Sustainable Development Consultation Event Andy Nolan- Director of Sustainable Development Monday 30 th January 2012

Sustainable Development Team Structure Sustainable Housing and Affordable Warmth (SHAW) team Eco-Team Adaptation Communications Our team seeks to: Reduce the emissions from council activities Help others across the city to reduce their emissions by focusing on homes, transport and businesses Increase renewable energy across the city Ensure all council services are effectively managing climate change risks (adaptation) Help the city adapt to future climate change Provide leadership by supporting and showcasing innovation in low carbon and adaptation solutions Make homes warm, healthy and energy efficient

Reducing fuel poverty and Sheffield's carbon footprint Energy use, water use, transport and waste are the biggest producers of carbon emissions and so by focusing on these areas we hope to make the biggest savings. Our current work includes: Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy Developing our Environmental Management System (EMS) Promoting and supporting our established Eco- Schools programme Implementing the Sheffield City Council Corporate Travel Plan Establishing District Energy Networks Developing and managing Community Heating Schemes Developing the Solar City project – installing photovoltaic (PV) installations across council buildings, schools and social housing Developing and supporting the Community Assembly Climate Change Fund Providing help and advice on affordable warmth Delivering the Free Insulation Scheme- focus of today’s consultation

Sheffield City Council’s Free Insulation Scheme Represents Sheffield’s single largest Carbon Reduction project. Identified strongly during the Strategic Cores process, and contributes to Corporate Plan: A Strong and Competitive Economy Reductions in energy costs generate increased money into the local economy- almost £2.7 million annually. Better Health and Well-being Warm, insulated homes counteract a range of health issues and reduce excess winter deaths. Tackling Poverty and Increasing Social Justice Fuel poverty is increasing nationally, with a key factor being the poor energy efficiency of the UK housing stock. Households have been referred to benefit advice agencies and other schemes aimed at reducing fuel poverty Great Places to Live Environmental sustainability has been highlighted as a key factor in Sheffield’s housing and community ‘offer’ An Environmentally Responsible City Carbon savings from the insulation, energy advice and heating improvement referrals were assessed for the Review as generating 28,000 tonnes per year.

Sheffield City Council’s Free Insulation Scheme Robert Almond Monday 30 th January 2012

The scheme Free loft insulation Top up if less than 200mm/ 8inches Insulate spaces in converted lofts Free cavity wall insulation Houses after about 1930s Can do extensions Open to all owner occupiers, landlords and private rented tenants across Sheffield

Aims of the scheme Significant impact on reducing fuel poverty across the city (average household saves £119 a year, every year) Carbon savings and impact on climate change Help the hard to reach - door to door across Sheffield Health benefits (reduction in cold related illnesses) Reduction in number of excess seasonal deaths High level of customer satisfaction

Current eligibility 1) Area based scheme Not means tested. Available to all homeowners, landlords and private tenants. 16 out of 28 wards now covered Aim to cover whole city, subject to funding 2) Priority groups- city wide Fast tracking the most vulnerable residents, regardless of where they live in the city: All householders and tenants aged 70 or over OR Householders and private tenants on qualifying income and disability benefits

The process Stage 1- sign up and referrals Signed up over 32,000 residents city wide since March 2009 Sheffield City Council “Energy Advisors” Form filled out on the door step, over the phone or at events Offer services such as translation and home visits for the more vulnerable Photo I.D. and distinctive Council uniforms

Stage 2- Carillion Energy Services technical survey Carillion Energy Services (formerly Eaga) is our only contractor Contractors wear uniform, carry ID and use passwords Stage 3- installation of insulation Install insulation measures if property suitable Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency (25 yrs) Stage 4- customer satisfaction survey 95 % happy or very happy

What else are we offering? Additional works funded (loft hatches, minor repairs and scaffolding) Free loft clearances Insulation of hot and cold water tanks Extra support: Council Tax and Housing Benefit checks Eco driving Fire safety checks Energy advice (priority services register and social tariffs) Warm Front (heating/ draught proofing if eligible)

Before…and after

The current funding situation Complex funding package Backdrop of cuts in Sheffield Reduction in Sheffield City Council capital funding –Current proposal £250,000 for 11/12 End to CERT funding December 2012 Commitment to reduce fuel poverty AND carbon emissions Transition into Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO)

Options In order to devise and assess the possible options, we considered the following questions: How do we make best use of CERT funding and resources? CERT funding ends December How do we make best use of time? How do we maximise the impact on carbon emissions and fuel poverty? How do we ensure we have a scheme that is fair? How do we control costs and we keep in budget? Should we take a ’supply- or demand-led’ approach? Will it bridge the gap before Green Deal? Flexibility: can it be scaled up or down depending on a number of factors?: Sign-up rate, budget, staff numbers, end date

Option 1: No change to existing ‘ward by ward’ approach Whole wards declared one at a time, with priority customers city-wide also eligible Focus on Fuel Poverty – able to choose wards with high levels of fuel poverty, however, the large size of the areas means that it is likely that more affluent areas will also be targeted Efficient Use of Council Resources – reasonable value for money in terms of reducing carbon emissions. Less effective than options 3 and 4, however, as the need to declare whole wards means it is harder to make best use of the available budget (i.e. likely to have funds left unspent) Budget Control – Larger areas make it harder to control the budget. Likely to need to leave a large underspend to avoid the risk of having to close the scheme part way through a ward

Option 2: Priorities only Close the area-based aspect of the scheme and focus on (CERT) ‘priority’ customers across the city Focus on Fuel Poverty – strong focus on the fuel poor, however not all priority customers will be fuel poor and there’ll be households in fuel poverty that still do not qualify. Identifying where the fuel poor live is not an exact science. Efficient Use of Council Resources – effective at bringing in the maximum CERT funding for the measures installed, but the low number of customer makes the proportion of the overall budget spent on measures lower than the other three options. This is the least cost- effective option in terms of cost per tonne of CO2 saved. Budget Control – Easy to avoid overspend as numbers will be lower and each measure requires smaller SCC input due to better CERT rates for these customers.

Option 3: Offer scheme to whole city with set quotas Open the scheme up to all private residents across the city, but with limits set on applications from each ward and/or from ‘able to pay’ or ‘priority’ customers. Careful attention will have to be paid to the communication strategy to ensure fair access. Focus on Fuel Poverty – possibility of setting quotas to ensure that fuel poor are more likely to benefit. With no/fewer doorstep visits, it’s likely that hard-to-reach, fuel-poor customers will not sign up. Efficient Use of Council Resources – likely to be able to achieve a good price per tonne CO2 saved under this option, depending on numbers of ‘priority’ customers reached. The volume of customers trying to contact the scheme could increase core costs. Budget Control – Alterations to the quotas to ensure that sign-ups are maximised could make this the best option in terms of budget control, however, the process is likely to be complicated and will require close management.

Option 4: Target Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) Preferred option. Replace the ward areas with LSOAs, with priority customers city-wide also eligible. Focus on Fuel Poverty – able to concentrate on smaller areas of fuel poverty across the city. Likely to be able to target these customers more effectively than in option 1 by using available data on levels of deprivation. Efficient Use of Council Resources – effective use of resources with a low cost per tonne of CO2 saved and good CERT funding leverage, due to increased numbers of priority customer when compared with option 1. Budget Control – Working in smaller areas will make it possible to bring the scheme in much closer to the prescribed budget than in options 1 and 2.

We want to hear your views! Do you broadly agree or disagree with our proposals? Why? Do you have any other suggestions/ comments? How do you think our proposals will affect different groups in Sheffield? Is there anything else you think we need to consider in our proposals? Do you have any other concerns?