Policy prescriptions to address energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom

Energy and transport poverty, the inability to afford adequate energy services and reliable transportation, presents a significant challenge across Europe, particularly in the UK. An estimated 6.7 million UK households experienced energy poverty in October 2022, a substantial increase from the previous year. While precise figures for transport poverty are harder to obtain, it is estimated to affect a significant proportion of the population. The low-carbon energy transition, while crucial for climate goals, risks exacerbating these inequalities. For example, electric heating could disproportionately affect low-income households, while heat pump adoption and energy efficiency retrofits mainly benefit homeowners. Similarly, electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure development may favor wealthier individuals, neglecting mass transit improvements. This study investigates policy mechanisms to alleviate energy and transport poverty in the UK, focusing on options with both high policy efficacy and social acceptability. The context of decarbonization is also considered, recognizing that just transitions are both intrinsically important and instrumental in gaining public support for lower-carbon economies. The UK, with its diverse geography and energy/transport systems, serves as a relevant case study for international policy implications, particularly within a market-based energy system that is experiencing rapid price increases alongside a drive toward decarbonization.

The paper draws on existing literature on energy and transport poverty, highlighting the disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups (low-income households, ethnic minorities, individuals with health issues or disabilities, and those in rural areas). It also cites research on the intersection of energy poverty and transport poverty, referring to this as 'double energy vulnerability'. The literature review emphasizes the need for just transitions, examining the intrinsic importance of justice and the instrumental value of public support for successful decarbonization. Existing studies examining various types of justice in the context of energy transitions are cited, along with works addressing the equity implications of decarbonization pathways. The paper links its focus to research on welfare states, national sustainability performance, and the characteristics of just transitions. Previous work on low-carbon transitions, justice, and equity is reviewed, highlighting the need for an analysis of effective and socially acceptable policy mechanisms.

The research employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative data collection through focus groups and expert interviews. Eight focus groups, comprising 49 participants (representing diverse demographics from urban and rural areas across the UK), explored public perceptions of energy and transport policies. Simultaneously, 42 expert stakeholders (from various sectors) were interviewed, providing insights from their specialized knowledge. Both groups were presented with six energy policy options and six transport policy options adapted from existing UK government documents, and were asked to rank their top three choices. Participants were asked to explain their choices and any additional policy ideas. The focus groups were conducted online, minimizing social influence while facilitating interaction. The expert interviews were semi-structured but included a questionnaire allowing for the ranking of policy options. Data analysis utilized NVivo software, identifying themes, areas of consensus, and dissensus between groups. Ethical considerations included informed consent and anonymization of participants. The data collected is not publicly available due to ethical restrictions protecting participants' anonymity.

The study revealed several key findings. Focus group participants frequently shared personal experiences of hardship and a widely held belief that the majority of the population, even those in the middle class, is at risk of energy and transport poverty due to escalating prices. This shared sense of vulnerability shaped policy preferences. Both public and expert participants strongly favored policies that: (1) Mandate landlord energy efficiency upgrades (EPC band C), although concerns about enforcement and cost shifting to tenants existed. (2) Expand financial assistance programs like the Warm Home Discount, with calls to significantly increase the payment amount and broaden eligibility. (3) Reduce or eliminate bus and train fares, citing their affordability and necessity for low-income individuals, particularly those in rural areas. (4) Restart and expand bus services due to the impact of deregulation and post-COVID-19 cuts. Conversely, policies like smart meters, energy efficiency tax credits, and financial assistance to energy suppliers received considerably less support. Expert stakeholders more often emphasized the need for system-level changes, including revising marginal pricing in electricity markets, shifting environmental levies, expanding energy advice services, prioritizing domestic energy efficiency, and implementing universal basic income or services. Public participants also proposed more fundamental changes, such as reducing car dependency through increased walking, cycling, and a ban on petrol and diesel vehicles. The study shows remarkable consensus between the public and experts on some high-impact policy options, suggesting strong potential for immediate positive impact. Notably, there is greater public optimism for the role of EV adoption than among the experts.

The study demonstrates a convergence of views between the public and experts on several policy options to mitigate energy and transport poverty. This consensus indicates a potential for policy action with high likelihood of both efficacy and social acceptability. The shared experience of vulnerability among the public, even among those not currently experiencing hardship, underscores the need for proactive, preventative measures. The findings highlight that energy and transport poverty is not simply an economic issue but deeply intertwined with social welfare. Existing policies require substantial improvement, both in terms of scope and effectiveness. The experts' calls for more comprehensive system redesign suggests that piecemeal approaches may be inadequate and that more fundamental change is needed to ensure a just transition to low-carbon systems. This is particularly relevant given the considerable influence of a fossil-fuel regime in the UK and the increasing inter-connectedness of energy poverty and decarbonization policy.

This research underscores the urgent need for policy interventions to address energy and transport poverty in the UK. The findings demonstrate a strong convergence of views between the public and experts on several key policy options, suggesting a promising avenue for impactful policy changes. This study's implications extend beyond the UK's context, offering valuable insights for policymakers in other countries grappling with similar challenges, especially those with market-based energy systems and decarbonization targets. Future research might explore the feasibility and implementation details of the recommended policy options and examine public support for more ambitious systems redesign.

The study's reliance on a specific sample of the UK population, recruited using online focus groups, may limit the generalizability of the findings. The focus on existing government policy options could have influenced participants' responses, potentially overlooking more radical alternatives. The timeframe of data collection (pre-April 2022 energy price cap increase) may not fully capture the current situation.