
b. Comfort
c. SROI Analysis
14
15. The Measures
• Internal wall insulation
• Windows and doors
• Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR)
• Top up loft / cavity wall insulation
• High efficiency condensing boilers
15
19. £353 saving
47.7% of pre
retrofit average
annual gas spend
19
20. The Golden Rule – What is the saving?
• Estimated 40% saving close to actual.
• Further savings taken in increased comfort.
• How much physical / behavioural?
• Variation based on occupants.
• Increase in electrical costs – rebound affect?
20
24. Or dis-benefits
“It is of our opinion that as a result of this
work, our properties have been de-valued by
at least £20,000 each, therefore it is our
intention to seek legal advice on the
possibility of suing the council for £20,000 per
household as compensation”.
24
25. Need to overcome natural inertia
Changed Supplier in Last 5 Years
28%
Yes
No
72%
25
28. Provide Part of the Service – Possible model
Green Deal Provider
Registered Third party Funding
provider business sources
Green Deal
assessment Provides finance
and installs
measures
Homes Electricity
Payback supplier
28
29. Assessment
• Trusted
• Know the properties – public and private
• Know the people
• Experience of retrofit
• Independent – nothing to sell
• Serious about behavioural change
But who pays for lack of take up?
29
30. Trust
There is a tendency for people to adopt the opinions,
judgements and behaviour of others
People are more likely to install an energy efficiency
measures if one of their family or peers have done so.
Research suggests that engaging individuals as
members of a community, rather than only as consumers
of energy, is an important strategy for changing
energy-related behaviours
30
31. Installers
• Frameworks delivering retrofit
• Experience of working in peoples’ homes
• Success in achieving training and apprenticeships
• Mechanisms for performance monitoring
• Quality assurance / management – PAS 2030
• Commitment to local labour
31
32. There is an appetite!
Would you be prepared to pay towards energy
efficiency measures if you made a bigger saving as a
result?
13%
Yes
No
26% Blank
61%
32
34. Non Provider - Signpost
Can’t do nothing
Communication with tenants
Working with Green Deal providers
Watch and wait
Focus on providing through Asset Management plans
34
35. Risks
Works carried out without consent or knowledge.
Not seen to be involved.
Potential income stream.
Not able to direct work to local businesses.
Not being seen to combat fuel poverty.
35
36. Need to understand the implications.
May / will need to…
Assess Green Deal providers in your area –
accreditation and experience
Upskill EPC assessors to assess advice given.
Support the marketing of the service by adding your
brand.
Develop a corporate approach to Green Deal enquiries.
Keep up to date records of where Green Deal
undertaken – lettings / void cost.
36
37. Word of warning – Green Deal must address the fuel
poor
There is a risk that the Green Deal could in fact make
fuel poverty worse unless:
• There is an accurate assessment of a home, its
occupants and their behaviour in order to make the
correct diagnosis and the economics of paying for
them.
• We recognise that different customers need different
approaches.
• We build trust in Green Deal among the fuel-poor, and
overcome the mistrust that many people on low
incomes feel towards official initiatives.
37
39. Using the Green Deal to Improve your Homes
Understanding your stock – maintain a strong asset
database
Integrate Asset Plan and Energy Efficiency Strategy
Maximise your investment programme – trigger points
Maximise level of funding through partnerships /
innovations
39
41. Lessons Learnt
• Behaviours vary as do savings!
• Analysis is resource intensive
• Education and advice is essential
• Marketing is key (and expensive)
• Take up will start slow
• The industry is lagging behind
• There is a role for housing providers
• Consider long term asset planning
41
Within housing virtually everyone has a view on Green deal, neither of these are mine but clearly just the amount of column inches the green agenda is receiving means the tide is changing and with or without Green deal the industry is reacting..
Even before early discussions around GD, we were keen to ensure that we could evaluate savings to customers, not just in costs, but also in comfort through improvements that could be afforded by the provider. Obviously this isn ’ t a GD model in terms of pay back, however provided lessons in terms of identifying works, engaging and monitoring.
Learned colleagues at Arup would be appalled at days of research being referred to as some graphs.
In order to ensure we were confident of the measures we considered the four criteria.
The methodology falls into three distinct stages within a real programme of works. and for the purposes of today I don ’ t intend to go into too much detail around the social return on investment. Options, collection and results…
At the beginning of the process Arup estimated that from the SAP utility cost savings would broadly break down as the two charts. One showing that from from just doing DH we would save, but the increase from retrofit was significant – however they estimated that half of the saving would not be taken as cash.
These are the results against archetype and as you can see on the whole customers made savings, however these varied and in one case the bill even increased. This demonstrates how circumstances change and in one case bills even increased.
But this slide demonstrates that on the whole people were generally more comfortable and what this tries to show is that to what extent do people live in discomfort just to pay the bill and where do you therefore pitch the golden rule
When we evaluated all the bills we found that on average people saved around 47% which was consistent with the early projection, but clearly within the remaining 53% there is an element of non cashable saving i.e. comfort
The reason I have highlighted this as it demonstrates the unexpected nature of the human behaviour and has inadvertently formed a large part of our learning. Properties in Ordsall offered the work, CESP negotiated on behalf of residents – take up minimal even though negotiated CESP discount and offered approved contractor.
`Engaged, but didn ’ t provide calculations on costs, options for finance, but fundamentally only really interested in the fact that properties looked worse – now using these as a Green Deal pilot and have done assessments of measures going forward.