The government is right to U-turn on a national energy efficiency campaign

Accounting officers in government can object to spending that they think is poor value for money – and demand a direction to transfer responsibility to ministers. There have been quite a lot of recent examples of such spending, not least during the pandemic.

But officials can only object to acts of commission – to spending. They can’t object to acts of omission – where the government fails to act. If they could, they probably should have objected to the open-ended energy price guarantee with no accompanying message about energy saving. And that was before the National Grid warned of the risks of blackouts and power cuts in one of its winter scenarios if energy shortages in Europe worsen.

The government tried to adopt a “Big Society” approach to messaging on energy efficiency

Remember David Cameron’s Big Society? His idea was for voluntary activity to expand to fill the space left by the state. That was this government’s preferred approach on energy efficiency advice.

And indeed it could point to a plethora of advisors springing up – whether from the newly launched NESTA Money Saving Boiler Challenge, launched in conjunction with some major energy providers and Which, which offers online advice on how to adjust boiler temperature flow, to other longer standing players such as the Energy Savings Trust, to newspapers and broadcasters with their own energy savings tips. Ministers pointed out that some advice is available to anyone capable of digging it out of GOV.UK (although when you do look you can’t find any of the advice about relatively easy changes to make that would be most helpful  this winter – and which other countries governments are providing).

Against this background, they argued that the estimated £15m of a concerted government campaign would be nugatory spend, as there was no shortage of advice and high prices (and a cap per unit, not per bill) meant incentives to save were still very powerful.

But these disparate energy saving efforts lacked scale and clout

There are arguments that ministers, especially those who live in big houses, should stand back when dishing out advice. Politicians, even those like the current prime minister and chancellor born after the three day week, may still be haunted by the memory of ministerial ridicule over advice to clean teeth in the dark or share baths. During the pandemic, it was the scientists – Patrick Vallance, Chris Whitty and Jonathan van Tam – who were much more credible conveyors of the public health messages than ministers, even before some were revealed to be casual about their observance of their own rules.

But the government seems to have belatedly accepted that a coordinated official campaign can reach parts that multiple private ones cannot. A national campaign could replicate the reach of the vaccination campaign – to make sure everyone who might want to benefit could. It would include basic guidance on the most impactful measures, where there are often misconceptions (turning down a thermostat by one degree saves 16 times as much energy, on average, as not overfilling the kettle). It could also set out how to make changes and where to ask for further help, minimising the risk to the vulnerable.

That can and should be backed up by large-scale publicity and efforts by local government to reach those most in need of help. This would be positive nannying – not telling people how to live their lives, but helping them to help themselves (think Mary Poppins rather than Matron).

Despite government fears, the public seem to want definitive advice on what they can do. The government now seems prepared to cast itself as a helpful agony aunt in a crisis.

But energy efficiency is worth a bigger investment in advice alone

It would only take a saving of 0.02 per cent in total domestic energy usage to save the government enough cash to pay for a £15m campaign – equivalent to one in every 100 households just adjusting their boiler flow but doing nothing else. It would also be a cheap way of reducing the risk of the worst case scenario of blackouts, which would be disruptive and carry a high cost to the economy.

As well as advising people on energy saving measures, the government needs a better plan for insulating Britain’s homes – particularly given that it expects the energy price guarantee has to stay in place for the next two years. A recent IfG paper showed how the UK lags most of Europe in having the draughtiest housing but has little plan to address this – and set out how we could learn from successful schemes abroad.

The refusal to look at energy efficiency was already a big hole in the government’s winter energy plan. The U-turn on advice should be followed by one on providing concrete help to those least able to cope with higher bills.