- Email: [email protected]
Regional variations in the experiences of energy poverty across Australia
Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy & Buildings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild
Regional variations in the experiences of energy poverty across Australia Edgar Liu∗, Bruce Judd City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of Built Environment University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 June 2018 Revised 2 May 2019 Accepted 10 May 2019 Available online 11 May 2019 Keywords: Energy poverty Australia Qualitative outcomes Energy policy Housing policy Welfare assistance
a b s t r a c t Academic interests into energy poverty have been growing since the 1990s. These have ranged from quantitative measures and qualitative reflections, as well as ones that aimed to provide more nuanced definitions. These studies have, however, typically focused on single jurisdictions or across national borders, with very few examining the issue across different climatic and policy contexts within the same nation. This paper aims to address this gap by focussing on differences in climate conditions, local policies and quality of the housing stock across Australia and reflects on how these factors each played a role, to varying degrees, in the prevalence of energy poverty amongst lower-income households across eight metropolitan and regional settings conducted as part of a recent study in Australia. Through a review of focus group, interview and workshop data, it especially highlights the more qualitative impacts of energy poverty, and how each of these factors come to influence the extent to which lower-income households experience energy poverty and the support they were able to access. Additional to the need for more contextualised measures of energy poverty, this paper calls for localised responses to alleviate the negative outcomes reflected by our participants in regard to both energy and housing policies. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Academic interests into energy poverty have been growing since the 1990s. These have ranged from quantitative measures and qualitative reflections, as well as ones that aimed to provide more nuanced definitions of the concept [1–3]. These studies have, however, typically focused on single jurisdictions [4] or across national borders [5], with very few examining the issue across different climatic and policy contexts within the same nation [6]. This paper aims to address this gap. As a nation, Australia includes a diverse range of climatic zones from the tropical north to both dry and humid temperate regions and the cool-temperate south. As a federation of state and territory governments, there are both national and local policy settings regarding energy supply, efficiency and support programs for those experiencing energy poverty. This paper reflects on the different factors that influence the prevalence and outcomes of energy poverty in eight different metropolitan and regional settings across four different climate zones in Australia. Particularly, it focuses on the qualitative outcomes experienced by lower-income households—defined as those within the two lowest quintiles of their respective state/territory’s income distribution—
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Liu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.023 0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
and their ability to access support services. This is in contrast to other comparative studies where comparisons were typically made across different national rather than climatic settings (e.g. [7]). Our focus on lower-income households is important and takes after Moore’s [8] suggestion of a ‘low income/high cost’ measure with the understanding that lower-income households have more limited capacities (financial and others) to cope with high and increasing energy expenditure. Through a review of focus group and interview data, this paper highlights the qualitative impacts of energy poverty, and how factors such as housing quality and tenure together with local energy markets and regional policies come to influence the extent to which lower-income households experience energy poverty.
1.1. Background Studies into energy poverty were first popularised in the early 1990s. The term was introduced by Boardman [9] in the United Kingdom (UK) context, especially in relation to households’ ability to heat their homes during cold winters. The term describes situations where ten or more percent of a household’s disposable income was spent on energy, and therefore takes a relatively quantitative approach. While relatively easy to calculate and comprehend, it is often criticised for being too simplistic and does not necessarily reflect varying local contexts and broader outcomes. As
294
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298 Table 1 Case study sites and selected characteristics [15]. Climate zonea
Warm temperate – humid
Warm temperate – dry
Cool temperate
High humidity summer, warm winter
Sate/Territory Capital cityb Regional townb Distance to capital cityc
New South Wales (NSW) Sydney (45%) Raymond Terrace (55%) 169 km (2 h)
South Australia (SA) Adelaide (44%) Murray Bridge (55%) 77 km (1 h)
Tasmania (TAS) Hobart (46%) New Norfolk (57%) 35 km (0.7 h)
Northern Territory (NT) Darwin (49%) Katherine (50%) 316 km (3 h)
a Differentiation of climate zones based on Australian Building Codes Board [16], with Warm temperate further divided by the two metropolitan areas’ relative humidity levels. b Percentage of families with income within the two lowest quintiles of their respective state/territory’s capital city included in brackets. c Indicative driving time included in brackets.
Pachauri and Spreng [3] noted, the shortcoming particularly lies with the difficulty to “trace back changes in energy poverty levels to specific efforts since other factors such as general economic growth, social and infrastructural development also influence it.” In the study reported in this paper, we qualitatively reflect on experiences of energy poverty, and specifically consider the social and personal outcomes unaffordable energy has on lowerincome households. This follows particularly Waddams Price et al. [10] and their differentiation of expenditure fuel poverty and felt fuel poverty, that it is difficult to calculate objective measures of energy poverty as personal comfort levels are subjective, and that external factors (such as quality of the housing stock and difference in energy retail prices) also vary from region to region. While a qualitative definition may reflect more nuances, Moore also conceded that it is sometimes difficult to see such approaches be applied broadly due to their highly contextualised nature [8]. Our focus on households within the two lowest quintiles of income distribution takes after the ‘30/40 rule’ as used to calculate housing stress, where 30% or more of the income of households in the bottom 40% of income distribution is spent on housing [11]. This is similar to Moore’s proposal of a ‘low income/high cost’ measure and highlights the greater quantitative and qualitative impacts high or unaffordable energy costs may have on lowerincome households [8], as well as Simhauser et al.’s [12] finding that households in the higher income quintiles spent proportionately less of their income on energy. 2. Methodology The qualitative approach of the research reported here examined the experiences of energy poverty by lower-income households living in the state/territory capital city and a regional town in four different climate zones across Australia (Table 1). This included focus group discussions,1 stakeholder interviews and four workshops conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. For the focus groups, we concentrated on four household types—young singles, single-parent families, large households (with five members or more), and older singles and couples—identified by Burke and Ralston [13] as being particularly vulnerable to fuel hardship. Collectively, these household types represent 33% of Australia’s total population (3% young singles, 9% single-parent families, 8% larger households, and 13% older singles and couples). Posters including group details were distributed and displayed by local Salvation Army service provider offices, tenancy advocacy groups, and interested parties signed up directly with the research team using a toll-free number or via email. Due to the voluntary nature of the sign up, the findings discussed in this paper are not scientifically representative of these household types but nonetheless provide indications of the types of challenges and impacts en-
1 Six participants who could not attend the set focus group times were interviewed separately. These participants and discussions are included in the overall focus group accounts.
ergy poverty have on their daily lives (see [14] on representativeness of qualitative data). The discussions concentrated on households’ attitudes to and use of low carbon technologies, the barriers they faced in transitioning to low carbon living, the support they received, and the outcomes of unaffordable energy. Over 80% of participating households had incomes within the lowest quintile of their respective state/territory (i.e. less than $600/week gross. At the time of writing, AUD$600 was approximately USD$455 and EUR€390), lived in rental (half of which in public or other subsidised housing—henceforth subsidised housing—and the other half in private rental) with their main income being some form of government benefit allowance [15]. In all, 164 households participated in 23 focus group discussions across the eight settings. In each of the four states/territory, stakeholder interviews were conducted with government and non-government service providers—including charities that assisted lower-income households (such as in the form of emergency energy payments, food parcels, and financial counselling)—to discuss the types and outcomes of support they provided, and how these were influenced by local, state and federal policies. Eighteen stakeholders were interviewed. Four policy workshops involving 33 participants were also held—one in each of the capital cities—to discuss focus group and interview findings and potential solutions with representatives of state agencies, non-profit service providers and energy advocates. All interviews and focus group and workshop discussions were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The transcripts were analysed thematically with the aid of the qualitative data analysis software NVivo, using the focus group and interview schedules as guides. 3. Findings: experiencing energy poverty The timing of the research reported in this paper coincided with an extraordinary period in Australia’s energy history where the cost of electricity—the main form of energy for domestic consumption—had increased dramatically and rapidly. For most Australian states and territories, average electricity unit prices increased by at least 75%—and in the cases of New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland, more than doubled—between 2007 and 2014 [17]. These increases significantly outpaced increases in the overall consumer price index, a standardised measure of changes in the price level of consumable market goods and services purchased by households, which increased by just 21% over the same period [18]. More importantly, these increases in energy costs far outweighed the average increases in welfare benefits, the main form of income for most of our participants, which was indexed against the overall consumer price index, equivalent to around 2% per annum. There have since been reports of further energy cost rises that continue to exacerbate the magnitude of this gap between households’ expenditure on energy, other consumables, and their income [19]. Since the focus of this research was not to provide a quantitative measurement of the extent of energy poverty—we did not
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
295
Table 2 Proportion of post-housing income spent on energy by support payment types. Support payment type Age pension Newstart
Disability Support Pension
Single Couple Single (<22 no dependents) Single (≥22 no dependents) Single (<22 with dependents) Single (≥22 with dependents) Single (≥60 no dependents) Couple (≥22 no dependents) Couple (≥22 with dependents) Single (<18 no dependents) Single (<18 with dependents) Single (18–20 no dependents) Single (18–20 with dependents) Single (21+) Couple (both <22) Couple (both ≥22)
Maximum fortnightly payment
% (SH)
% (HP)
$873.90 (USD662.71, EUR€426.03) $1317.40 (USD$999.03, EUR€642.23) $450.55 (USD$341.67, EUR€219.64) $544.95 (USD$413.26, EUR€265.66) $585.65 (USD$444.12, EUR€285.51) $588.85 (USD$446.55, EUR€287.07) $588.85 (USD$446.55, EUR€287.07) $889.32 (USD$674.4, EUR€433.54) $974.32 (USD$738.86, EUR€474.98) $565.80 (USD$429.07, EUR€275.83) $800.70 (USD$607.20, EUR€390.34) $565.83 (USD$429.09, EUR€275.84) $801.40 (USD$607.73, EUR€390.68) $803.90 (USD$609.62, EUR€391.90) $1131.60 (USD$858.13, EUR€551.66) $1216.40 (USD$922.44, EUR€593.00)
8% 10% 15% 12% 23% 23% 11% 15% 14% 12% 17% 12% 17% 8% 12% 11%
11% 15% 22% 18% 34% 34% 17% 22% 21% 18% 25% 18% 25% 12% 18% 16%
Note: All income support payment applicants subject to asset and eligibility tests. Maximum fortnightly payment at 20 March 2016, including maximum basic rate and, if eligible, maximum pension supplement (annual supplements were adjusted to fortnightly values) and energy supplement. All rates are adjusted half yearly on 20 March and 20 September [24]. Some states/territories provide additional energy supplements to eligible applicants. Rent is assumed as 25% of income, amount paid by participants in public housing. Participants in community housing paid 30% (offset by Commonwealth Rent Assistance), while participates in private rental would likely pay a higher proportion of income on rent still. % (SH) denotes the share of disposable income spent on energy if participant was on a fortnightly payment plan (assumes single on AUD$50 per fortnight and couple and families on AUD$100 per fortnight) if they lived in subsidised housing. % (HP) denotes share of disposable income spent on energy if participant was on a fortnightly payment plan and concurrently experiencing housing precarity (i.e. paying 50% or more of income on housing).
ask our participants to accurately account their energy spending in relation to their income—participants described the level of energy unaffordability in two main ways. First, most noted that energy was their household’s third highest living cost after housing and food.2 Second, the majority of participants had previously fallen behind on energy bill payments. As a result, most were on payment plans of fixed fortnightly payments, with some having entered them voluntarily in lieu of larger quarterly bills, while others were put on payment plans by their energy provider to repay the accrued debt as well as any additional usage. Participating households on payment plans typically noted that they paid between $50 (for singles; USD$37.92, EUR€32.50) and $100 (for couples and families; USD$75.83, EUR€65.00) per fortnight. These equated to $600 (USD$455.00, EUR€390.00) and $1200 (USD$910.0 0, EUR€780.0 0) per quarter, above the average of $400– $70 0 (USD$303.33–$530.83, EUR€260.0 0–€455.0 0) for households that paid quarterly, and more than noted in the Household Expenditure Survey data that covered the same time period where the mean domestic fuel and power spending for all households was $508.56 (USD$385.66, EUR€330.56) per quarter [20]. Using the common fortnightly payment amounts of $50 for singles and $100 for couples and families and maximum benefit payments by support type (as at March 2016), we calculated the proportion these fortnightly payment amounts comprised of these households’ income after housing cost (Table 2). It is clear that most households living on welfare benefit payments were particularly vulnerable to energy poverty. The extent of their experiences of energy poverty intensified if these households were also experiencing housing precarity (spending 50% or more of income on housing) concurrently, with many spending close to a quarter of their post-housing income on energy. The situations were particularly critical for young individuals and couples who qualified for lower maximum basic rates and supplement amounts.
2 This corresponds with results of the most recent Household Expenditure Survey—which covered the same time period as our fieldwork (2015–16)—where domestic fuel and power is the third highest household weekly expenditure (mean $39.12/week) after housing (mean $246.66/week) and food and non-alcoholic beverages (mean $213.76/week) [20].
Recent research highlights that households in metropolitan areas and living in private rental accommodation were particularly vulnerable to experiencing housing precarity [21,22]. In Sydney, widely acknowledged as one of the cities with the most expensive housing costs worldwide [23], for example, there was resignation among many of our participants who rented privately that increasing proportions of their income would be spent on rent, leaving them less to spend on essentials including on energy. As a singleparent from southwestern Sydney explained, this led to compensatory behaviours that limited her household’s use of energy in order to stay on budget: “Electric bill, you can control yourself, turn on, turn off. What about property, for rent? You can’t control.” In the next section, we discuss how experiences of energy poverty are influenced by the local energy market and regional policies across the four different climate zones.
4. Discussion: regional variations across climate zones This section provides an analysis by climate zone of how local conditions, policies and availability of—and access to—assistance programs impact on the experiences of energy poverty. From a policy and assistance perspective particularly, while at the national level, an Energy Rebate is available to eligible households (subject to the same income and asset tests as those applying for lowincome and/or unemployment benefits as highlighted in Table 2), each state and territory also had their own assistance programs where the form, amount and frequency varied. For example, Victoria was the only Australian jurisdiction that provided an energy supplement as a percentage of the total bill while all other states and territories provided these at fixed rates. Different supplements could also be provided to electricity and gas account holders. Such discrepancies led the Audit Office of NSW to conclude that current energy supplements are unnecessarily complex and, in some cases, questionably inequitable [25]. As such, the types and likelihood of assistance accessed by our participants also varied across the different climate zones (Table 3). These differences in policies and assistance, along with other local conditions, are discussed in further detail in the following sections.
296
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
Table 3 Assistance accessed by participants.
4.2. Warm temperate – dry
Type of Assistance
NSW
SA
TAS
NT
Bill assistance Light bulb exchange Energy audit Solar panel subsidy Fridge buy-back Other No assistance received More than one type of assistance received
39% 37% 24% 16% 3% 3% 27% 33%
37% 37% 9% 12% 5% 0% 28% 23%
24% 35% 22% 19% 8% 0% 24% 22%
42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 0%
4.1. Warm temperate – humid The warm temperate zone is represented in our research by the two states of NSW and SA, specifically their capital cities of Sydney and Adelaide and regional towns of Raymond Terrace and Murray Bridge. While climatically different—both Sydney and Raymond Terrace are more humid than the two SA sites—both of these states enjoy strong competition in energy retailing following industry privatisation in the 1990s. As one older social tenant in Sydney explained: “It’s a very competitive environment at the moment and they’re all trying to beat each other.” At the time of our fieldwork (2015–16), for example, there were 83 electricity and/or gas retailers registered to operate in NSW; these have subsequently increased to 102 by mid-2018 [27]. The prevalence of energy poverty was, therefore, partially offset by the market competition created through privatisation, with a high number of energy retailers competing for customers. As a result, a small number of our participants were able to negotiate discounted rates for on-time payments or switch their services to retailers that were able to offer a lower rate: “I experienced an increase of electricity—an average about probably 20%. Then I’ve called the company and negotiate with the company the rate. They can give me discount and—I said otherwise I have to go and jump to another company, and they agreed, and they gave me a better rate. That’s my deal, 24% [discount].” (older single in subsidised rental, metropolitan NSW) “I used to be with [retailer A] but then I changed to [retailer B] and that’s a lot cheaper than the other one.” (older single in subsidised rental, metropolitan NSW) There was also a wider availability of assistance programs in NSW. Particularly, there were more energy audit programs available in NSW than in the other case study states. This has led to more households benefitting from small-scale weatherisation improvements. While the prevalence of whitegoods exchange was relatively low in NSW in 2016 (3%), a more recent introduction may see the uptake increase [26]. As an outcome, the proportion of NSW participants who received multiple types of assistance was higher than in the other case study states, while the proportion who received no assistance at all was lower (Table 3). With our NSW participants more likely to live in apartments (41% compared to 24% of all other participants)—and therefore less likely to access on-site solar electricity generation (7%, compared to recent estimates of one-quarter of all Australian households now having on-site solar generation [28])—and also in private rental (42%, compared to 32% of all other participants) in markets where split incentives are still prevalent [29], negotiating with energy retailers may be one of the few strategies available to these households. As a NSW-based energy advocate we interviewed criticised, however, this is not necessarily an effective form of assistance, as he explained: “a pay-on-time discount is useless, mostly because they’re not going to have the money, you know, to pay up front.”
Despite three other states having experienced more rapid electricity price increases, SA is noted as having the highest domestic electricity retail rates in Australia [30]. This high rate is due to a combination of significant investments into renewable energy production and a relatively small population supporting the ongoing maintenance of ageing grid infrastructure [31]. Its struggle in this time of transition from coal-fired generation to renewables is well-documented [32]. Many of our participants, therefore, implemented compensatory behaviours to limit their usage, though would still experience an increase in costs: “The kilowatt per hour that I’m using has decreased. The kilowatt per hour I am paying for has rapidly increased” (single-parent in private rental, metropolitan SA). This is despite being in the privatised market like NSW, where 100 retailers currently compete for customers. Being less humid than the NSW case sites, several of our SA participants were able to use evaporative systems for cooling. While noting it was typically not their preferred method, commonly due to its noise, most noted it as more cost-effective to operate than air conditioning, as this single-parent participant explained: “I actually hate evaporative cooling but in order to be able to afford the energy bill when I bought my home I put evaporative cooling in and ducted gas. It’s cost me as much to install the air conditioners putting ducted reverse cycle but I’m not petrified of turning the things on. It works plus I have ceiling fans which I like but evaporative is not what I’d choose to run but just so that I can run it and not worry so much about the electricity bill I have evaporative, which is low on carbon usage anyway.” (owner-occupier, metropolitan SA) Compared to Sydney, both Adelaide and Murray Bridge have relatively low population density and less frequent and unreliable public transport services. Several of our Adelaide-based participants also noted that certain assistance programs, or appointments to gain assistance, were only available in the city offices of public agencies. These in combination created disincentives for seeking help. “If you have an appointment and you have to be there for a certain time you don’t know what time they’re [the busses] going to rock up. They could be early and then you miss it or they can be 10, 20 minutes late and then you miss your appointment. It’s not easy at all even with public transport.” (single-parent in subsidised rental, metropolitan SA) 4.3. Cool temperate The entire southern state of TAS (with the exception of its very centre, which is in the Alpine zone) is classified as being in the Cool temperate zone. Unlike its mainland counterparts, hydrogeneration is TAS’s predominant form of electricity generation, with its first hydroelectric plant in operation since the 1910s. Its mountainous topography and abundance of water resources made hydro-generation a highly viable option for TAS, with Sims [33] reporting that by the late 1980s it was generating 19% of Australia’s electricity though only comprising 5% of the total population. This focus on hydro-generation was, however, not without its controversies, with oppositions against further plant construction a regular occurrence throughout the expansion period of 1970s and 1980s [33]. Because of its separation from the mainland, TAS did not join the National Energy Market—which joins the regional grids of Queensland, NSW, SA, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory as one—until 2005, following which a Basslink connector was
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
commissioned and constructed in 2006. The Basslink allowed a portion of the electricity generated by the sole state-owned producer to be sold to these mainland markets. With recent population growth and experiences of drought, however, several participants expressed concern of the producer in a monopolised market in prioritising profit-making over maintaining local supplies: “Participant 1: I think we were getting more power exported over than what we were seeing half the time. That’s the trouble. Participant 2: I can’t understand the obsession we have with making a profit out of public utility.” (older singles in private and subsidised rentals, metropolitan TAS) This concern was proved valid, with our workshop participants explaining the government’s plans to build new diesel generators to make up for recent shortfalls in local supplies while maintaining the same feed-in strategy to the National Energy Market via the Basslink. In contrast to its mainland counterparts, TAS is to date the only Australian jurisdiction to have introduced minimum standards to rental homes [34]. This has, however, been a long-term process— “it’s a dialogue that’s been going on for 20 years” (workshop participant)—with the approved standards remaining low and have not typically incorporated any efficiency-related criteria. Its relatively recent introduction (2015) has yet to have any impacts on the housing quality of the households who participated in this research. Being a cooler climate zone, there was a stronger need for heating in TAS. The unaffordability of energy, however, has seen a greater reliance on wood heating and recent increases in illegal activities like wood hooking. This charity worker who participated in our workshop explained: “An interesting thing from a natural environment perspective is with the rising power costs in Tasmania, a lot more people have installed wood heaters. As a result of a bigger demand for wood, you’ve got more wood hooking. […] This is a huge problem in Tasmania, the governments or whatever occasionally step in and go ‘we’re trying to try and get a handle on wood hooking’, but they can’t. They can’t keep up with it.” 4.4. High humidity summer, warm winter Among all case studies, NT participants reported the highest energy expenditure. This is partly the result of the local climate, where the hot and humid ‘wet season’ lasts for several months of the year, and air conditioning is needed to both reduce the level of humidity as well as the temperature to a comfortable level [35]. There was also a lack of competition, where all electricity (except for households that are off-grid) was retailed by a recently privatised arm of the government-owned energy producer. One singleparent participant who lived in subsidised rental in Darwin (the focus group took place a few weeks after the end of the wet season) highlighted that “I pay $1200 (USD$910.00, EUR€780.00) every three months. That’s just in electricity” (around 24% of her income ex-rent), while also noting that her friend (also a single-parent in Darwin) recently had a $30 0 0 (USD$2275.0 0, EUR€1950.0 0) quarterly electricity bill during the wet season. These amounts were commonly reported by our participants from the NT, experiences that were confirmed by the stakeholders we interviewed. Being a territory as opposed to a state government, many national policies would not apply to the NT. It also receives central funding differently. As a result, the types and scale of assistance programs (whether energy-related or not) available in NT also differed to all other jurisdictions. Our NT participants, for example, only recalled accessing bill assistance, with almost three-fifths not
297
having accessed any type of assistance at all (Table 3). This was more than twice the level in the three other states. A representative of the territory-owned energy producer we interviewed noted that, due to Katherine’s (and other similar towns) relative remoteness and low density, it was economically more viable to install small-scale solar farms than construct and maintain diesel electricity generators. This also includes working with the subsidised housing provider to install solar hot water systems in these townships. As a result, there was a higher number and proportion of our regional NT participants who had access to solar electricity and solar hot water, which had resulted in lower energy bills and more reliable services. Assistance programs aside, changes to the building code have also impacted on the energy efficiency and thermal comfort levels of residences. In the NT, a cyclone in 1974 caused significant damage to the city of Darwin [36]; as a result the building regulations for the territory were changed. This change is noted to have shifted housing construction to more robust materials and designs that are often not suitable to the tropical weather, meaning a stronger reliance on air conditioning and, therefore, higher energy expenditure [37]. This reflection was confirmed by a housing specialist we interviewed: “A lot of the designs post-Cyclone Tracy3 were basically bomb shelters I call them. They’re solid prefab concrete which are great maybe down south in winter but up here… The shock of Cyclone Tracy really had an indelible mark on the psyche of a lot of people afterwards. So they thought ‘oh, we’ve got to build these really strong structural houses’.” 5. Conclusion This paper showcases that the prevalence and experiences of energy poverty differed not only by climatic conditions but also other political, historical and market factors by comparing the experiences of energy poverty by lower-income households across four Australian climatic zones. While climate understandably affected the heating and cooling needs, other contributing factors of energy usage and poverty included the design appropriateness of homes, local energy market conditions, and the availability of assistance. These different factors were in addition to many lowerincome households being private tenants, which, within the Australian context, typically left them with few recourses to physically improve the energy efficiency and thermal comfort of their rented homes [29]. In a neoliberal political environment, while the privatisation of energy markets has at times been criticised for prioritising profits over service [17], several of our participants in NSW and SA were able to benefit from the market competition that resulted and negotiated better deals. These deals, however, were typically inappropriate to their financially-limited situations. There were similar concerns of prioritising profit over service in a non-privatised market like TAS, where business decisions in selling energy interstate rather than for local consumption had led to the building of diesel generators to make up for the shortfall while local TAS consumers were also left with no alternatives in a monopoly. Perhaps the most significant difference across our case studies is their jurisdictional status, which significantly impacted on whether and how national regulations, standards and funding for assistance are applied and distributed. As a territory, the NT did not receive the same types of assistance our other three state case studies did. Its history of cyclonic damage also led to changes to
3 Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that resulted in widespread damage to the city of Darwin in December 1974 to the tunes of several hundred millions and dozens in fatalities [35].
298
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
the building code, which preferred designs for structural security over climatic suitability. While a quantitative approach would measure the prevalence and extent of energy poverty across the four climatic zones, our qualitative approach revealed the different factors that influenced the experiences and outcomes of living with energy poverty and how these varied in different intranational contexts. This is very much in contrast to most existing work that has compared across national borders (e.g. [6,7]), demonstrating that policy and market variations—as contributing factors to the prevalence and experiences of energy poverty—can also occur within national contexts irrespective of climatic conditions. In this regard, our findings as discussed throughout this paper resonate with international calls for more nuanced and contextualised measures of energy poverty (e.g. [3]). It also highlights that assistance to alleviate the experiences of energy poverty should likewise respond to local contexts, be they in the form of direct financial assistance by switching to percentage-based rather than fixed rate assistance, or have higher rates for high-cost areas, or in policy-setting such as through introducing and/or upgrading minimum housing quality standards, ensuring affordable local energy supply through a guarantee, and ensuring cross departmental coordination to avoid situations where changes to the building code for structural security is undertaken at the expense of environmental sustainability and increased operating and maintenance costs of the dwelling. The qualitative approach our research took reveals the more nuanced outcomes of energy poverty. It, however, does not reflect the extent to which each of the four household types included in our study experience energy poverty. Researchers of future studies should consider taking a mixed-method approach to concurrently examine the breadth and depth of the issue. Acknowledgement Funding: This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (RP3038), with in-kind support from the Salvation Army. Supplementary material Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.023. References [1] O. Aristondo, E. Onaindia, Counting energy poverty in Spain between 2004 and 2015, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 420–429. [2] D. Evans, Thrifty, green or frugal: reflections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate, Geoforum 42 (2011) 550–557. [3] S. Pachauri, D. Spreng, Measuring and monitoring energy poverty, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7497–7504. [4] W. Anderson, V. White, A. Finney, Coping with low incomes and cold homes, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 40–52. [5] S. Bouzarovski, S. Petrova, R. Salamanov, Energy poverty policies in the EU: a critical perspective, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 76–82. [6] S. Bouzarovski, H. Thomson, Energy vulnerability in the grain of the city: toward neighborhood typologies of material deprivation’, Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108 (2018) 695–717.
[7] S. Buzar, Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden Geographies of Deprivation, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007. [8] R. Moore, Definitions of fuel poverty: implications for policy, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 19–26. [9] B. Boardman, Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1991. [10] C. Waddams Price, K. Brazier, W. Wang, Objective and subjective measures of fuel poverty, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 33–39. [11] ABS, Survey of Income and Housing, User Guide, Australia: Summary of Results, 2012, Cat. No. 4670.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2015. [12] P. Simhauser, T. Nelson, T. Doan, The boomerang paradox II: policy prescriptions for reducing fuel poverty in Australia, Electr. J. 24 (2011) 63–75. [13] T. Burke, L. Ralston, Household Energy Use: Consumption and Expenditure Patterns 1993–2012, Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, 2015. [14] K. Bennett, Interviews and focus groups, in: P. Shurmer-Smith (Ed.), Doing Cultural Geography, SAGE, London, 2002, pp. 151–164. [15] E. Liu, B. Judd, RP3038: Lower Income Barriers to Low Carbon Living – Summary of Focus Group and Survey Findings, Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, 2016. [16] ABCB, Climate Zone Map: Australia Wide, Australian Building Codes Board, 2016 https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Tools-Calculators/ Climate- Zone- Map- Australia- Wide accessed 22 March 2016. [17] L. Chester, The privatisation of Australian electricity: claims, myths and facts, Econ. Labour Relat. Rev. 26 (2015) 218–240. [18] ABS, Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016, Cat. No. 6401.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2016. [19] ACOSS, EEC, PCA, Energy Bills and Energy Efficiency: Survey of Community Views by YouGov Galaxy, Australian Council of Social Service, Energy Efficiency Council and Property Council of Australia, 2018. [20] ABS, Household Expenditure Survey, Australia, 2015-16, Cat. No. 6503.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2018. [21] P. Kemp, Low-income tenants in the private rental housing market, Hous. Stud. 26 (2011) 1019–1034. [22] K. Greenop, Understanding housing precarity: more than access to a shelter, housing is essential for a decent life, Glob. Discourse 7 (2015) 489–495. [23] B. Birrell, D. McCloskey, Sydney and Melbourne’s Housing Affordability Crisis – Report Two: No End in Sight, The Australian Population Research Institute, 2016. [24] DHS, Income Support Payment Description, Commonwealth Department of Human Services, 2018 https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/ income- support- payment- description accessed 4 June 2018. [25] Audit Office of NSW, Energy Rebates for Low Income Households, 2017. [26] NSW DPE, Rebates and Discounts, New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, 2018 https://energysaver.nsw.gov.au/households/ rebates- and- discounts accessed 29 October 2018. [27] AER, Public Register of Authorised Retailers and Authorisation Applications – Current Retailers, Australian Energy Regulator, 2016 http: //www.aer.gov.au/retail-markets/authorisations/public- register- of- authorisedretailers- and- authorisation- applications?f[0]=field_accc_aer_status%3A7&f[1] =field_accc_aer_region%3A14 accessed 25 May 2016. [28] AEC, Solar Report, Quarter 3, 2018, Australian Energy Council, 2018. [29] E. Liu, B. Judd, Tenure as barrier to low carbon living, in: 8th State of Australian Cities Conference, 28–30 November, Adelaide, Australia, 2017. [30] D. McConnell, D. Blowers, FactCheck: does South Australia have the ‘highest energy prices’ in the nation and ‘the least reliable grid’? The Conversation (13 March 2018). https://theconversation.com/factcheck- does- south- australiahave- the- highest- energy- prices- in- the- nation- and- the- least- reliable- grid92928. accessed 13 June 2018. [31] L. Brailsford, A. Stock, G. Bourne, P. Stock, Powering Progress: States Renewable Energy Race, The Climate Council, 2018. [32] D. Keane, Tesla Battery Cost Revealed Two Years After SA Blackout, The Guardian, 28 September 2018. [33] G. Sims, Hydroelectric energy, Energy Policy 19 (1991) 776–786. [34] Tas CAFT, Minimum Standards for Premises: A Guide for Tenants and Property Owners, Tasmanian Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading, 2015. [35] M. Pope, C. Jakob, M. Reeder, Regimes of the North Australian Wet Season, J. Clim. 22 (2009) 6699–6715. [36] Bureau of Meteorology, Severe Tropical Cyclone Tracy, 1974 http://www.bom. gov.au/cyclone/history/tracy.shtml accessed 13 June 2018. [37] G. Walker, A review of the impact of Cyclone Tracy on building regulations and insurance, Aust. Meteorol. Oceanogr. J. 60 (2010) 199–206.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy & Buildings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild
Regional variations in the experiences of energy poverty across Australia Edgar Liu∗, Bruce Judd City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of Built Environment University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 June 2018 Revised 2 May 2019 Accepted 10 May 2019 Available online 11 May 2019 Keywords: Energy poverty Australia Qualitative outcomes Energy policy Housing policy Welfare assistance
a b s t r a c t Academic interests into energy poverty have been growing since the 1990s. These have ranged from quantitative measures and qualitative reflections, as well as ones that aimed to provide more nuanced definitions. These studies have, however, typically focused on single jurisdictions or across national borders, with very few examining the issue across different climatic and policy contexts within the same nation. This paper aims to address this gap by focussing on differences in climate conditions, local policies and quality of the housing stock across Australia and reflects on how these factors each played a role, to varying degrees, in the prevalence of energy poverty amongst lower-income households across eight metropolitan and regional settings conducted as part of a recent study in Australia. Through a review of focus group, interview and workshop data, it especially highlights the more qualitative impacts of energy poverty, and how each of these factors come to influence the extent to which lower-income households experience energy poverty and the support they were able to access. Additional to the need for more contextualised measures of energy poverty, this paper calls for localised responses to alleviate the negative outcomes reflected by our participants in regard to both energy and housing policies. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Academic interests into energy poverty have been growing since the 1990s. These have ranged from quantitative measures and qualitative reflections, as well as ones that aimed to provide more nuanced definitions of the concept [1–3]. These studies have, however, typically focused on single jurisdictions [4] or across national borders [5], with very few examining the issue across different climatic and policy contexts within the same nation [6]. This paper aims to address this gap. As a nation, Australia includes a diverse range of climatic zones from the tropical north to both dry and humid temperate regions and the cool-temperate south. As a federation of state and territory governments, there are both national and local policy settings regarding energy supply, efficiency and support programs for those experiencing energy poverty. This paper reflects on the different factors that influence the prevalence and outcomes of energy poverty in eight different metropolitan and regional settings across four different climate zones in Australia. Particularly, it focuses on the qualitative outcomes experienced by lower-income households—defined as those within the two lowest quintiles of their respective state/territory’s income distribution—
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Liu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.023 0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
and their ability to access support services. This is in contrast to other comparative studies where comparisons were typically made across different national rather than climatic settings (e.g. [7]). Our focus on lower-income households is important and takes after Moore’s [8] suggestion of a ‘low income/high cost’ measure with the understanding that lower-income households have more limited capacities (financial and others) to cope with high and increasing energy expenditure. Through a review of focus group and interview data, this paper highlights the qualitative impacts of energy poverty, and how factors such as housing quality and tenure together with local energy markets and regional policies come to influence the extent to which lower-income households experience energy poverty.
1.1. Background Studies into energy poverty were first popularised in the early 1990s. The term was introduced by Boardman [9] in the United Kingdom (UK) context, especially in relation to households’ ability to heat their homes during cold winters. The term describes situations where ten or more percent of a household’s disposable income was spent on energy, and therefore takes a relatively quantitative approach. While relatively easy to calculate and comprehend, it is often criticised for being too simplistic and does not necessarily reflect varying local contexts and broader outcomes. As
294
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298 Table 1 Case study sites and selected characteristics [15]. Climate zonea
Warm temperate – humid
Warm temperate – dry
Cool temperate
High humidity summer, warm winter
Sate/Territory Capital cityb Regional townb Distance to capital cityc
New South Wales (NSW) Sydney (45%) Raymond Terrace (55%) 169 km (2 h)
South Australia (SA) Adelaide (44%) Murray Bridge (55%) 77 km (1 h)
Tasmania (TAS) Hobart (46%) New Norfolk (57%) 35 km (0.7 h)
Northern Territory (NT) Darwin (49%) Katherine (50%) 316 km (3 h)
a Differentiation of climate zones based on Australian Building Codes Board [16], with Warm temperate further divided by the two metropolitan areas’ relative humidity levels. b Percentage of families with income within the two lowest quintiles of their respective state/territory’s capital city included in brackets. c Indicative driving time included in brackets.
Pachauri and Spreng [3] noted, the shortcoming particularly lies with the difficulty to “trace back changes in energy poverty levels to specific efforts since other factors such as general economic growth, social and infrastructural development also influence it.” In the study reported in this paper, we qualitatively reflect on experiences of energy poverty, and specifically consider the social and personal outcomes unaffordable energy has on lowerincome households. This follows particularly Waddams Price et al. [10] and their differentiation of expenditure fuel poverty and felt fuel poverty, that it is difficult to calculate objective measures of energy poverty as personal comfort levels are subjective, and that external factors (such as quality of the housing stock and difference in energy retail prices) also vary from region to region. While a qualitative definition may reflect more nuances, Moore also conceded that it is sometimes difficult to see such approaches be applied broadly due to their highly contextualised nature [8]. Our focus on households within the two lowest quintiles of income distribution takes after the ‘30/40 rule’ as used to calculate housing stress, where 30% or more of the income of households in the bottom 40% of income distribution is spent on housing [11]. This is similar to Moore’s proposal of a ‘low income/high cost’ measure and highlights the greater quantitative and qualitative impacts high or unaffordable energy costs may have on lowerincome households [8], as well as Simhauser et al.’s [12] finding that households in the higher income quintiles spent proportionately less of their income on energy. 2. Methodology The qualitative approach of the research reported here examined the experiences of energy poverty by lower-income households living in the state/territory capital city and a regional town in four different climate zones across Australia (Table 1). This included focus group discussions,1 stakeholder interviews and four workshops conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. For the focus groups, we concentrated on four household types—young singles, single-parent families, large households (with five members or more), and older singles and couples—identified by Burke and Ralston [13] as being particularly vulnerable to fuel hardship. Collectively, these household types represent 33% of Australia’s total population (3% young singles, 9% single-parent families, 8% larger households, and 13% older singles and couples). Posters including group details were distributed and displayed by local Salvation Army service provider offices, tenancy advocacy groups, and interested parties signed up directly with the research team using a toll-free number or via email. Due to the voluntary nature of the sign up, the findings discussed in this paper are not scientifically representative of these household types but nonetheless provide indications of the types of challenges and impacts en-
1 Six participants who could not attend the set focus group times were interviewed separately. These participants and discussions are included in the overall focus group accounts.
ergy poverty have on their daily lives (see [14] on representativeness of qualitative data). The discussions concentrated on households’ attitudes to and use of low carbon technologies, the barriers they faced in transitioning to low carbon living, the support they received, and the outcomes of unaffordable energy. Over 80% of participating households had incomes within the lowest quintile of their respective state/territory (i.e. less than $600/week gross. At the time of writing, AUD$600 was approximately USD$455 and EUR€390), lived in rental (half of which in public or other subsidised housing—henceforth subsidised housing—and the other half in private rental) with their main income being some form of government benefit allowance [15]. In all, 164 households participated in 23 focus group discussions across the eight settings. In each of the four states/territory, stakeholder interviews were conducted with government and non-government service providers—including charities that assisted lower-income households (such as in the form of emergency energy payments, food parcels, and financial counselling)—to discuss the types and outcomes of support they provided, and how these were influenced by local, state and federal policies. Eighteen stakeholders were interviewed. Four policy workshops involving 33 participants were also held—one in each of the capital cities—to discuss focus group and interview findings and potential solutions with representatives of state agencies, non-profit service providers and energy advocates. All interviews and focus group and workshop discussions were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The transcripts were analysed thematically with the aid of the qualitative data analysis software NVivo, using the focus group and interview schedules as guides. 3. Findings: experiencing energy poverty The timing of the research reported in this paper coincided with an extraordinary period in Australia’s energy history where the cost of electricity—the main form of energy for domestic consumption—had increased dramatically and rapidly. For most Australian states and territories, average electricity unit prices increased by at least 75%—and in the cases of New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland, more than doubled—between 2007 and 2014 [17]. These increases significantly outpaced increases in the overall consumer price index, a standardised measure of changes in the price level of consumable market goods and services purchased by households, which increased by just 21% over the same period [18]. More importantly, these increases in energy costs far outweighed the average increases in welfare benefits, the main form of income for most of our participants, which was indexed against the overall consumer price index, equivalent to around 2% per annum. There have since been reports of further energy cost rises that continue to exacerbate the magnitude of this gap between households’ expenditure on energy, other consumables, and their income [19]. Since the focus of this research was not to provide a quantitative measurement of the extent of energy poverty—we did not
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
295
Table 2 Proportion of post-housing income spent on energy by support payment types. Support payment type Age pension Newstart
Disability Support Pension
Single Couple Single (<22 no dependents) Single (≥22 no dependents) Single (<22 with dependents) Single (≥22 with dependents) Single (≥60 no dependents) Couple (≥22 no dependents) Couple (≥22 with dependents) Single (<18 no dependents) Single (<18 with dependents) Single (18–20 no dependents) Single (18–20 with dependents) Single (21+) Couple (both <22) Couple (both ≥22)
Maximum fortnightly payment
% (SH)
% (HP)
$873.90 (USD662.71, EUR€426.03) $1317.40 (USD$999.03, EUR€642.23) $450.55 (USD$341.67, EUR€219.64) $544.95 (USD$413.26, EUR€265.66) $585.65 (USD$444.12, EUR€285.51) $588.85 (USD$446.55, EUR€287.07) $588.85 (USD$446.55, EUR€287.07) $889.32 (USD$674.4, EUR€433.54) $974.32 (USD$738.86, EUR€474.98) $565.80 (USD$429.07, EUR€275.83) $800.70 (USD$607.20, EUR€390.34) $565.83 (USD$429.09, EUR€275.84) $801.40 (USD$607.73, EUR€390.68) $803.90 (USD$609.62, EUR€391.90) $1131.60 (USD$858.13, EUR€551.66) $1216.40 (USD$922.44, EUR€593.00)
8% 10% 15% 12% 23% 23% 11% 15% 14% 12% 17% 12% 17% 8% 12% 11%
11% 15% 22% 18% 34% 34% 17% 22% 21% 18% 25% 18% 25% 12% 18% 16%
Note: All income support payment applicants subject to asset and eligibility tests. Maximum fortnightly payment at 20 March 2016, including maximum basic rate and, if eligible, maximum pension supplement (annual supplements were adjusted to fortnightly values) and energy supplement. All rates are adjusted half yearly on 20 March and 20 September [24]. Some states/territories provide additional energy supplements to eligible applicants. Rent is assumed as 25% of income, amount paid by participants in public housing. Participants in community housing paid 30% (offset by Commonwealth Rent Assistance), while participates in private rental would likely pay a higher proportion of income on rent still. % (SH) denotes the share of disposable income spent on energy if participant was on a fortnightly payment plan (assumes single on AUD$50 per fortnight and couple and families on AUD$100 per fortnight) if they lived in subsidised housing. % (HP) denotes share of disposable income spent on energy if participant was on a fortnightly payment plan and concurrently experiencing housing precarity (i.e. paying 50% or more of income on housing).
ask our participants to accurately account their energy spending in relation to their income—participants described the level of energy unaffordability in two main ways. First, most noted that energy was their household’s third highest living cost after housing and food.2 Second, the majority of participants had previously fallen behind on energy bill payments. As a result, most were on payment plans of fixed fortnightly payments, with some having entered them voluntarily in lieu of larger quarterly bills, while others were put on payment plans by their energy provider to repay the accrued debt as well as any additional usage. Participating households on payment plans typically noted that they paid between $50 (for singles; USD$37.92, EUR€32.50) and $100 (for couples and families; USD$75.83, EUR€65.00) per fortnight. These equated to $600 (USD$455.00, EUR€390.00) and $1200 (USD$910.0 0, EUR€780.0 0) per quarter, above the average of $400– $70 0 (USD$303.33–$530.83, EUR€260.0 0–€455.0 0) for households that paid quarterly, and more than noted in the Household Expenditure Survey data that covered the same time period where the mean domestic fuel and power spending for all households was $508.56 (USD$385.66, EUR€330.56) per quarter [20]. Using the common fortnightly payment amounts of $50 for singles and $100 for couples and families and maximum benefit payments by support type (as at March 2016), we calculated the proportion these fortnightly payment amounts comprised of these households’ income after housing cost (Table 2). It is clear that most households living on welfare benefit payments were particularly vulnerable to energy poverty. The extent of their experiences of energy poverty intensified if these households were also experiencing housing precarity (spending 50% or more of income on housing) concurrently, with many spending close to a quarter of their post-housing income on energy. The situations were particularly critical for young individuals and couples who qualified for lower maximum basic rates and supplement amounts.
2 This corresponds with results of the most recent Household Expenditure Survey—which covered the same time period as our fieldwork (2015–16)—where domestic fuel and power is the third highest household weekly expenditure (mean $39.12/week) after housing (mean $246.66/week) and food and non-alcoholic beverages (mean $213.76/week) [20].
Recent research highlights that households in metropolitan areas and living in private rental accommodation were particularly vulnerable to experiencing housing precarity [21,22]. In Sydney, widely acknowledged as one of the cities with the most expensive housing costs worldwide [23], for example, there was resignation among many of our participants who rented privately that increasing proportions of their income would be spent on rent, leaving them less to spend on essentials including on energy. As a singleparent from southwestern Sydney explained, this led to compensatory behaviours that limited her household’s use of energy in order to stay on budget: “Electric bill, you can control yourself, turn on, turn off. What about property, for rent? You can’t control.” In the next section, we discuss how experiences of energy poverty are influenced by the local energy market and regional policies across the four different climate zones.
4. Discussion: regional variations across climate zones This section provides an analysis by climate zone of how local conditions, policies and availability of—and access to—assistance programs impact on the experiences of energy poverty. From a policy and assistance perspective particularly, while at the national level, an Energy Rebate is available to eligible households (subject to the same income and asset tests as those applying for lowincome and/or unemployment benefits as highlighted in Table 2), each state and territory also had their own assistance programs where the form, amount and frequency varied. For example, Victoria was the only Australian jurisdiction that provided an energy supplement as a percentage of the total bill while all other states and territories provided these at fixed rates. Different supplements could also be provided to electricity and gas account holders. Such discrepancies led the Audit Office of NSW to conclude that current energy supplements are unnecessarily complex and, in some cases, questionably inequitable [25]. As such, the types and likelihood of assistance accessed by our participants also varied across the different climate zones (Table 3). These differences in policies and assistance, along with other local conditions, are discussed in further detail in the following sections.
296
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
Table 3 Assistance accessed by participants.
4.2. Warm temperate – dry
Type of Assistance
NSW
SA
TAS
NT
Bill assistance Light bulb exchange Energy audit Solar panel subsidy Fridge buy-back Other No assistance received More than one type of assistance received
39% 37% 24% 16% 3% 3% 27% 33%
37% 37% 9% 12% 5% 0% 28% 23%
24% 35% 22% 19% 8% 0% 24% 22%
42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 0%
4.1. Warm temperate – humid The warm temperate zone is represented in our research by the two states of NSW and SA, specifically their capital cities of Sydney and Adelaide and regional towns of Raymond Terrace and Murray Bridge. While climatically different—both Sydney and Raymond Terrace are more humid than the two SA sites—both of these states enjoy strong competition in energy retailing following industry privatisation in the 1990s. As one older social tenant in Sydney explained: “It’s a very competitive environment at the moment and they’re all trying to beat each other.” At the time of our fieldwork (2015–16), for example, there were 83 electricity and/or gas retailers registered to operate in NSW; these have subsequently increased to 102 by mid-2018 [27]. The prevalence of energy poverty was, therefore, partially offset by the market competition created through privatisation, with a high number of energy retailers competing for customers. As a result, a small number of our participants were able to negotiate discounted rates for on-time payments or switch their services to retailers that were able to offer a lower rate: “I experienced an increase of electricity—an average about probably 20%. Then I’ve called the company and negotiate with the company the rate. They can give me discount and—I said otherwise I have to go and jump to another company, and they agreed, and they gave me a better rate. That’s my deal, 24% [discount].” (older single in subsidised rental, metropolitan NSW) “I used to be with [retailer A] but then I changed to [retailer B] and that’s a lot cheaper than the other one.” (older single in subsidised rental, metropolitan NSW) There was also a wider availability of assistance programs in NSW. Particularly, there were more energy audit programs available in NSW than in the other case study states. This has led to more households benefitting from small-scale weatherisation improvements. While the prevalence of whitegoods exchange was relatively low in NSW in 2016 (3%), a more recent introduction may see the uptake increase [26]. As an outcome, the proportion of NSW participants who received multiple types of assistance was higher than in the other case study states, while the proportion who received no assistance at all was lower (Table 3). With our NSW participants more likely to live in apartments (41% compared to 24% of all other participants)—and therefore less likely to access on-site solar electricity generation (7%, compared to recent estimates of one-quarter of all Australian households now having on-site solar generation [28])—and also in private rental (42%, compared to 32% of all other participants) in markets where split incentives are still prevalent [29], negotiating with energy retailers may be one of the few strategies available to these households. As a NSW-based energy advocate we interviewed criticised, however, this is not necessarily an effective form of assistance, as he explained: “a pay-on-time discount is useless, mostly because they’re not going to have the money, you know, to pay up front.”
Despite three other states having experienced more rapid electricity price increases, SA is noted as having the highest domestic electricity retail rates in Australia [30]. This high rate is due to a combination of significant investments into renewable energy production and a relatively small population supporting the ongoing maintenance of ageing grid infrastructure [31]. Its struggle in this time of transition from coal-fired generation to renewables is well-documented [32]. Many of our participants, therefore, implemented compensatory behaviours to limit their usage, though would still experience an increase in costs: “The kilowatt per hour that I’m using has decreased. The kilowatt per hour I am paying for has rapidly increased” (single-parent in private rental, metropolitan SA). This is despite being in the privatised market like NSW, where 100 retailers currently compete for customers. Being less humid than the NSW case sites, several of our SA participants were able to use evaporative systems for cooling. While noting it was typically not their preferred method, commonly due to its noise, most noted it as more cost-effective to operate than air conditioning, as this single-parent participant explained: “I actually hate evaporative cooling but in order to be able to afford the energy bill when I bought my home I put evaporative cooling in and ducted gas. It’s cost me as much to install the air conditioners putting ducted reverse cycle but I’m not petrified of turning the things on. It works plus I have ceiling fans which I like but evaporative is not what I’d choose to run but just so that I can run it and not worry so much about the electricity bill I have evaporative, which is low on carbon usage anyway.” (owner-occupier, metropolitan SA) Compared to Sydney, both Adelaide and Murray Bridge have relatively low population density and less frequent and unreliable public transport services. Several of our Adelaide-based participants also noted that certain assistance programs, or appointments to gain assistance, were only available in the city offices of public agencies. These in combination created disincentives for seeking help. “If you have an appointment and you have to be there for a certain time you don’t know what time they’re [the busses] going to rock up. They could be early and then you miss it or they can be 10, 20 minutes late and then you miss your appointment. It’s not easy at all even with public transport.” (single-parent in subsidised rental, metropolitan SA) 4.3. Cool temperate The entire southern state of TAS (with the exception of its very centre, which is in the Alpine zone) is classified as being in the Cool temperate zone. Unlike its mainland counterparts, hydrogeneration is TAS’s predominant form of electricity generation, with its first hydroelectric plant in operation since the 1910s. Its mountainous topography and abundance of water resources made hydro-generation a highly viable option for TAS, with Sims [33] reporting that by the late 1980s it was generating 19% of Australia’s electricity though only comprising 5% of the total population. This focus on hydro-generation was, however, not without its controversies, with oppositions against further plant construction a regular occurrence throughout the expansion period of 1970s and 1980s [33]. Because of its separation from the mainland, TAS did not join the National Energy Market—which joins the regional grids of Queensland, NSW, SA, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory as one—until 2005, following which a Basslink connector was
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
commissioned and constructed in 2006. The Basslink allowed a portion of the electricity generated by the sole state-owned producer to be sold to these mainland markets. With recent population growth and experiences of drought, however, several participants expressed concern of the producer in a monopolised market in prioritising profit-making over maintaining local supplies: “Participant 1: I think we were getting more power exported over than what we were seeing half the time. That’s the trouble. Participant 2: I can’t understand the obsession we have with making a profit out of public utility.” (older singles in private and subsidised rentals, metropolitan TAS) This concern was proved valid, with our workshop participants explaining the government’s plans to build new diesel generators to make up for recent shortfalls in local supplies while maintaining the same feed-in strategy to the National Energy Market via the Basslink. In contrast to its mainland counterparts, TAS is to date the only Australian jurisdiction to have introduced minimum standards to rental homes [34]. This has, however, been a long-term process— “it’s a dialogue that’s been going on for 20 years” (workshop participant)—with the approved standards remaining low and have not typically incorporated any efficiency-related criteria. Its relatively recent introduction (2015) has yet to have any impacts on the housing quality of the households who participated in this research. Being a cooler climate zone, there was a stronger need for heating in TAS. The unaffordability of energy, however, has seen a greater reliance on wood heating and recent increases in illegal activities like wood hooking. This charity worker who participated in our workshop explained: “An interesting thing from a natural environment perspective is with the rising power costs in Tasmania, a lot more people have installed wood heaters. As a result of a bigger demand for wood, you’ve got more wood hooking. […] This is a huge problem in Tasmania, the governments or whatever occasionally step in and go ‘we’re trying to try and get a handle on wood hooking’, but they can’t. They can’t keep up with it.” 4.4. High humidity summer, warm winter Among all case studies, NT participants reported the highest energy expenditure. This is partly the result of the local climate, where the hot and humid ‘wet season’ lasts for several months of the year, and air conditioning is needed to both reduce the level of humidity as well as the temperature to a comfortable level [35]. There was also a lack of competition, where all electricity (except for households that are off-grid) was retailed by a recently privatised arm of the government-owned energy producer. One singleparent participant who lived in subsidised rental in Darwin (the focus group took place a few weeks after the end of the wet season) highlighted that “I pay $1200 (USD$910.00, EUR€780.00) every three months. That’s just in electricity” (around 24% of her income ex-rent), while also noting that her friend (also a single-parent in Darwin) recently had a $30 0 0 (USD$2275.0 0, EUR€1950.0 0) quarterly electricity bill during the wet season. These amounts were commonly reported by our participants from the NT, experiences that were confirmed by the stakeholders we interviewed. Being a territory as opposed to a state government, many national policies would not apply to the NT. It also receives central funding differently. As a result, the types and scale of assistance programs (whether energy-related or not) available in NT also differed to all other jurisdictions. Our NT participants, for example, only recalled accessing bill assistance, with almost three-fifths not
297
having accessed any type of assistance at all (Table 3). This was more than twice the level in the three other states. A representative of the territory-owned energy producer we interviewed noted that, due to Katherine’s (and other similar towns) relative remoteness and low density, it was economically more viable to install small-scale solar farms than construct and maintain diesel electricity generators. This also includes working with the subsidised housing provider to install solar hot water systems in these townships. As a result, there was a higher number and proportion of our regional NT participants who had access to solar electricity and solar hot water, which had resulted in lower energy bills and more reliable services. Assistance programs aside, changes to the building code have also impacted on the energy efficiency and thermal comfort levels of residences. In the NT, a cyclone in 1974 caused significant damage to the city of Darwin [36]; as a result the building regulations for the territory were changed. This change is noted to have shifted housing construction to more robust materials and designs that are often not suitable to the tropical weather, meaning a stronger reliance on air conditioning and, therefore, higher energy expenditure [37]. This reflection was confirmed by a housing specialist we interviewed: “A lot of the designs post-Cyclone Tracy3 were basically bomb shelters I call them. They’re solid prefab concrete which are great maybe down south in winter but up here… The shock of Cyclone Tracy really had an indelible mark on the psyche of a lot of people afterwards. So they thought ‘oh, we’ve got to build these really strong structural houses’.” 5. Conclusion This paper showcases that the prevalence and experiences of energy poverty differed not only by climatic conditions but also other political, historical and market factors by comparing the experiences of energy poverty by lower-income households across four Australian climatic zones. While climate understandably affected the heating and cooling needs, other contributing factors of energy usage and poverty included the design appropriateness of homes, local energy market conditions, and the availability of assistance. These different factors were in addition to many lowerincome households being private tenants, which, within the Australian context, typically left them with few recourses to physically improve the energy efficiency and thermal comfort of their rented homes [29]. In a neoliberal political environment, while the privatisation of energy markets has at times been criticised for prioritising profits over service [17], several of our participants in NSW and SA were able to benefit from the market competition that resulted and negotiated better deals. These deals, however, were typically inappropriate to their financially-limited situations. There were similar concerns of prioritising profit over service in a non-privatised market like TAS, where business decisions in selling energy interstate rather than for local consumption had led to the building of diesel generators to make up for the shortfall while local TAS consumers were also left with no alternatives in a monopoly. Perhaps the most significant difference across our case studies is their jurisdictional status, which significantly impacted on whether and how national regulations, standards and funding for assistance are applied and distributed. As a territory, the NT did not receive the same types of assistance our other three state case studies did. Its history of cyclonic damage also led to changes to
3 Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that resulted in widespread damage to the city of Darwin in December 1974 to the tunes of several hundred millions and dozens in fatalities [35].
298
E. Liu and B. Judd / Energy & Buildings 196 (2019) 293–298
the building code, which preferred designs for structural security over climatic suitability. While a quantitative approach would measure the prevalence and extent of energy poverty across the four climatic zones, our qualitative approach revealed the different factors that influenced the experiences and outcomes of living with energy poverty and how these varied in different intranational contexts. This is very much in contrast to most existing work that has compared across national borders (e.g. [6,7]), demonstrating that policy and market variations—as contributing factors to the prevalence and experiences of energy poverty—can also occur within national contexts irrespective of climatic conditions. In this regard, our findings as discussed throughout this paper resonate with international calls for more nuanced and contextualised measures of energy poverty (e.g. [3]). It also highlights that assistance to alleviate the experiences of energy poverty should likewise respond to local contexts, be they in the form of direct financial assistance by switching to percentage-based rather than fixed rate assistance, or have higher rates for high-cost areas, or in policy-setting such as through introducing and/or upgrading minimum housing quality standards, ensuring affordable local energy supply through a guarantee, and ensuring cross departmental coordination to avoid situations where changes to the building code for structural security is undertaken at the expense of environmental sustainability and increased operating and maintenance costs of the dwelling. The qualitative approach our research took reveals the more nuanced outcomes of energy poverty. It, however, does not reflect the extent to which each of the four household types included in our study experience energy poverty. Researchers of future studies should consider taking a mixed-method approach to concurrently examine the breadth and depth of the issue. Acknowledgement Funding: This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (RP3038), with in-kind support from the Salvation Army. Supplementary material Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.023. References [1] O. Aristondo, E. Onaindia, Counting energy poverty in Spain between 2004 and 2015, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 420–429. [2] D. Evans, Thrifty, green or frugal: reflections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate, Geoforum 42 (2011) 550–557. [3] S. Pachauri, D. Spreng, Measuring and monitoring energy poverty, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7497–7504. [4] W. Anderson, V. White, A. Finney, Coping with low incomes and cold homes, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 40–52. [5] S. Bouzarovski, S. Petrova, R. Salamanov, Energy poverty policies in the EU: a critical perspective, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 76–82. [6] S. Bouzarovski, H. Thomson, Energy vulnerability in the grain of the city: toward neighborhood typologies of material deprivation’, Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108 (2018) 695–717.
[7] S. Buzar, Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden Geographies of Deprivation, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007. [8] R. Moore, Definitions of fuel poverty: implications for policy, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 19–26. [9] B. Boardman, Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1991. [10] C. Waddams Price, K. Brazier, W. Wang, Objective and subjective measures of fuel poverty, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 33–39. [11] ABS, Survey of Income and Housing, User Guide, Australia: Summary of Results, 2012, Cat. No. 4670.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2015. [12] P. Simhauser, T. Nelson, T. Doan, The boomerang paradox II: policy prescriptions for reducing fuel poverty in Australia, Electr. J. 24 (2011) 63–75. [13] T. Burke, L. Ralston, Household Energy Use: Consumption and Expenditure Patterns 1993–2012, Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, 2015. [14] K. Bennett, Interviews and focus groups, in: P. Shurmer-Smith (Ed.), Doing Cultural Geography, SAGE, London, 2002, pp. 151–164. [15] E. Liu, B. Judd, RP3038: Lower Income Barriers to Low Carbon Living – Summary of Focus Group and Survey Findings, Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, 2016. [16] ABCB, Climate Zone Map: Australia Wide, Australian Building Codes Board, 2016 https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Tools-Calculators/ Climate- Zone- Map- Australia- Wide accessed 22 March 2016. [17] L. Chester, The privatisation of Australian electricity: claims, myths and facts, Econ. Labour Relat. Rev. 26 (2015) 218–240. [18] ABS, Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016, Cat. No. 6401.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2016. [19] ACOSS, EEC, PCA, Energy Bills and Energy Efficiency: Survey of Community Views by YouGov Galaxy, Australian Council of Social Service, Energy Efficiency Council and Property Council of Australia, 2018. [20] ABS, Household Expenditure Survey, Australia, 2015-16, Cat. No. 6503.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2018. [21] P. Kemp, Low-income tenants in the private rental housing market, Hous. Stud. 26 (2011) 1019–1034. [22] K. Greenop, Understanding housing precarity: more than access to a shelter, housing is essential for a decent life, Glob. Discourse 7 (2015) 489–495. [23] B. Birrell, D. McCloskey, Sydney and Melbourne’s Housing Affordability Crisis – Report Two: No End in Sight, The Australian Population Research Institute, 2016. [24] DHS, Income Support Payment Description, Commonwealth Department of Human Services, 2018 https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/ income- support- payment- description accessed 4 June 2018. [25] Audit Office of NSW, Energy Rebates for Low Income Households, 2017. [26] NSW DPE, Rebates and Discounts, New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, 2018 https://energysaver.nsw.gov.au/households/ rebates- and- discounts accessed 29 October 2018. [27] AER, Public Register of Authorised Retailers and Authorisation Applications – Current Retailers, Australian Energy Regulator, 2016 http: //www.aer.gov.au/retail-markets/authorisations/public- register- of- authorisedretailers- and- authorisation- applications?f[0]=field_accc_aer_status%3A7&f[1] =field_accc_aer_region%3A14 accessed 25 May 2016. [28] AEC, Solar Report, Quarter 3, 2018, Australian Energy Council, 2018. [29] E. Liu, B. Judd, Tenure as barrier to low carbon living, in: 8th State of Australian Cities Conference, 28–30 November, Adelaide, Australia, 2017. [30] D. McConnell, D. Blowers, FactCheck: does South Australia have the ‘highest energy prices’ in the nation and ‘the least reliable grid’? The Conversation (13 March 2018). https://theconversation.com/factcheck- does- south- australiahave- the- highest- energy- prices- in- the- nation- and- the- least- reliable- grid92928. accessed 13 June 2018. [31] L. Brailsford, A. Stock, G. Bourne, P. Stock, Powering Progress: States Renewable Energy Race, The Climate Council, 2018. [32] D. Keane, Tesla Battery Cost Revealed Two Years After SA Blackout, The Guardian, 28 September 2018. [33] G. Sims, Hydroelectric energy, Energy Policy 19 (1991) 776–786. [34] Tas CAFT, Minimum Standards for Premises: A Guide for Tenants and Property Owners, Tasmanian Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading, 2015. [35] M. Pope, C. Jakob, M. Reeder, Regimes of the North Australian Wet Season, J. Clim. 22 (2009) 6699–6715. [36] Bureau of Meteorology, Severe Tropical Cyclone Tracy, 1974 http://www.bom. gov.au/cyclone/history/tracy.shtml accessed 13 June 2018. [37] G. Walker, A review of the impact of Cyclone Tracy on building regulations and insurance, Aust. Meteorol. Oceanogr. J. 60 (2010) 199–206.