Energy poverty plan, worth €2.1bn, for affected households

An energy ministry action plan for 2021 to 2030 intended to tackle energy poverty, includes funding programs worth a total of 2.1 billion euros that promise long-term support to vulnerable households by improving energy efficiency and promoting the use of RES options at homes.

The plan, forwarded for public consultation last Friday, is expected to benefit approximately 300,000 low-income households.

The plan envisions subsidies covering up to 80 percent of energy efficiency upgrades for affected households as well as RES system installations covering their energy needs.

The action plan’s section supporting energy efficiency upgrades will be combined with the existing Saving at Home program, now into its third edition.

In the EU, households are deemed to be below the energy poverty line if their energy costs needed to maintain an adequate level of warmth exceed 10 percent of income.



Stronger energy poverty support measures on the way

The energy ministry plans to announce, over the next few days, a series of revised measures aiming to offer additional energy poverty support.

This package is expected to include revisions to the Public Service Compensation (YKO) formula, preventing excessive tariff charges for high electricity consumption levels; a revised Social Residential Tariff (KOT) offering subsidies for lower-cost electricity to underpriviledged households; as well as funds to finance reconnection costs for struggling households whose electricity supply has been cut.

The ministry has been working on various measures for quite some time now but has held on to announce them all as one package.

The new Public Service Compensation (YKO) formula is intended to rectify distortions caused by the current plan. Its four existing consumption-based tariff categories are expected to be reduced to three. The imposition of higher tariffs will be limited to additional consumption amounts exceeding upper limits. At present, higher tariffs are applied to entire consumption amounts.

The current formula’s main problem concerns the 0-1,600 KWh category, which applies to nearly 95 percent of consumers. As a result of last winter’s particularly cold weather, consumption levels registered by most households exceeded the 1,600 KWh category. The next highest category’s tariff was applied to calculated the entire consumption amount. Under the new formula, higher tariff charges will apply only to consumption amounts exceeding upper limits of previous categories.

According to energypress sources, households can expect to save approximately 50 euros during the entire winter season.

The Public Service Compensation (YKO) surcharge is imposed on electricity bills to primarily subsidize high-cost electricity production on Greece’s non-interconnected islands and also support the Social Residential Tariff (KOT) program.

Under the new measures, struggling households eligible for the KOT program will be offered tariff discounts of as much as 70 percent. Property and income criteria are used to select eligible parties. Bank deposits, bonds and shares are now also expected to be taken into account under the revised KOT system.

As for electricity reconnections concerning underpriviledged households, the energy ministry will offer a ten million-euro sum enabling consumers to reconnect and be offered a second chance to service outstanding electricity bill amounts.



Electricity bill levies triggering greater energy poverty

Energy poverty, an issue affecting a growing number of consumers as a result of greater levies added to electricity bills, depsite often being unrelated to electricity supply, is the focus of an article, for energypress, by Kristian Ruby, Secretary General of Eurelectric, a sector association representing the common interests of the electricity industry throughout Europe.

By Kristian Ruby, Secretary General, Eurelectric

More and more consumers struggle to pay their energy bills and to heat or cool the place they live in. Faced with this reality, national governments should act. Consumers’ electricity bills should stop being a vehicle for financing other – sometimes totally unrelated – policies. Moreover, while energy efficiency is key to alleviate energy poverty, financing tools which leverage private investment should be chosen ahead of regulating prices or indeed imposing obligations on suppliers.

Electricity prices and “energy poverty” have recently been top of the news in several European countries with suppliers occasionally accused of being responsible. However, reality shows that the main driver for households’ electricity prices over the past few years has been policy costs and levies. According to European Commission figures, they have indeed increased by no less than 70% between 2008 and 2015. Today, their weight equates that of the energy and supply component of the bill for a residential consumer.

Consumers struggling to pay their electricity bills are of concern for companies too – beyond the fact that the cost of arrears borne by companies can amount to millions of euros – and it is in their interest to find effective solutions. Suppliers generally assist consumers who are struggling to manage their electricity usage and bills through energy efficiency advice, payment arrangements and appropriate debt management processes. Many suppliers have also signed agreements with local authorities and social services to support low income consumers and help avoid supply interruptions due to unpaid bills.

So, what are some solutions to this problem? How can Europe face the challenge of energy poverty? First of all, it is crucial to recognise that EU member states are best placed to define criteria and policies to alleviate energy poverty. This is because their situations differ greatly in terms of employment, social security systems, climatic conditions, electricity consumption, home insulation and energy retail prices. Tackling the issue should be done at the level where it is most efficient to do so, in line with the subsidiarity and better regulation principles. Governments should also be aware that increasing taxes and levies on energy is not in line with combatting energy poverty. Consumers’ bills should reflect as far as possible the market-based cost of energy and should not be a vehicle for financing other – sometimes totally unrelated – policies.

The way network charges and levies are charged to consumers is also problematic. These regulated costs are indeed paid according to the consumption, even though they are largely fixed and need to be paid even if consumption decreases. With technological developments like distributed generation, storage, or electro-mobility, some customers are now consuming less electricity from the grid, thereby contributing less to system costs through tariff payments. Those costs then have to be charged across a smaller consumer base – those consumers not willing or not able to invest in such technologies, including many low income consumers – meaning an effective increase to their tariff payments. To reverse this trend, regulated costs should be charged in an efficient way, progressively removing cross-subsidisation.

Similarly, whilst energy efficiency is key to alleviate energy poverty, financing such measures through the bill is not sustainable. Indeed, costs are distributed among consumers regardless of their ability to pay. In addition, they inevitably create winners, those who receive measures, and losers, those who cannot or do not receive measures. We must transition to using financing tools, which leverage private investment such as Energy Performance contracts (EPC), Energy Saving Agreement (ESA) or on-bill repayment.

Last but not least, as customers who have energy debts are likely to struggle paying for other essential services too (e.g. housing, food, etc.), wider social policy is the best mechanism to help consumers tackle the root causes of debt, including energy debts. Considering the progressive nature of taxation, using social policies would also allow for a fair burden-sharing without causing those on lower incomes to bear a disproportionally higher burden.