Workshop 3. Energy efficient improvement schemes/ reducing energy costs (incl. support with switching energy suppliers) • Dr. Heather Brown, Newcastle University ‘What does research tell us? Findings from the evaluation of the Stockton ECO Scheme’

1. Evaluation of the Stockton
on Tees ECO scheme
Heather Brown & Gulnar
Fattakhova

2. Background
• Approximately 50% of fuel poor
households live in solid wall properties

3. More Background
• In January 2013, Energy Company Obligation (ECO)
Scheme was meant to herald a step change in
deployment of solid wall insulation.
• In December 2012 before it was even fully implemented
government decided it was too costly of an energy
efficiency measure and scaled it back
• External wall cladding was delivered to 2,252 of the
most deprived households spread across 8 of the most
deprived wards in Stockton-on-Tees

4. Aims
• To assess the health and economic benefits of an ECO-
funded external wall cladding scheme in Stockton-on-Tees.

5. Research Questions
1) Has the ECO scheme made a significant
difference to fuel poverty among participating
residents?
2) Has the ECO scheme made a significant
difference to health, health care usage and
wellbeing among participating residents?
3) Does the ECO scheme provide a significant
positive ROI to Stockton council and is it cost-
effective?

6. Study Sample
• A postal questionnaire containing questions on fuel poverty, health
related quality of life and health care utilisation was sent out to:
1) Early cladders - 1,149 households that received the intervention in
autumn 2012 as part of the first cohort;
2) Late cladders - 1,103 households that have recently received the
intervention, as part of the final cohort of this phase of the scheme;
3) Control group – a non-exposed group, consisting of 1,004
households, whose home would otherwise have been eligible for
external wall insulation if the scheme continued.

7. Methods
• Compare prevalence of fuel poverty and health related quality of life
between the 2 intervention groups and the control group.
• Return on Investment Model (ROI)
• ROI (%) = (Benefits – Investment Costs)/Investment Costs
• Benefits measured as a monetary value and includes health care usage, fuel bills
and health related quality of life.
• Cost – (Stockton-on-Tees Council) project costs including both start-up and any
ongoing costs of the scheme.
• Dividend - a summary table showing the potential or actual return on the
investment that has been made.
• The ROI analysis included early cladders and control group only as it is assumed
that early cladders should have received maximum possible benefit from
intervention.

8. Results: Fuel Consumption
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Adjusted difference between
Control group/Early cladders)
Total fuel
expenditure per
year
£1,596 £1,836 Total fuel saving = £40*12*3,256 =
£1,562,880
(3,256 households)

9. Results: Health Related Quality of Life
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Adjusted difference between
Control group/Early cladders)
EQ-5D-3L 0.68 0.73 0.01*£20,000*3,256 = £651,200
(3,256 participants)

10. Results: Health Care Usage
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Difference between Control group/Early
cladders)
Outpatient appointments and hospital
admissions
£4,185,665 £3,111,284 -£1,074,381
Medical procedures £887,609 £1,159,201 £271,592
Medication £60,254 £168,008 £107,754
Total £5,133,528 £4,438,493 -£695,035

11. Return on Investment
Costs (£) Benefits (£)
Project implementation= £14,780,612 Fuel (gas and electricity combined)= £1,562,880
(£6,251,520 for the period of 4 years)
Maintenance= £0 Health-related quality of life = £651,200
(£2,604,800 for the period of 4 years)
Healthcare = (-) £695,035
(- £2,780,140 for the period of 4 years)
Total costs = £14,780,612 Total benefits = £1,519,045 per year
(£6,076,180 for the period of 4 years)
Dividend (return on investment) (%) =
(Benefits – Costs)/Costs = -59%

12. So what does this mean
• Evidence of reduction in fuel spending
• No significant improvement in health related quality of life or
significant change in health care usage - potentially confounded by
sample of respondents
• In terms of cost-benefit analysis negative ROI (project more costly to
implement than returns received)

13. Taking this forward/Points for discussion
• Tailor health outcomes=>potentially through qualitative interviews
• Other outcomes that may be of interest and should be considered?
• Difficulty engaging with local population. A postal questionnaire
didn’t work. Any thoughts on the best way to engage people with
this type of research question?