Energy rationing an increasing coping mechanism for dealing with fuel poverty in Scotland

By Dr Kirsten Jenkins
University of Edinburgh 

People in fuel poverty (sometimes referred to more broadly as energy poverty) often resort to self-rationing, reducing their energy usage to low levels to cope with rising costs. This practice, while a survival strategy, poses significant challenges from an inclusion perspective. Self-rationing can isolate individuals or families, as they may avoid hosting guests or participating in social activities due to inadequately heated homes, limited lighting, or lack of power for essential devices. 

Moreover, it disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled, or those with young children, who require consistent energy access for health and safety. The stigma of fuel poverty further marginalizes these individuals, making it harder for them to seek help or feel part of a community, exacerbating feelings of exclusion and deepening their social and economic struggles. Addressing fuel poverty inclusively requires systemic support, ensuring equitable access to energy without stigmatizing or isolating those in need.

Energy service rationing (also known as self-rationing or in extreme cases, self-disconnection) is when a household cannot (or does not) heat their home to the temperatures necessary for good health and wellbeing as recommended by the World Health Organisation or limits the use of other energy services. Unfortunately, energy service rationing (hereafter “self-rationing”) is a common and increasing coping mechanism for dealing with fuel poverty. And, with colder temperatures and reduced service use significantly correlated with poorer health and social mobility outcomes¹ , rationing risks tragically high long-term costs for individuals, families, and wider society. 

To gain a better understanding of the scale and distribution of self-rationing in Scotland, a research project was undertaken into self-rationing behaviours. Researchers from University of Edinburgh reviewed existing evidence and conducted interviews with key advice agencies, housing associations, and energy companies². 

The findings highlight groups that are more likely to undertake self-rationing behaviours, including: the elderly; single occupant households; families with two or more children; households with no central heating; households with average incomes affected by rapid increases in the cost-of-living, and those on low or precarious incomes and not in receipt of benefits. Self-rationing was perceived as more prevalent amongst rural households, affecting those without mains gas supplies (often reliant on bulk fuel deliveries), but also those on pre-payment meters, which exist in households across the urban-rural divide. Long-term, consistently high, volatile, or rising energy prices were seen to increase the likelihood of energy service rationing, increasing demands for additional financial support and demand for referrals to energy advice services, with implications for staffing levels.

Self-rationing also carries implications for mental and physical health (and follow on pressures on the National Health Service in the UK context) and restricted educational access and attainment. Moreover, it was seen to decrease building quality, increase energy debt, lead to poor occupant safety, and increase pressures on supporting services, including but not limited to, Housing Associations and advice agencies. 

The researchers identified cross-sectoral recommendations applicable to a range of organisations, including Governments across a range of contexts, to help tackle some of the problems identified. These recommendations are summarised below:

1. Ensure accessible, reliably funded advisory services for households in need of support with their energy payments.
2. Make sure available support is: a) well promoted; b) easy to access; and c) and prioritises vulnerable populations, inefficient buildings and/or homes without mains gas.
3. Adopt a carrot and stick approach whereby the Government provides financial incentives to improve household energy efficiency, whilst simultaneously introduces legislation to ensure a minimum energy efficiency standard in the private housing sector (akin to the standards for social housing).
4. Improve the behaviour of the energy sector by: working towards stronger consumer protections and developing a social energy tariff as part of a wider package of energy market reforms.
5. Commission further research that would monitor the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on energy consumers.

The research highlights opportunities for international comparison and future investigation, too. Both the UK and Norway are wealthy nations with advanced energy systems undergoing transformations, and both have consumers facing fuel poverty and undertaking self-rationing. Include offers a platform to investigate whether key drivers and coping strategies are the same across contexts, and how good practice solutions can be shared. What too, is the risk, of integrating decarbonisation technologies? An electrified domestic future isn’t necessarily a more inclusive one, but one where new forms of self-rationing may take place.

¹ _{Scottish Fuel Poverty Definition Review Panel (2017). Available here: A New Definition of Fuel Poverty in Scotland: A Review of Recent Evidence (www.gov.scot)}

² _{The report is the outcome of joint funding by the Fuel and Transport Poverty in the UK’s Energy Transition (FAIR) grant from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) and the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel (SFPAP), with further in-direct support from Include. Interviews and desk-based research were conducted by Miss Juliane Müller, former MSc student at the University of Edinburgh, with oversight from Dr Kirsten Jenkins, Senior Lecturer in Energy, Environment and Society at the University of Edinburgh and a member of SFPAP.}