Different views of warmth complicate energy poverty measurement

Differences in how people assess a comfortable indoor temperature make energy poverty difficult to measure across Europe, ERR reported. Although Estonia appears to have a relatively good position on paper, individual indicators may not provide a complete picture, according to Hanna Laius, a project manager at the University of Tartu’s Johan Skytte Institute.

Energy poverty generally refers to a situation in which people cannot maintain a temperature in their homes that is suitable for them. Estonia has no separate legal definition of energy poverty, and countries are difficult to compare because people’s views of what is warm enough vary.

“We do not have a Europe-wide measure that says that if you have 21 degrees Celsius in a room, then it is warm enough,” Laius said. A room kept at 21 degrees may be considered sufficient in one country, while people in another may find 25 degrees comfortable. As a result, people’s own assessments also affect how energy poverty appears in statistics.

In Estonia, vulnerable groups include pensioners, single parents and people living in rural areas, Laius said. The condition of housing is also important alongside income. Many buildings constructed during the Soviet era are poorly insulated and require more energy to heat.

“If there is a draught coming through the window, you can heat as much as the pipes provide, but you simply will not heat your home sufficiently if it does not retain warmth,” Laius said.

The University of Tartu’s Energy Poverty Nexus project is working to establish an energy poverty monitoring centre in Estonia. The centre is expected to involve state institutions, universities, energy companies and the Estonian Union of Cooperative Housing Associations.

One of its main tasks would be to monitor energy poverty indicators and statistics and make them more comparable with those of other European countries. The centre should also help assess which subsidies and other measures actually reduce energy poverty.

Laius said that improving the energy efficiency of homes would provide a more lasting solution than temporarily compensating bills. The less heat a building loses, she said, the less fluctuations in energy prices affect families’ ability to cope.