Is the winter fuel payment counter-productive to energy policy?
This project investigated whether the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) is in harmony or discord with energy policy goals.
Previous work funded by the Nuffield Foundation has shown that the labelling of income support measures affects how older households spend them. Households spend a much higher percentage of the WFP on heating and electricity than other transfers that do not have the word “fuel” in the title. This begged the question: If the labelling of the WFP encourages households to spend the transfer on energy, are they then less likely to install energy efficiency measures and/or renewable technologies?
The researchers compared households which were only recently eligible for the WFP with those that had just missed eligibility, accounting for variation in characteristics such as employment status and income and found that there was a clear negative shift in the probability of installing renewable solar or wind technologies. They conclude that changing the name of the WFP would make recipient households more likely to invest in renewable energy technologies while still achieving the health goals of the current WFP policy.
- Redistribution and insurance across the lifecycle
- How the tax and benefit system relates to ageing and care
- Understanding the compliance costs of benefits and tax credits
- Designing a 21st Century Business Profit Tax
- IFS Green Budget
- Responses to changes in marginal tax rates for high earners
- Care and support of older people living in the community