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

The paper addresses the escalating challenge of combined energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom within the broader European context of rising fuel and energy prices. Energy poverty affects millions, with UK households experiencing sharp increases in energy costs and associated health and social harms. The authors highlight that low-carbon transitions, while essential for climate goals, risk exacerbating inequalities if not designed with justice considerations. The central research aim is to identify policy mechanisms that both effectively alleviate energy and transport poverty and enjoy high levels of social and political acceptability. Specifically, the study explores which policies are preferred by experts and by the general public, and why, focusing on options that can mitigate ‘double energy vulnerability’ while supporting decarbonization objectives. The work underscores the importance of justice (distributive, procedural, epistemic) and the need to secure public support to avoid backlash against transition policies.

The paper situates the study within literature on energy and transport poverty, just transitions, and energy justice. Prior work maps multiple justice dimensions in energy transitions and increasingly incorporates transport alongside domestic energy. The authors reference concerns that techno-economic analyses often overlook equity, and that decarbonization pathways can worsen vulnerabilities, for example through costs and access barriers associated with heat pumps, residential PV, and EV infrastructure. They note the instrumental rationale of just transitions: public support is critical for policy success. The review also touches on welfare regimes and their relationship to sustainability performance, the UK’s liberalized, market-based energy model and fossil fuel regime lock-ins, and the post-COVID-19 and Ukraine war contexts that have intensified energy price shocks and transport system strains. The concept of double energy vulnerability identifies groups most at risk (low-income households, elderly, families with dependents, those with health conditions or disabilities, women, and ethnic minorities) and emphasizes spatial and demographic disparities, including rural disadvantages.

The study uses a qualitative, comparative design combining eight online focus groups with the UK public (N=49 participants; 48 completed energy rankings; 45 completed transport rankings) and semi-structured interviews with expert stakeholders (N=42; 39 completed the ranking exercise). Two focus groups (one rural, one urban) were conducted in each UK nation (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland), recruited and facilitated by a market research firm with soft quotas for age, gender, and region; participants required access to an internet-connected device. Data collection occurred in March–April 2022 for focus groups and April–early May 2022 for expert interviews, just prior to and after a major increase in the UK energy price cap. Both publics and experts were presented with six energy-policy options and six transport-policy options drawn from UK government policy documents. Participants ranked their top three in each category and explained their choices and non-choices; they were also invited to propose additional policies. Ranking scores were assigned as follows: most preferred = 1, third of top three = 3, unranked options = 6; scores were then normalized by subtracting from 6 (top rank = 5; second = 4; unranked = 0), accentuating differences between ranked and unranked options. Sessions and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in NVivo; themes, consensus, and dissensus were identified across groups. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sussex Social Sciences and Arts C-REC (ER/MM311/5); all participants consented and anonymity was maintained.

• Widespread and shared vulnerability: Focus group participants, including some middle- to upper-income individuals, reported direct or indirect experiences of hardship (forgoing heating, cutting essentials, transport rationing) and perceived that almost anyone not affluent could be at risk due to price rises.
• Rural disadvantages: Rural households often lack access to the gas grid (dependent on volatile, unregulated heating oil) and face sparse, costly public transport and longer travel distances, increasing reliance on cars. Stakeholders discussed eventual second-hand EV markets and potential targeted support (e.g., social tariffs for EV running costs), with some support for sustainable aviation fuel to maintain connectivity in remote areas.
• Policy preferences—energy: Both experts and public most preferred (1) mandatory landlord energy-efficiency upgrades (e.g., to EPC C) and stronger enforcement; (2) expanded financial assistance (e.g., Warm Home Discount expansion by amount and eligibility). New home efficiency standards were also viewed positively by the public. Smart meters, energy-efficiency tax credits, and increased financial assistance to large energy suppliers were less favored.
• Policy preferences—transport: Both groups favored (1) cheaper or free bus and train fares, and (2) restarting/expanding bus services; (3) cycling infrastructure also had support. Banning new petrol/diesel car sales, expanding EV charging points, and sustainable aviation had low support for addressing transport poverty specifically. Publics were somewhat more positive about EVs/charging than experts.
• Scepticism toward support for large energy firms: Many participants objected to channeling public funds to profitable energy companies, citing mistrust and perceived profiteering.
• System redesign ideas: Experts proposed broader reforms beyond the provided options, including: revising marginal pricing in wholesale electricity; shifting environmental levies to general taxation; scaling up building fabric efficiency via a national program; expanding integrated energy advice services; intermodal and simplified public transport ticketing with lower fares; stronger enforcement resourcing for private-rented sector standards; social tariffs; universal basic income/basic services.
• Convergence of expert and public views: There was notable alignment in prioritizing landlord obligations and expanded income support for energy, and cheaper fares plus bus service restoration for transport. Box-plot consensus indicated strong agreement on top and bottom-ranked options.

The findings directly address the question of which policy mechanisms are both effective for alleviating energy and transport poverty and socially acceptable. Strong convergence between experts and the public suggests that policies mandating landlord energy-efficiency upgrades, expanding household financial assistance, and improving affordability and availability of public transport have both perceived efficacy and legitimacy. Recognizing shared vulnerability broadens support beyond traditionally targeted groups, potentially facilitating policy adoption. Rural-specific challenges indicate the need for tailored measures (e.g., support for electric mobility in areas with limited public transport, consideration of remote connectivity). Stakeholder proposals to reform market structures (e.g., marginal pricing, levy shifts) indicate that structural changes could enhance both affordability and decarbonization, aligning with just transition principles. Overall, prioritizing socially acceptable, immediately actionable policies can reduce double energy vulnerability while maintaining momentum toward net zero, and should be complemented by longer-term system redesign to address root causes of affordability and access.

The study contributes evidence on policy acceptability and perceived efficacy for mitigating energy and transport poverty in the UK. Both experts and the general public prioritize: (1) mandatory energy-efficiency upgrades in the private-rented sector with proper enforcement; (2) expanded financial support to households (e.g., enhanced Warm Home Discount or similar measures); (3) cheaper or free public transport fares; and (4) restoring and widening bus services. These constitute feasible first steps to address double energy vulnerability. Stakeholders also advocate broader system reforms, including electricity market pricing changes, shifting levies to progressive taxation, large-scale building fabric upgrades, social tariffs, and universal basic services. Future research should evaluate the implementation and enforcement of landlord obligations, design of progressive and well-targeted financial support, rural mobility solutions (including second-hand EV support and intermodal integration), and pathways for structural market reforms that align affordability with decarbonization goals.

• Sampling and representativeness: Eight focus groups with 49 participants cannot represent the entire UK public; participants required internet access; soft quotas were used, and the sample was not selected specifically for low-income representation.
• Timing: Focus groups occurred before the April 2022 energy price cap increase; conditions may have worsened subsequently, potentially affecting perceptions.
• Policy set constraint: The presented policy options were derived from government documents and were relatively incremental; this may have steered discussions away from more radical alternatives, though participants and experts proposed additional measures.
• Participation in rankings: Not all interviewees completed the ranking exercise (39/42 experts; 48/49 and 45/49 public for energy and transport, respectively).
• Generalizability: Qualitative findings in the UK context may not generalize to countries with different regulatory regimes, welfare systems, or transport infrastructures.