Development and Initial Psychometric Properties of a Household Energy Insecurity Scale in the US

For decades, scientists and policymakers have understood that having enough money to pay for electricity and heat is a matter of basic survival. When a household cannot afford to keep their home at a comfortable temperature, or when they must choose between buying food and paying a utility bill, they are facing a condition known as energy insecurity. This concept goes deeper than just looking at a monthly bill; it encompasses the physical discomfort of a freezing living room, the anxiety of waiting for a repair that cannot be afforded, and the difficult choices families make to keep the lights on. While researchers have long studied these hardships, they have often examined them as separate problems: one study might focus on the cost of heating, another on the health risks of a cold house, and another on the stress of unpaid bills. This fragmented view makes it difficult to see the full picture of how energy struggles affect a family's daily life and well-being.

To solve this, a team of researchers set out to build a single, comprehensive tool that could measure the entire experience of energy insecurity at once. They wanted to know if it was possible to combine these different struggles—financial, physical, and emotional—into one clear score that could identify vulnerable households across the United States. By creating a new scale, they aimed to move beyond simple calculations of income versus bills and instead capture the lived reality of what it means to be energy insecure. Their work involved gathering stories from thousands of people, testing a new list of questions, and using statistical methods to see if these questions truly measured the complex web of energy hardship.

The researchers began by looking at what was already known about energy poverty and fuel poverty, terms often used in Europe and the United States to describe similar struggles. They realized that while existing measures were good at tracking how much money people spent on energy, they missed the human side of the equation. They decided to build a new framework based on six distinct areas of life that energy insecurity touches. These areas included the ability to afford heating and cooling, the reliability of the energy supply, the physical comfort of the home, the trade-offs families make with other needs like food or medicine, the health risks caused by extreme temperatures, and the specific behaviors people adopt to cope when they cannot afford to use energy normally.

To test this idea, the team developed a survey with twenty-five specific questions designed to cover these six areas. Some questions asked about the physical state of the home, such as whether the house was too cold in winter or too hot in summer. Others asked about the emotional toll, such as feelings of shame or anger regarding heating and cooling situations. The survey also included questions about dangerous coping strategies, like using a kitchen stove to heat a room or skipping showers to save on electricity costs. Before launching the survey nationwide, the researchers tested their questions in two small communities in Alaska, where energy costs are notoriously high and infrastructure can be unreliable. The interviews with residents there confirmed that the questions resonated with real-life experiences, validating the need for a tool that captures both the cost and the human impact of energy struggles.

Once the survey was finalized, the researchers sent it to 1,350 people across the United States. The group included a mix of households from various regions, with a specific focus on areas known to have high energy costs. The goal was to see if the twenty-five questions would naturally group together into the six categories the researchers had proposed. Using a rigorous statistical method, they analyzed how the answers from the participants correlated with one another. The results showed that the six categories were indeed distinct yet deeply connected. For instance, people who reported feeling physically uncomfortable in their homes also tended to report higher levels of health worries and financial stress. Similarly, those who had to skip basic activities like washing clothes to save money also reported higher levels of emotional distress.

The study found that these six dimensions—affordability, access, thermal comfort, socioeconomic needs, health needs, and in-house practices—form a coherent whole. They are not just random complaints but are interlocking parts of a single, measurable condition. The researchers demonstrated that it is possible to combine economic factors, infrastructure issues, and personal well-being into one index. This index provides a more complete picture than looking at energy bills alone. It reveals that energy insecurity is not just about money; it is about the physical safety of the home, the mental health of the residents, and the difficult behavioral changes families are forced to make.

The implications of this finding are significant for how communities and governments approach energy assistance. By using this new scale, policymakers can identify households that are struggling in ways that traditional metrics might miss. For example, a family might not be in the highest income bracket for energy assistance programs, but they might be suffering from severe thermal discomfort or health risks that the new scale would catch. The researchers suggest that integrating this tool into public health and social service programs could help connect vulnerable families with the right resources, such as weatherization support or emergency heating aid, before a crisis occurs.

However, the researchers also noted that this is a first step. The survey was conducted online, which means it may have missed some of the most vulnerable populations, such as those without internet access or those who are unhoused. Additionally, the study was based on a single snapshot in time, so further research is needed to see how these patterns hold up across different seasons and regions. Despite these limitations, the study successfully proved that a multidimensional approach works. It offers a new way to understand energy insecurity, moving the conversation from simple numbers to the complex, human reality of living without reliable, affordable energy. This new perspective allows for more targeted and compassionate solutions, ensuring that help reaches those who need it most, not just those who fit a narrow definition of poverty.