190 likes | 282 Views
Reshaping HECA UK HECA Conference, Cardiff 2004. Preliminary Findings from Research of English HECA Officers Oliver Myers, London Borough of Camden Chair of London HECA Forum & UK HECA Chairs Research Sub-Group. Background to Research. Dissatisfaction with current arrangements
E N D
Reshaping HECAUK HECA Conference, Cardiff 2004 Preliminary Findings from Research of English HECA Officers Oliver Myers, London Borough of Camden Chair of London HECA Forum & UK HECA Chairs Research Sub-Group
Background to Research • Dissatisfaction with current arrangements - No level playing field or standard reporting format - No enforcement, auditing, penalties or incentives • Opportunity - Additional EST funding for HECA Forum - DEFRA HECA Review • Process - Steering Group formed Jan 2004 - New Perspectives appointed Feb 2004 - Deadline for responses April 2004 - Preliminary findings May 2004
Policy Context • HECA Progress Reports 2004 - removal of HECA reporting for excellent councils • DEFRA HECA Review 2004 - Terms of Reference (end May) - Statutory or complementary guidance? - New burdens procedure - Sustainable Energy Act - Section 4 is a power not a requirement
Previous research • HECA 1995 - A Study of the Variation in Responses from LAs, with Proposals for Facilitating Implementation; ACE, Dec 1997 • Monitoring the Implementation of HECA, DETR/Optima Energy, 1999
About HECA Officers • 53% of HECA Officers have been in post over 3 years, 15% for no more than 1 year • Only 22% spend over 70% time on HECA; 36% spend less than 10% of their time on HECA • 61% have no-one else in own team, a further 28% no more than 1 FTE in own team • 49% are managers (15% heads of service or above), 51% non-managerial • Specialism: 30% environment, 23% energy efficiency, 23% housing
About HECA Officers • Only 22% have no energy related qualification; 46% have City & Guilds, 42% a degree and 23% NHER auditing • Only 10% feel a beginner in technical matters and in policy matters, most have moderate or extensive knowledge of each
About ECAs • 28% had strategies pre-1995, 26% during 1996, 26% since 1996, 20% did not know • 96% have partnerships with their EEAC, 89% with Warm Front, 84% with suppliers, 51% with Housing Associations • ECAs are prioritising non-hard to heat home measures • 36% not very likely and 22% not at all likely to meet their HECA targets, 29% quite likely and 9% very likely • Reasons against: lack of resources (60%), low take up in private sector (16%), unrealistic target (14%), lack of commitment (14%), hard to treat homes (10%)
About ECAs • Internal budgets for promotion: 11% have none, 18% under £5k, 30% under £8k and 40% 8-80k • Levered in for promotion: 14% none, 16% under £8k, 22% over £8k • Internal budgets for works: 11% have none, 47% over £30k • Levered in money for works: 8% none, 39% over £30k
Present data collection and reporting • Data collected to inform strategies: 95% use Warm Front, 89% use EEAC data, 71% use own stock, 74% use private grants, 60% use building control, 64% other installers, 54% energy suppliers • For % improvement figure in private tenures: 24% use HECAMON, 60% use other surveys, 31% building a database, 34% only known improvements • For % improvement figure in public sector: 15% use HECAMON, 49% use other surveys, 53% use database, 27% simply known improvements • HECAMON surveys: 33% telephone, 71% postal
Present data collection and reporting • Of methods no longer used, HECAMON is most frequently abandoned (11% done by themselves, 11% done by outside agency) • 24% don’t know how reliable their data is, 16% feel their method over-estimates, 32% feel their method under-estimates, only 32% feel their method is pretty accurate • 20% have no budget for HECA reporting, only 8% reported a budget over £5k • Under a third have ever revised progress figures • Only 15% have revised their baselines
Understanding of and views on current HECA & HECA reporting requirements • 50% feel HECA is primarily about energy efficiency; 40% about reducing CO2 emissions; 26% about reducing fuel consumption; 20% about tackling fuel poverty, 13% meeting Kyoto targets • Majority (51%) use reduction in CO2 emissions as main % improvement indicator, only 33% use theoretical reduction in energy consumption • 35% don’t know how Government assesses their reports and 29% feel it is done inadequately; only 29% feel Govt. looks at strategy or checks figures
Understanding of and views on current HECA & HECA reporting requirements • 38% do not know how Government uses information, 11% don’t believe it’s used at all, 18% believe it’s used for monitoring HECA, 14% to compare ECAs, 13% to monitor against Kyoto/other strategies • Only 21% feel positive about requirements. 26% feel reporting is unreliable, 10% pointless, 9% too time consuming, 7% too complicated, 9% provides false view of progress, 7% complain about feedback. • Despite cynicism, 44% find annual report quite useful and 21% find it very useful; 43% of these because it helps them evaluate their strategy and 15% because it keeps it on the agenda
Reshaping HECA • 82% feel main aim of report should be fuel poverty, 79% making the case for extra funding and 73% monitoring towards HECA targets • 78% feel reports should be widened to include fuel poverty, 62% to include renewables, 37% other fuel switching, 23% non-domestic energy • Most favoured indicators: installed measures in last 12 months (83%), the incidence of fuel poverty (78%), full energy audit (64%), all measures now in place (64%), full consumption data (63%), all measures still missing (60%)
Reshaping HECA • 55% would like to see data collected from actual fuel consumption data; 46% would like to see a national energy database, 38% sampled surveys in area, only 24% co-ordinated regional and 17% co-ordinated national surveys • Data should be used for planning local strategy (84%), planning regional HECA strategy (65%), allocating extra funds to areas needing them most (65%) • Indicator for % improvement; 57% want theoretical improvement in energy efficiency, 57% reduction in CO2 emissions, 53% reduction in energy consumption, 35% % of possible measures still requiring installation
Reshaping HECA • 94% want a standard reporting format • 71% feel Government should audit and validate reports • How should baselines be set? No consensus on method, over half did not answer. • Only 15% support continued use of existing baseline, 41% want a revision in 2004/05, 30% revision of 1996 baseline using a common method • 71% want Govt to assess performance on basis of indicator and strategy appraisal combined, or on appraisal of strategy (16%). Only 6% on indicators alone
Reshaping HECA • 53% feel ECAs should be compared, 20% by quartiles, 14% by 5 point scale as with HIP, and 14% by league tables • 61% want to see more incentives & 13% penalties to encourage reporting, but 33% want neither; extra funding (35%) is seen as best incentive • 34% think any extra resources should be allocated to fuel poor, 10% want these allocated to ECAs for full time HECA Officers or training • 57% want some sort of HECA qualification training, with 27% against
Objectives for further analysis • Possible factors contributing to effective strategies • Data collection methods that are used and favoured • Differences in views on HECA requirements • Differences in views on changes to HECA requirements • Good ideas/issues for recommendation